Again and again Arch. Luykx's observations reminded me of problems in other sectors of society, indicating that the diabolic assault is across the culture, not just against the Church: The condescension towards Africans by erstwhile progressives remains true today, as in a similar way does the hypocritical rewriting of black-white relations in the US, wherein one political party rails against the legacy of slavery while it was (and arguably is) responsible for perpetuating race hatred now and segregation for over a century in the past; also, the exalting and giving free rein to "experts," has its counterpart in the running amok of the medical-scientific community which was only fully-revealed during and after the manufactured COVID "crisis." (Analogous to the need to fix the imaginary liturgical crisis.)
Absolutely! This is something I go back to again and again in my thinking: the exact, even eerie parallels between Church and State, as if, even centuries after their disseverance, they are still somehow mirroring and controlling one another, in a back-and-forth cycle, almost like a competition to see which one can degenerate faster.
Perhaps the key lies in Vatican diplomacy. It is the meeting place of the Church's elites and politics. Most 20th-century popes have come from diplomacy, and Paul VI subordinated the entire Roman Curia to the Secretariat of State, creating the position of quasi-vice-pope. Even Bugnini, after being accused of membership in Freemasonry, was deemed suitable for the position of nuncio. In the 21st century, the structure is crumbling, diplomacy is depleted, but the results of the experiments remain. Of course, this is only a hypothesis.
Isn't it said (paraphrasing) As goes the Church, so goes the world. Until the stain of Satan is removed from the Church, we cannot hope for a better world!
The great abbot was in fact a Norbertine during the time of the council, and was always one officially. He gave the juniors of our abbey a retreat when I was young, always wearing our habit, and I drove him around before and after. He was altogether engaging and did not have the frequently encountered snottiness of many of those who go over to the Byzantine rite. He was too learned for that ! Thanks for this! We’ll get a copy! Fr Hugh Barbour, O. Praem.
I think my biggest question as a lover of Scripture is why did they not continue the same readings as the Traditional Mass? I have noticed that the NO readings align with the Methodist readings - but not with the Traditional Mass. I have also seen the watering down of the prayers in the Vernacular NO from the TLM.
I grew up in the pre Vatican II Church. We were told we would go with our own language in the Mass. We were NOT told as far as I knew that the words of the Mass would be changed. They did not simply transpose the TLM Mass words to English, as we expected, but changed the words - dropped off words, and basically rewrote the Mass! We were duped as Catholics by this - and it has taken me over sixty years to see how we have been deprived of the efficacy of the Mass of my childhood. The years have exposed the bad fruit of this deceitful experiment! The relevancy of the Sacred Liturgy has decreased, the reverence in the sacred space has diminished, millions have left the Church, and we are left spiritually impoverished.
Jeremiah 8:20
The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
Yes, you are absolutely right: there was a huge bait-and-switch. As Luykx says, the use of the vernacular became like a narcotic.
The TLM lectionary was an ancient treasure, and it was chucked out. Why did they do it? Because, as Luykx rightly points out, they were arrogant and thought they had better ideas. And they viewed the Mass as a scripture service, much like the Protestants.
I would and have taken that a step further by my thought that their actions were diabolical in nature. Some were knowingly cooperating and others had their arrogance stoked by old Smoak. Either way, if you sat down to write a blueprint for the destruction of the Christian faith, the liturgical part would look exactly like the NO.
I was an altar boy in the pre-Vatican II Church and do not recall ever bein told of all the changes. I highly recommend viewing "The Mass of the Ages" (a three-part series on YouTube) that provides a wealth of information - including graphs that clearly show just how many prayers (among other things) have been completely dropped!
I had the pleasure of meeting a Jesuit scholar who is close to my age (80) who conveyed his displeasure with all that has been removed from the Psalters "every time I turn around."
Just like our government, so too has our Church lied to us!
"We here work from the assumption that the modern Western man is the man tout court, the model of all true humanity, for all countries and cultures, and for all ages to come."
Unfortunately, he was right in terms of the secular status quo (not at all, of course, as authentic man as imago Dei). The "inbred and incompetent" theologians and liturgists have certainly reigned supreme, and the German bishops' ongoing dismissiveness of the concerns of African Catholics shows that nothing has changed. Note bene, articles like this trigger a near-PTSD response for those of us who lived through it all. These manuscripts (lately come-to-life) may have been hidden as a secret mercy to the traumatised in the intervening years when no solace was to be found!
