Debates over the post–Vatican II liturgical reforms often hinge less on what the Council actually mandated than on myths, misattributions, and misunderstandings. From rumors that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason to claims that Protestants secretly shaped the new Missal, critics have advanced narratives that obscure the reality: the reform was the fruit of decades of scholarship, conciliar deliberation, and papal oversight.

The rollout of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the revised Missal of Paul VI stirred both excitement and confusion for many. Vernacular languages, reoriented altars, and new forms of music energized many and fostered active participation, “the aim to be considered before all else,” according to the Constitution on the Liturgy. Without adequate catechesis, however, others felt lost, with many beloved traditions being renewed and others discarded.

Controversy deepened when concrete actions began to be taken in individual parishes, with official reforms often being blurred with unauthorized experiments done “in the spirit of Vatican II.” The Council further spoke of “organic” growth but never defined it, leaving reactionary critics to equate it with slow, spontaneous change, and rejecting every other innovation.

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the Consilium, became the infamous villain of the popular narrative. Though only one of the many hundreds of members and consultants appointed to the Consilium (the liturgical commission established by Pope St. Paul VI to guide the reform after the Council), he was painted by propagandists as a Freemason, a Protestant sympathizer, even a puppet master. Scholars and Vatican officials reject these myths: the Missal arose following centuries of research, and the deliberation of more than 2,000 bishops.

The reformers’ goal was renewal, not rupture—active participation, clearer rites, worship that spoke to modern Catholics while rooted in the same Eucharistic mystery. In that light, the post-conciliar reforms stand as a new period within the Church’s living tradition whose development is guided by the Magisterium, not its betrayal.

Following the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the issuance of the revised Roman Missal by Paul VI, the Catholic Church embarked on a journey of implementing the Council’s directives. As many scholars of various persuasions have documented, this process was met with varying degrees of acceptance and resistance, and many errors alongside the official reforms. This does not mean, however, that the reform as a whole failed, and this is often where people draw unfounded conclusions. Many of these mistakes were corrected. And sadly, many changes that are misunderstood are labeled abuses when in fact they constitute well-thought out and authorized changes.

The rapid pace of these changes, however, coupled with a lack of in-depth catechetical preparation, led to a ripple effect and a sense of disorientation among the faithful. Many Catholics felt adrift in a sea of novelties and uncertainties. This immediate period following the Council was characterized by a mixture of enthusiasm for the renewed approach to liturgy and apprehension about the loss of cherished traditions.

One of the primary sources of controversy was the introduction of vernacular languages in the Mass. While this move was designed to enhance the active participation of the faithful, it also led to concerns about the loss of Latin, the Church’s universal language. Latin had long served as a unifying force, bridging linguistic and cultural divides among Catholics worldwide. This change was perceived by some as a rupture with the Church’s historical continuity. However we must note that the Church’s adoption of Latin was itself an adaptation to Roman culture, whereas the earliest liturgies of the Church were in Greek.^[1] Moreover, alterations in liturgical music, the reconfiguration and centralization of altars with celebrant and congregation on either side, and the reduced emphasis on certain long-standing practices added to the overall sense of unease.

In some cases, the authoritative reforms were ignored altogether, and instead, unauthorized experiments were carried out, sometimes with a degree of creativity that stretched beyond the intended scope of both the Council and the Consilium, leading to liturgical abuses and a perceived drift away from doctrinal orthodoxy.^[2] These usually occurred under the justification that they belonged to the “spirit of Vatican II.” Letter and spirit belong together, however, and any attempt at excluding one or the other is an error.

The conflation of various experiments that occurred alongside the official reforms sanctioned by the Consilium has led to much confusion over who the protagonists of the reform have been, and thus whether the present-day revised rite of the Mass authentically belongs to the Tradition of the Church.

