What is the point of making reference to the disparaging adjective "Bugninist," then, and passing around the claim on this forum?

Really, no matter who Pope Francis puts in these positions, what are they going to do, mandate mariachi masses across the world?

he got the Consilium to acquiesce to certain changes by saying that Paul VI wanted them,

Ferrer announced that the congregation for divine worship will soon be endowed with an office for liturgical art and music that will finally apply, all over the world, the prescriptions of the Church unheeded until now, the rebirth of Gregorian chant first among them.

To a point things will only ever change incrementally one way or another.

However, we should be realistic in our appreciation of the positive aspects of the council's liturgical reforms,

Cranmer’s Protestant Reformation incorporated into the New Liturgy

The New Mass has a clear resemblance to the protestant “worship service” both in its origin and in its content. For example, in 1547, as the first stage of Bishop Cranmer’s liturgical reform the Epistle and Gospel were read at Mass in English. In 1549, the entire Mass was translated into English in a new “Prayer Book” which was now defined as “The Mass or Lord’s Supper." In 1551, a new ceremonial of religion was imposed. This included replacing the altar with a table. The altars were torn down, and movable tables substituted.

The switch between the priest facing east and now "facing the people" is another reform. They switched the orientation of the priest to reflect their new 'Mass', or Communion Service: The only sacrifice in their worship was a sacrifice of praise and self-giving by the "people of God". In the Ordinary of the Mass points in which the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ as a Victim are expressed were suppressed and eliminated or replaced by non-committal words.

Unfortunately the Novus Ordo (New Mass) has adopted most of Cranmer's innovation to the point that they resemble each other, while both mutually exclude the elements of true Catholic Worship. At First, there were little introductions of the vernacular into the Mass. Then, the entire Mass was in the vernacular. Finally, the entire New Mass was re-written' in consultation with 6 Protestant ministers[xix]. This process, after Vatican II took six years, Cranmer's reformation took only five years.

When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass[xx]. The fact that the New Mass resembles the protestant prayer service prompted Mr. M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg to affirm: "... nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant " [xxi] This should not surprise anyone since "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass."[xxii]

[xxii] Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI.

Exit Archbishop Bugnini

As for Archbishop Bugnini, in 1975 he fell suddenly and dramatically from power. Pope Paul VI dismissed him without any reason being given, just as Pope John had done, and he was banished to Iran as Pro Nuncio. His admirers throughout the world were outraged, and feared that the entire future of the liturgical revolution was in danger. Their fears were groundless. In the year before his downfall he had been able to announce with pride and satisfaction that the liturgical reform was "a major conquest of the Catholic Church" which had its "ecumenical dimensions." 8 I wouldn't want to quarrel with that judgment. There are grounds for believing that Archbishop Bugnini was dismissed by Pope Paul VI after the Pope had been given evidence proving that he was a Freemason. I have published the evidence for this allegation in my book, Pope Paul's New Mass. Archbishop Bugnini termed me "a calumniator" for doing so, and denied the accusation.

In some ways I am sorry that the issue was ever raised as it makes the important question appear to be whether the Archbishop was a Mason or not. The important question is whether or not he destroyed the liturgy of the Roman Rite rather than his motive for doing so. Even if he was motivated by a sincere desire to serve the Church it does not alter the fact that, as Professor Berger expressed it, "a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible . . . could hardly have done a better job."

I don't believe the intent of the liturgists at Vatican II was to reproduce Cranmer.

I suspect the translators were not familiar with Cranmer.