"These manuscripts (lately come-to-life) may have been hidden as a secret mercy to the traumatised in the intervening years when no solace was to be found!"
How right you are! I find them traumatizing to read even though I was born as late as 1971!
Excellent summation of the psychological and administrative causes of the liturgical revolution.
It shows us how revolutions start as utopian affairs, yet, in the absence of reason, which reminds us that the only true utopias are God-given and in eternity, the supposed glorious man-made facades soon shatter from pride, backbiting, and weak men who won't stand up to frenzied mobs.
Nothing like eyewitness accounts to get to the truth of things, amazing.
But I'm always intrigued by quotes like that from Cardinal Ratzinger at the end, and others like him who were part of the "liturgical movement" before the Council, only to lament what came afterward.
The question that comes to my mind is **what, really, were they expecting?** Perhaps it's a matter of "degrees", in that men like Ratzinger, or Bouyer, or this Luykx, felt certain *something* had to change; but that when the time came for the real "work" to be done after the Council, it ended up in hands far more radical than their own?
Yes. As you recall from my series "The Reign of Novelty," any project that begins with "We are going to put the whole of tradition on an operating table and evaluate it according to whether or not we like it" etc. is doomed from the start and cannot end well. But it is also true, as Henry Sire says in "Phoenix from the Ashes," that the reform was directed and controlled by the more radical side of the liturgical movement. Things could have been different - less violent - if other people had been in charge.
Davies' trilogy is, of course, a classic, and an historic monument. However, it's worth noting that a TON of information has emerged since the time he wrote those books. He guessed at how bad things were. We know it now with primary sources.
Arguments about whether the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo are the same rite, but different forms, or two different rites seem to get at the heart of the issue. While, in my local parish, the pastor has moved the needle on the Reform of the Reform by ending girl altar servers, implementing ad orientem celebration, culling the usage of hymns, and other reforms, none of that amounts to much if the difference is one pertaining to the essence of the rite rather than its accidents.
Do you have any recommendations about where to read more about that?
Yes, exactly. I wrote a book about exactly this question of the difference of rites (the Roman Rite vs. the Rite of Paul VI) and the difference it makes:
Thank you for this altho it might be noted the Vincentian impresario of liturgical revolution that saw a radical vision of liturgical change espoused in Liturgical Movement conferences become the norm, answered to Pope Paul VI. After the Heenan or Christie Indult (which followed an artists petition of British cultural notables) was granted to England allowing bishops to authorise a version of the transitional missal with episcopal permission, Abp Bugnini reportedly urged the Pope to extend this grant throughout the Church. Now +Bugnini likely hoped that his vision of a free form liturgy would win out, but it has to be noted that this Chief Liturgist, for whatever reason, was more merciful than Papa Montini. Paul VI did not allow any extension, outside Britain barring individual grants from the Congregation of Rites. Now JP2 did widen the essence of the Heenan Indult in 1984 (my local TLM emerged then), but perhaps it might've lessened the bitterness and sense of loss many Catholics felt if PVI had softened any rupture. Paul VI rather than any doubledealing Vincentian and Concilium allies, was most responsible for the NOM / LOTH disaster.
I agree that Paul VI is the worst of all, because he drove this crazy reform through, and then forced it down everyone's throats, instead of allowing the old and new to coexist so that it might become clear whether or not the new was actually responding to modern needs. It seems to me that the refusal to allow the old rite was a tacit admission that he was nervous about whether or not it would "take." Indeed, it is characteristic of revolutionaries to have to destroy the old in order to build the new.
"Bugnini snubbed an African bishop, telling him that only modern Western man’s perspective counted." Well, now that we're six decades into post-modernism, globalism and anticolonialism, can we return too the Mass of 1945?
Thanks for this. Even though I had read much of this history over the decades, I felt a renewed tinge of rage with your book review of the story of those who would cavalierly (maliciously) attempt to deconstruct our precious worship.
Some of us have found great solace in the Byzantine Catholic sung liturgies, (we attend UGCC) where sacrifice, solemnity, and worship are central. Always edified, knowing we have entered the great mysteries. A great blessing.
Having said that, our hearts are made for God, and in the last 55+ years those who love God and whose hearts desire to enter into the sacrifice and worship at the NO Holy Mass have found a way. Not easy. Not always found. It means keeping one’s head down with eyes buried in missal, focusing on that which is left of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. It is like making lemonade when we have been handed a liturgy of lemons. We must work hard at it, and that is not a bad thing when you think of it. The sheer effort draws us more deeply into Him.