Bugnini and the Consilium

Central to understanding these developments is Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, a pivotal figure during that historical moment in the life of the Church. As secretary first to the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy before Vatican II, and later to the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Bugnini was instrumental in shaping the revisions that characterize the normative Mass of the Roman Rite today. His vision, shared with many of the era’s foremost liturgical scholars, was to renew the Church’s worship so that it could respond more effectively to the pastoral and spiritual needs of contemporary Christians, while remaining firmly anchored in the Church’s doctrinal and liturgical tradition.          Unfortunately, his legacy has been overshadowed by controversy. Bugnini’s central role made him a convenient target, and misinformation has often been deployed to discredit both the man and the wider liturgical reform of which he was only one part.

Three false narratives

Three common narratives about Bugnini circulate among traditionalists and other critics of the liturgical reform. The first is the claim that Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason who attempted to deceive Pope St. Paul VI and subvert the liturgy. (Some variations of this story also claim that Paul VI was also a freemason or was replaced by an imposter.) The second narrative is that Bugnini orchestrated changes to the Catholic liturgy specifically to appease Protestants, allegedly stripping it of elements fundamental to Catholic identity. This narrative is supported by an oft-cited quote attributed to Bugnini that suggests his intention to remove anything from the liturgy that Protestants might find displeasing. The third claim is that Archbishop Bugnini and the Consilium were assisted by a group of Protestants who helped create a new liturgy that was essentially a Catholic-Protestant ecumenical service, not the Holy Mass.

The first claim is completely speculative. As Mike Lewis put it in a June 2022 article:

If you do an internet search for Annibale Bugnini, you will come across countless websites and articles that either accuse him of being a Mason or simply consider it a settled fact. These theories about him involve stories of betrayal, Vatican intrigue, lost briefcases, stolen dossiers, and cracked safes. There are plenty of second-hand testimonies but no one has been able to unearth documentary evidence. For Bugnini’s part, he categorically denied the rumors.

Currently, the most prominent “witness” to the Bugnini Freemasonry claim is Fr. Charles T. Murr. Despite being a regular guest on traditionalist-leaning podcasts and YouTube programs, as well as a spiritual director for Catholic pilgrimages in Spain, Fr. Murr’s ministry status is unclear. According to a February 2011 Memorandum from the Diocese of Cleveland, the Archdiocese of New York (where Murr had been incardinated) advised the USCCB Murr had his priestly faculties removed in 2006 due to an unlawful absence from the archdiocese, and had moved to San Francisco, where he was still presenting himself as a priest. The Memorandum stated, “Father Murr has been informed again he is prohibited from exercising any priestly functions, from wearing clerical garb, and from presenting himself as a priest in good standing.” Since then, Murr moved to Spain, where he made news in March 2024 for participating in a YouTube program in which he and other priests prayed for the death of Pope Francis. The Archdiocese of New York did not respond to an inquiry about Murr’s current status.

Fr. Murr is the author of Murder in the 33^rd Degree, a sensationalistic book that claims Pope Paul VI tasked the Canadian Cardinal Édouard Gagnon with conducting a secret visitation of the entire Roman Curia that revealed several high-ranking Vatican officials—including Bugnini—to be freemasons. Murr also made these claims in Episode 2 of the Mass of the Ages documentary series. Mike Lewis noted in two Substack posts that many of Murr’s claims do not align with well-established facts, and he was unable to find any documentary evidence supporting Murr’s assertion that Cardinal Gagnon ever conducted an investigation of the Curia in search of Freemasons.