Not everyone can get to a Latin or Byzantine Catholic Mass, depending on where we live and/or our circumstances. Most are forced to make do with the local bare bones NO. Hopefully there is a priest who seeks to offer reverence and solemnity, but that is rare. And so we are impoverished. The amazing thing is that people actually still show up at a NO on Sunday, finding something of nourishment in there, unaware there is a rich banquet of solemn worship available somewhere. In the meantime they come and expect. Alas, they must make do with what has been given them. It is their time allotted in history and there is little they can do about it. It is a miracle they may come away edified, but they do. God is still there in His Holy Word, and on the altar. It is He who draws them. Would that they have a more sumptuous feast, but time, place, history and circumstance dictate that which has become the everyday normal for most. God protect us from evil and fill our hearts with his faith, love and hope. We do what we can and leave the rest for God.
It seems to me that the worst, the most sinister part of the legacy of rupture is that, as time goes on, congregations in the Novus Ordo, in the West, are ageing and shrinking. The exceptions prove the rule. So it's not clear that people are being edified and finding what they need (anthropologically speaking - yes, the Eucharist is the Eucharist, but how we treat Our Lord and each other in worship is what forms us over time).
Whereas in the traditionalist communities, growth skyrockets.
Oh, yes, there is that. And the TLM’s and UGCC liturgies we attend are filled with younger families, Deo gratias. Hospodi pomiloi.
I was addressing the reality of most NA churchgoers. Our old old parish still is 3/4 full, and, considering the heterodox homilies and happy clappy liturgies of the last 25 years, festooned by trite tunes, it is somewhat stunning people show up, often cavalierly dressed, chomping on gum, looking around. Of course their souls detect Who is there, even if the clergy attempt to minimize Him. Even those who are shaky about the real presence are being fed despite their wobble - or even negation. God is just that wondrous. He feeds the poor with His Word and Flesh.
Yes, sigh, it is aging. Yes, it seems to be disintegrating. But God is in his heavens, and we can hope and pray that all will be restored. We must keep pressing on. In the meantime, may God protect all those dear souls who “show up.”
A fascinating glimpse indeed; thank you! Once again is confirmed the old saw that "the Revolution eats it's own". This an another book to add to the collection analyzing the absurdity we now find ourselves living through.
There is a rather good series of posts at TIA on the devastation wrought by the Liturgical Movement post-Guéranger, when hijacked by the modernists.
This is all well and good but it must be borne in mind that Paul VI's Liturgical Committee was just window dressing for what had already been decided in the Masonic Lodges in the 1850's- consult "Canon Roca"- and perfected in Bavaria by Odo Casel under the watchful eye of Eugenio Pacelli in the 1930's.
Some indications here and there, although it would be a stretch to say it can be proved.
A very interesting book along these lines: "Athanasius and the Church of Our Time" by Dr. Rudolph Graber, Bishop of Regensburg. Seems to be out of print.
If you can still find them, the SSPX did a series by Fr Bonneterre entitled: The Liturgical Revolution, from Gueranger to Bedoin to Bugnini and he has source material from Benedictine Monasteries across Greater Germany where they were strumming guitars and conducting “Mass” in the vernacular, all while Pacelli was Papal Nuncio in, I think, Munster. Now, Fr Bonneterre does not connect all the dots, but if you read Fatima in Twilight, you will.
Meanwhile, I was going through the archives at the Benedictine Monastery in Maryville above KCMO, one fine day, and, from the early 1950’s, one sees those nasty Bogus Ordo tables inscribed with all those distinctive Bogus ordo stick figures and sketches.
Oh yes, doubt it not. Vatican II was merely the Coming Out party for the Liturgical Revolution.
Again and again Arch. Luykx's observations reminded me of problems in other sectors of society, indicating that the diabolic assault is across the culture, not just against the Church: The condescension towards Africans by erstwhile progressives remains true today, as in a similar way does the hypocritical rewriting of black-white relations in the US, wherein one political party rails against the legacy of slavery while it was (and arguably is) responsible for perpetuating race hatred now and segregation for over a century in the past; also, the exalting and giving free rein to "experts," has its counterpart in the running amok of the medical-scientific community which was only fully-revealed during and after the manufactured COVID "crisis." (Analogous to the need to fix the imaginary liturgical crisis.)
Absolutely! This is something I go back to again and again in my thinking: the exact, even eerie parallels between Church and State, as if, even centuries after their disseverance, they are still somehow mirroring and controlling one another, in a back-and-forth cycle, almost like a competition to see which one can degenerate faster.
Perhaps the key lies in Vatican diplomacy. It is the meeting place of the Church's elites and politics. Most 20th-century popes have come from diplomacy, and Paul VI subordinated the entire Roman Curia to the Secretariat of State, creating the position of quasi-vice-pope. Even Bugnini, after being accused of membership in Freemasonry, was deemed suitable for the position of nuncio. In the 21st century, the structure is crumbling, diplomacy is depleted, but the results of the experiments remain. Of course, this is only a hypothesis.
A good point.
Isn't it said (paraphrasing) As goes the Church, so goes the world. Until the stain of Satan is removed from the Church, we cannot hope for a better world!
Spot on, I’m afraid.
The great abbot was in fact a Norbertine during the time of the council, and was always one officially. He gave the juniors of our abbey a retreat when I was young, always wearing our habit, and I drove him around before and after. He was altogether engaging and did not have the frequently encountered snottiness of many of those who go over to the Byzantine rite. He was too learned for that ! Thanks for this! We’ll get a copy! Fr Hugh Barbour, O. Praem.
Very interesting! So it's possible for a Norbertine to become abbot of a Byzantine community? That must have given some canon lawyers a headache!
I'm sure he was as kind as kind can be in person, but in his book he does come across sometimes as thunderously anti-Latin and pro-Greek.
I think my biggest question as a lover of Scripture is why did they not continue the same readings as the Traditional Mass? I have noticed that the NO readings align with the Methodist readings - but not with the Traditional Mass. I have also seen the watering down of the prayers in the Vernacular NO from the TLM.
I grew up in the pre Vatican II Church. We were told we would go with our own language in the Mass. We were NOT told as far as I knew that the words of the Mass would be changed. They did not simply transpose the TLM Mass words to English, as we expected, but changed the words - dropped off words, and basically rewrote the Mass! We were duped as Catholics by this - and it has taken me over sixty years to see how we have been deprived of the efficacy of the Mass of my childhood. The years have exposed the bad fruit of this deceitful experiment! The relevancy of the Sacred Liturgy has decreased, the reverence in the sacred space has diminished, millions have left the Church, and we are left spiritually impoverished.
Jeremiah 8:20
The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
Yes, you are absolutely right: there was a huge bait-and-switch. As Luykx says, the use of the vernacular became like a narcotic.
The TLM lectionary was an ancient treasure, and it was chucked out. Why did they do it? Because, as Luykx rightly points out, they were arrogant and thought they had better ideas. And they viewed the Mass as a scripture service, much like the Protestants.
I would and have taken that a step further by my thought that their actions were diabolical in nature. Some were knowingly cooperating and others had their arrogance stoked by old Smoak. Either way, if you sat down to write a blueprint for the destruction of the Christian faith, the liturgical part would look exactly like the NO.
Yes. Dietrich von Hildebrand (compared to a Father of the Church by Pius XII!) stated it well:
"Truly if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better."
The Devastated Vineyard, trans. Crosby and Teichert (Roman Catholic Books: 1973), 71.
Outstanding!
I was an altar boy in the pre-Vatican II Church and do not recall ever bein told of all the changes. I highly recommend viewing "The Mass of the Ages" (a three-part series on YouTube) that provides a wealth of information - including graphs that clearly show just how many prayers (among other things) have been completely dropped!
I had the pleasure of meeting a Jesuit scholar who is close to my age (80) who conveyed his displeasure with all that has been removed from the Psalters "every time I turn around."
Just like our government, so too has our Church lied to us!
We were duped - and it lasted our lifetime! Time for this error to be made known to all!
And, sadly, the majority still continue to be!
"We here work from the assumption that the modern Western man is the man tout court, the model of all true humanity, for all countries and cultures, and for all ages to come."
Unfortunately, he was right in terms of the secular status quo (not at all, of course, as authentic man as imago Dei). The "inbred and incompetent" theologians and liturgists have certainly reigned supreme, and the German bishops' ongoing dismissiveness of the concerns of African Catholics shows that nothing has changed. Note bene, articles like this trigger a near-PTSD response for those of us who lived through it all. These manuscripts (lately come-to-life) may have been hidden as a secret mercy to the traumatised in the intervening years when no solace was to be found!
"These manuscripts (lately come-to-life) may have been hidden as a secret mercy to the traumatised in the intervening years when no solace was to be found!"