For years, the unsubstantiated accusations against Archbishop Bugnini have unfortunately been weaponized to suggest that the liturgical reforms he facilitated were attempt at destruction of the Church. This plays into the egregiously false narrative that the reforms were solely, or even primarily, Bugnini’s work. In reality, the Mass of Paul VI was the culmination of decades—indeed, centuries—of scholarship within the Liturgical Movement, which sought in part, to address stagnation since the standardization of the Tridentine Mass under Pope St. Pius V in the late 16th century. This scholarship culminated at Vatican II, after years of preparatory work called for by Pope John XXIII. The reforms were debated and agreed upon by over 2,000 bishops (including Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre), and were gradually implemented over the next seven years by the Consilium and the Congregation for Rites led with the expertise of many of the world’s leading liturgists, such as Joseph Jungmann, SJ; Louis Bouyer; Cipriano Vagaggini, OSB Cam.; Aimé-Georges Martimort; and Bernard Botte, OSB. This was done through the revision of the Roman Missal, the new lectionary, the reformed rites of the sacraments, and successive Instructions, including the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal). The claim of those who say that the stop-gap 1965 Missal substantially satisfies the call of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the intentions of the Council Fathers ignores the fact that the Council Fathers themselves called for and oversaw further reform even with that Missal in place. The continuation of the reform process is itself evidence that the Council judged more was needed than the limited revisions of 1962.

The revised Missal has since undergone further updates and is now in its Third Typical Edition. The idea that the reform was a rushed job is simply false. The two committees overseeing the reform consisted of over 300 theologians and liturgical experts, including 61 core members and more than 280 experts and advisors. Their work extended even longer when considering the earlier reform of the Holy Week liturgies under Pope Pius XII. Archbishop Bugnini’s own account recounts this comprehensive and collaborative process, which went far beyond his own involvement.^[3] Pope Benedict XVI, for his part, clarified that the preconciliar and reformed liturgies “are two usages of the one Roman rite,” and wrote, “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.” Unfortunately the opposite impression has taken root in some circles.

As to the second claim that Fr. Bugnini admitted his intention was to remove whatever distinctive Catholic elements from the Mass as necessary, one will find on traditionalist blogs and news sites, variations of the quote, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren—that is, for the Protestants.”^[4] This is not a direct quote, but a misleading paraphrase without context. Fr. Bugnini’s words were specifically about the modification of the Good Friday prayers and appeared in the March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano (in Italian). Here is a more accurate English translation:

And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.^[5]

The alleged quote from Fr. Bugnini, claiming a wholesale discarding of traditional elements to accommodate Protestant views, does not appear in any credible source. Instead, what Fr. Bugnini discussed was the removal of language that could be a stumbling block to ecumenical dialogue, such as terms like “heretics” and “schismatics,” in order to facilitate a spirit of unity and fraternity in one shared baptism into the Body of Christ.

Third, the idea that the Novus Ordo was drawn up by protestants or with the help of Protestants, or that somehow their interaction with the Consilium somehow compromised the catholicity of the rites being drawn up  is largely a fabrication. Indeed, there were six protestants who observed the work of the Consilium but these played no role in the composition of texts or rubrics.

In fact, the Vatican has responded to these two claims: “Was there Protestant participation in the composition of the new Order of Mass?” and “If so, to what extent?” The answer given by the Vatican spokesperson in 1976 was:

1. In 1965 certain members of Protestant communities expressed the desire to follow the work of the Consilium.
2. In August 1968 six theologians of different Protestant denominations were allowed to become simple observers
3. The Protestant observers did not take part in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.^[6]

Further fueling the conspiratorial beliefs surrounding Archbishop Bugnini is the fact that, after his work with the Consilium, he was sent to Iran. This is often assumed to have been a form of punishment or demotion. However, the notion that Bugnini was exiled for suspicion of being a freemason, or because Pope Paul felt he had been manipulated or deceived distorts historical fact. Bugnini’s appointment as the pro-nuncio to Iran was a significant responsibility, especially given the geopolitical tensions of the time—only a short few years away from the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Far from being a demotion or exile, it testified to the trust and responsibility vested in him by Pope St. Paul VI. It’s plausible that Pope Paul saw the growing necessity to transfer Bugnini from Rome before growing discontent with his methods among curial officials undermined the reforms themselves, this is a more likely scenario.

The efforts of the Consilium to reform the liturgy, however, which were a much greater enterprise than Bugnini alone, were rooted in a desire to make the Mass more accessible and intelligible, especially in a period marked by intellectual and social upheaval following war, revolution, and technological advancements. The aim was to encourage greater participation by the laity in the Mass, as an effort to awaken an awareness of the Universal Call to Holiness just recently made clear in the teachings of Vatican II. These reforms were not carried out in isolation but were aligned with the substantial thrust of the Second Vatican Council, the Liturgical movement preceding it, and overseen by Pope St. Paul VI. Despite this, Bugnini’s work has often been misunderstood and misrepresented, especially by those who associate the unauthorized liturgical experiments of the era with his guidance.

It is crucial to differentiate between the official reforms and the unauthorized innovations to appreciate Archbishop Bugnini’s true contributions. Far from seeking to dismantle traditional practices, he sought to create a way for the Church’s liturgical expressions to resonate more profoundly for modern man, and to incorporate the riches produced through Ressourcement.

Critics often argue that the liturgical reforms after the Second Vatican Council were abrupt and inorganic, constituting a sharp break from tradition. This, however, overlooks the historical and theological foundations of these changes, which are deeply rooted in the Church’s identity as the Bride of Christ and Beneficiary of His infinite riches.

While the implementation of these reforms may have appeared sudden, they occurred in phases. The decade over which the Consilium worked was however limited in time, methodical and gradual, a fruit of much contemplation on the mysteries of Christ, and based on extensive theological research, consultation, and trial implementations. The Consilium, the body established to apply the Council’s directives, was composed of the leading liturgists and scholars alive whose deliberations were continuously supervised and ratified by the Pope.

One oft-cited anecdote concerns Louis Bouyer and the Benedictine liturgist Bernard Botte purportedly drafting a Eucharistic Prayer on a napkin at a trattoria in Trastevere. Critics have seized on this story as evidence that the reforms were improvised and lacked the proper academic rigor. In reality, Bouyer and Botte were not inventing a new text in a Roman café but rather putting the finishing touch on an almost-complete Eucharistic Prayer, and tasked with completing the revisions overnight after the prayer had already received the diligent work of composition over a much longer timeframe. The Consilium had proposed adapting an ancient anaphora attributed to Hippolytus, which notably lacked an epiclesis. At the urging of the commission, Botte—the foremost Hippolytus scholar—worked to supply the missing elements, assisted energetically in this compressed timeline, by Bouyer, a Consilium appointee and recognized authority on the Eucharistic prayer, who had previously served on the Preparatory Commission at Vatican II and would later author the landmark Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer (University of Notre Dame, 1968). In Bouyer’s words:

Dom Botte and I were commissioned to patch up its text (Hippolytus’ Eucharistic Prayer) with a view to inserting these elements (Sanctus and intercessions)—by the next morning! By chance, I discovered, in a writing perhaps by Hippolytus himself but certainly in his style, a happy formula on the Holy Spirit which could make a transition, of the Vere Sanctus type, leading into the brief epiclesis. … [W]e had to work carefully at our allotted drudgery (pensum), so as to be in a position to present ourselves, with it in our hands, at the Bronze Gate at the time fixed by our bosses.

The “napkin episode,” therefore, illustrates less a cavalier attitude than the extraordinary urgency under which the reformers labored, often overnight. Far from trivializing the process, it merely underscores the dedication of these theologians to finalize these texts for the Consilium.

It is true that the process of implementing the liturgical reforms was not uniformly smooth. The shifts were substantial and necessitated a period of adjustment, as Pope Paul acknowledged in his address, “Changes In Mass for Greater Apostolate.”[7] While resistance to such changes was understandable, though, it was not entirely justified. Challenges like these are inherent in any significant reform, particularly one that affects deeply ingrained spiritual and cultural practices on a global scale.

One of the key objections to the reforms is that they departed from the idea of “organic development” within the Church’s liturgical tradition, referencing Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, §23.