How right you are! I find them traumatizing to read even though I was born as late as 1971!
Excellent summation of the psychological and administrative causes of the liturgical revolution.
It shows us how revolutions start as utopian affairs, yet, in the absence of reason, which reminds us that the only true utopias are God-given and in eternity, the supposed glorious man-made facades soon shatter from pride, backbiting, and weak men who won't stand up to frenzied mobs.
Yes, quite so.
Nothing like eyewitness accounts to get to the truth of things, amazing.
But I'm always intrigued by quotes like that from Cardinal Ratzinger at the end, and others like him who were part of the "liturgical movement" before the Council, only to lament what came afterward.
The question that comes to my mind is **what, really, were they expecting?** Perhaps it's a matter of "degrees", in that men like Ratzinger, or Bouyer, or this Luykx, felt certain *something* had to change; but that when the time came for the real "work" to be done after the Council, it ended up in hands far more radical than their own?
Yes. As you recall from my series "The Reign of Novelty," any project that begins with "We are going to put the whole of tradition on an operating table and evaluate it according to whether or not we like it" etc. is doomed from the start and cannot end well. But it is also true, as Henry Sire says in "Phoenix from the Ashes," that the reform was directed and controlled by the more radical side of the liturgical movement. Things could have been different - less violent - if other people had been in charge.
Thank you. Very interesting. You have reminded me that it's high time I read Michael Davies ' 3 volume Liturgical Revolution.
Davies' trilogy is, of course, a classic, and an historic monument. However, it's worth noting that a TON of information has emerged since the time he wrote those books. He guessed at how bad things were. We know it now with primary sources.
Arguments about whether the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo are the same rite, but different forms, or two different rites seem to get at the heart of the issue. While, in my local parish, the pastor has moved the needle on the Reform of the Reform by ending girl altar servers, implementing ad orientem celebration, culling the usage of hymns, and other reforms, none of that amounts to much if the difference is one pertaining to the essence of the rite rather than its accidents.
Do you have any recommendations about where to read more about that?
Yes, exactly. I wrote a book about exactly this question of the difference of rites (the Roman Rite vs. the Rite of Paul VI) and the difference it makes:
https://osjustipress.com/products/the-once-and-future-roman-rite
or
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622/
Thanks! Sold.
Thank you for this altho it might be noted the Vincentian impresario of liturgical revolution that saw a radical vision of liturgical change espoused in Liturgical Movement conferences become the norm, answered to Pope Paul VI. After the Heenan or Christie Indult (which followed an artists petition of British cultural notables) was granted to England allowing bishops to authorise a version of the transitional missal with episcopal permission, Abp Bugnini reportedly urged the Pope to extend this grant throughout the Church. Now +Bugnini likely hoped that his vision of a free form liturgy would win out, but it has to be noted that this Chief Liturgist, for whatever reason, was more merciful than Papa Montini. Paul VI did not allow any extension, outside Britain barring individual grants from the Congregation of Rites. Now JP2 did widen the essence of the Heenan Indult in 1984 (my local TLM emerged then), but perhaps it might've lessened the bitterness and sense of loss many Catholics felt if PVI had softened any rupture. Paul VI rather than any doubledealing Vincentian and Concilium allies, was most responsible for the NOM / LOTH disaster.
I agree that Paul VI is the worst of all, because he drove this crazy reform through, and then forced it down everyone's throats, instead of allowing the old and new to coexist so that it might become clear whether or not the new was actually responding to modern needs. It seems to me that the refusal to allow the old rite was a tacit admission that he was nervous about whether or not it would "take." Indeed, it is characteristic of revolutionaries to have to destroy the old in order to build the new.
Seems a perfect avatar for a schizophrenic age??
"Bugnini snubbed an African bishop, telling him that only modern Western man’s perspective counted." Well, now that we're six decades into post-modernism, globalism and anticolonialism, can we return too the Mass of 1945?
Thanks for this. Even though I had read much of this history over the decades, I felt a renewed tinge of rage with your book review of the story of those who would cavalierly (maliciously) attempt to deconstruct our precious worship.
Some of us have found great solace in the Byzantine Catholic sung liturgies, (we attend UGCC) where sacrifice, solemnity, and worship are central. Always edified, knowing we have entered the great mysteries. A great blessing.
Having said that, our hearts are made for God, and in the last 55+ years those who love God and whose hearts desire to enter into the sacrifice and worship at the NO Holy Mass have found a way. Not easy. Not always found. It means keeping one’s head down with eyes buried in missal, focusing on that which is left of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. It is like making lemonade when we have been handed a liturgy of lemons. We must work hard at it, and that is not a bad thing when you think of it. The sheer effort draws us more deeply into Him.