However, the Church has never formally defined what constitutes “organic” development. Whether a particular reform qualifies as organic ultimately rests on the Church’s own judgment, not on criteria drawn from private interpretation. Nor has the Church endorsed the views of scholars such as the now disgraced monk Alcuin Reid whose monastery was dissolved and traditionalist order suppressed after Reid procured an illicit and secret priestly ordination.[8] Reid’s hypothesis suggests that “organic” implies something like only a gradual, spontaneous introduction of small changes over an extended time period. In fact, the sole reference in Sacrosanctum Concilium is a single directive: “care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”^[9] It should be noted however, that spontaneous development in the liturgy is akin to abuse, since Sacrosanctum Concilium also taught that “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. . . . no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”^[10]

The Second Vatican Council, in its document Sacrosanctum Concilium, laid out principles for renewal aimed at enhancing the liturgy’s pastoral effectiveness and accessibility. Still, it left room for a broader understanding of how liturgical practices can evolve in response to the Church’s pastoral and spiritual needs, and left much decision-making power in the hands of individual bishops and episcopal conferences.

The Consilium’s task in carrying out the Council’s directives can be likened to the role of an ecumenical council itself: a collegial body discerning how best to renew the Church’s worship. Just as the liturgical reforms of Trent were judged organic—though they, too, were the result of deliberate decisions by clerics—so the reforms of Vatican II should be understood. Some critics even argue, absurdly, that the presence of Consilium members in suits rather than cassocks proves the body was a kind of bureaucratic outlier, detached from the Church’s life. In reality, such surface details say nothing about the depth of its work or its integral place in the Church’s mission.

Stripped of rumor and polemic, the postconciliar reform is best seen for what it was: the Church’s deliberate act of renewal. The Missal of Paul VI did not abandon tradition but carried it forward, ensuring the liturgy could speak with clarity and depth to the faithful of every age.

As Pope Francis reminded us in Desiderio desideravi, the liturgy is not ours to remake but a gift we receive, and it is the bishops who safeguard its unity. In that light, Catholics today are called not to retrenchment or suspicion, but to a deeper liturgical formation and to unity around the one normative form of the Roman Rite, handed down in continuity through Paul VI, John Paul I & II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo XIV.

Notes

[1] See Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, vol. 1. (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2012), 44. See also, Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (Nihil Sine Deo, 2021), 126.

[2] See James Likoudis, “Vatican II vs. the Liturgical Terrorists,” Aleteia, Nov. 21, 2013. https://aleteia.org/2013/11/21/vatican-ii-vs-the-liturgical-terrorists. Dr. Likoudis writes: “It is not an exaggeration to say that a ‘liturgical revolution’ manned by ‘liturgical terrorists’ intent on profaning and secularizing the liturgy would grip the Church in all the Western nations. Millions became alienated from the Catholic Church by the incredible experimentation, faddism, and introduction of eccentric practices into the celebration of Mass.”

[3] Archbishop Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975

[4] Lewis, “Annibale Bugnini: Liturgy’s Greatest Villain.”

[5] Lewis, “Annibale Bugnini: Liturgy’s Greatest Villain.” Emphasis added.

[6] Vatican Press Office, Reply, on the alleged Protestant influences on the new Order of Mass, 25 February 1976. DOL 55 no. 539.

[7] Pope St. Paul VI, Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/changes-in-mass-for-greater-apostolate-8969.

[8] Chancery of the Diocese of Frejus and Toulon, Decrees, Year 2022. “Suppression of the public association of the faithful ‘Monastère Saint-Benoît’” (January 7, 2022). https://chancellerie.frejustoulon.fr/2022/01/07/decrets-annee-2022/.

Because of the spontaneous revelation by Alcuin Reid and Ildephonse Swithinbank of their ordinations received illegally (since without dimissorial letters from their Ordinary), the declaration of suspense that followed, and because of their obstinacy in disobedience (refusal to meet Monsignor Rey or to reveal the name of the bishop who ordered them despite several injunctions), considering that the suspense penalty now affects all the members definitively incorporated into the public association of faithful “Monaster Saint-Benoît”, whose seat is located under the jurisdiction of the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, Monsignor Rey has decided to delete this public association by decree of June 10, 2022 and to withdraw the permission to establish an oratory that had been granted to it.

[9] Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, §23.

[10] Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, §22.