Not everyone can get to a Latin or Byzantine Catholic Mass, depending on where we live and/or our circumstances. Most are forced to make do with the local bare bones NO. Hopefully there is a priest who seeks to offer reverence and solemnity, but that is rare. And so we are impoverished. The amazing thing is that people actually still show up at a NO on Sunday, finding something of nourishment in there, unaware there is a rich banquet of solemn worship available somewhere. In the meantime they come and expect. Alas, they must make do with what has been given them. It is their time allotted in history and there is little they can do about it. It is a miracle they may come away edified, but they do. God is still there in His Holy Word, and on the altar. It is He who draws them. Would that they have a more sumptuous feast, but time, place, history and circumstance dictate that which has become the everyday normal for most. God protect us from evil and fill our hearts with his faith, love and hope. We do what we can and leave the rest for God.
Donna, thanks for this beautiful message.
It seems to me that the worst, the most sinister part of the legacy of rupture is that, as time goes on, congregations in the Novus Ordo, in the West, are ageing and shrinking. The exceptions prove the rule. So it's not clear that people are being edified and finding what they need (anthropologically speaking - yes, the Eucharist is the Eucharist, but how we treat Our Lord and each other in worship is what forms us over time).
Whereas in the traditionalist communities, growth skyrockets.
There is a severe pruning coming down the road.
Oh, yes, there is that. And the TLM’s and UGCC liturgies we attend are filled with younger families, Deo gratias. Hospodi pomiloi.
I was addressing the reality of most NA churchgoers. Our old old parish still is 3/4 full, and, considering the heterodox homilies and happy clappy liturgies of the last 25 years, festooned by trite tunes, it is somewhat stunning people show up, often cavalierly dressed, chomping on gum, looking around. Of course their souls detect Who is there, even if the clergy attempt to minimize Him. Even those who are shaky about the real presence are being fed despite their wobble - or even negation. God is just that wondrous. He feeds the poor with His Word and Flesh.
Yes, sigh, it is aging. Yes, it seems to be disintegrating. But God is in his heavens, and we can hope and pray that all will be restored. We must keep pressing on. In the meantime, may God protect all those dear souls who “show up.”
A fascinating glimpse indeed; thank you! Once again is confirmed the old saw that "the Revolution eats it's own". This an another book to add to the collection analyzing the absurdity we now find ourselves living through.
There is a rather good series of posts at TIA on the devastation wrought by the Liturgical Movement post-Guéranger, when hijacked by the modernists.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm
even at 180 posts, it's gripping reading; it is also avail in (2 vol) book form:
https://www.amazon.com/BORN-REVOLUTION-Misconceived-Liturgical-Participation/dp/1916374603/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0
This was very interesting. Thank you for sharing!
This is all well and good but it must be borne in mind that Paul VI's Liturgical Committee was just window dressing for what had already been decided in the Masonic Lodges in the 1850's- consult "Canon Roca"- and perfected in Bavaria by Odo Casel under the watchful eye of Eugenio Pacelli in the 1930's.
The Bogus Ordo is straight from the pit of Hell.
Have we any sources for this theory?
Some indications here and there, although it would be a stretch to say it can be proved.
A very interesting book along these lines: "Athanasius and the Church of Our Time" by Dr. Rudolph Graber, Bishop of Regensburg. Seems to be out of print.
The text appears to be here:
https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4717
and here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/746477835/Athanasius-and-The-Church-of-Our-Time-Rudolf-Graber
He discusses this Canon Roca figure...
If you can still find them, the SSPX did a series by Fr Bonneterre entitled: The Liturgical Revolution, from Gueranger to Bedoin to Bugnini and he has source material from Benedictine Monasteries across Greater Germany where they were strumming guitars and conducting “Mass” in the vernacular, all while Pacelli was Papal Nuncio in, I think, Munster. Now, Fr Bonneterre does not connect all the dots, but if you read Fatima in Twilight, you will.
Meanwhile, I was going through the archives at the Benedictine Monastery in Maryville above KCMO, one fine day, and, from the early 1950’s, one sees those nasty Bogus Ordo tables inscribed with all those distinctive Bogus ordo stick figures and sketches.
Oh yes, doubt it not. Vatican II was merely the Coming Out party for the Liturgical Revolution.