On December 9, The Catholic Herald published an article by Dom Alcuin Reid titled: Whither the Mass of Vatican II?
The article swiftly received a most coveted endorsement, the imprimatur of Peter Kwasniewski, the de facto Pontifex Pelicanus, who described Reid’s dissertation as:
…the definitive article to send to people whenever they say “the Novus Ordo is the Mass of Vatican II” and “if you reject this Mass, you reject the council.”
Until I read Reid’s article, I genuinely thought that I had already encountered pretty much every lame argument ordered toward convincing the naïve and ill-informed that the Novus Ordo Missae has no basis whatsoever in Sacrosactum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II.
And then I read this from Reid (a world record length run-on sentence, for which I apologize in advance for asking you to read):
At the Council itself the Fathers, having been assured that “the current [i.e. 1962] Ordo Missæ, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, certainly is to be retained”, approved the simplification in the number of signs of the cross, the kissing of the altar, bows, etc; the shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar; the reading of the readings facing the people towards whom they were to be announced; the introduction of an offertory procession as in the Ambrosian rite; the revision of the offertory prayers so as to be more sensitive to the offering of the gifts after the Consecration; the praying of the super oblata prayer aloud; an increase in the number of prefaces; the praying of the Doxology at the end of the Canon aloud with the people responding “Amen”; the abolition of the signs of the cross in the Doxology and reduced throughout the Canon itself; the reciting of the Embolism following the Pater Noster aloud, as also the Fraction prayer and its conclusion; the Fraction and the Pax were to be rearranged in a more logical manner; restrictions on which faithful may receive Holy Communion in which Masses were to be abolished; Holy Communion was to be distributed with the formula from the Ambrosian rite: “Corpus Christi. Amen”; and the end of Mass was to finish with the blessing followed by the “Ite missa est”.
What? I’ve been studying and commenting upon the conciliar text for more than two decades. He can’t be serious?
Yes, actually, Reid is deadly serious and so is Kwasniewski.
In fact, in the very next paragraph, Reid repeated the claim that the world’s bishops at Vatican II had been assured that “the current Ordo Missæ, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, certainly is to be retained.”
We’ll get to the origins of that quote momentarily. Before we do, however, let’s take a look at the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to see what the Council actually said about that list of liturgical revisions that, according to Reid, the Council Fathers “approved.”
– Number of the signs of the cross: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Kissing of the altar, bows: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar: Sacrosactum Conciliumwas silent.
– Reading of the readings facing the people: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Introduction of an offertory procession: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Revision of the offertory prayers: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Praying of the super oblata prayer aloud: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– An increase in the number of prefaces: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
– Praying the Doxology at the end of the Canon aloud with the people responding “Amen”: Sacrosactum Concilium was silent.
At this, presumably the point has been sufficiently made. Not even one of the items on Reid’s laundry list of liturgical revisions were mentioned in Sacrosactum Concilium, which, incidentally, is the only allegedly authoritative text that the Fathers of the Council actually “approved” with respect to liturgical reform, and they did so by an overwhelming margin of 2,147 to 4.
Is it true then that the Novus Ordo really doesn’t have any legitimate claim to a conciliar pedigree?
Hardly! The evidence (provided below) is undeniable. The Novus Ordo has Vatican II coursing through its Protestant veins!
Among the obvious conclusions that one simply cannot help but draw is that when it comes to the Novus Ordo and its relationship with the Second Vatican Council, neither Alcuin Reid nor Peter Kwasnieski & Co. can be taken seriously.
To be clear, I am not accusing either one of being dishonest. Rather, it seems to me that their anti-sedevacantist confirmation bias is such that they’ve essentially blinded themselves to the truth.
In any case, I challenge both of these men to explain exactly how the Fathers at the Council approved this or any other such list of specific liturgical revisions.
The reason one will not find any such thing in the Constitution is because proposing specific revisions was not among the purposes of the document.
In Article 3 of the Constitution, we are informed that the intent of the text is simply to articulate certain principles and norms concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy that should be called to mind and should be established.
Notice the soft language. Far from taking it upon itself to propose specific changes to the Roman Missal, the “principles and norms” that the Council did provide are not even insisted upon, rather they’re merely offered as things that should be considered.
Taken into consideration by whom, one might ask?
By the pope. Obviously.
The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei 58)
The bishops at Vatican II knew this. Now, in no way does this give them a pass for their dereliction of duty. Every single one of the more than two-thousand bishops who approved the Constitution have already been made to answer to Christ for that decision.
At this, we must be perfectly clear that the principles and norms articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium are offered, not in a vacuum, but rather in service to the Council’s primary consideration in the matter, namely, ecumenism:
That is to say, the progressive bishops who successfully steered the direction of the Council deliberately set in motion a process of liturgical reform that would hopefully (and did) result in a watered-down, Protestantized, earthbound rite that would make the heretics feel right at home.
Rather than substantiating that claim by repeating what has already been provided in this space, I would direct the attention of those interested to the following: Article: Liturgical Devastation: Is it due to Vatican II? Video: Catholic Family Podcast on Sacrosanctum Concilium.
What the examination provided in the above podcast and article reveal is that even if the post-conciliar liturgical reformers had faithfully followed the propositions set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the end result would have been a Mass – albeit with more Latin, chant, and incense – practically unrecognizable to faithful Catholics but rather familiar to the average Protestant.
And yet, Reid insists that liturgical sanity can be restored if the Mass is put “back onto the tracks the Council laid down for it.”
Those tracks include numerous appeals for a revised rite that favors the sensibilities of the heretics!
Yea, but… the Constitution says there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them!
Right. And guess who gets to decide what is required. [HINT: It’s not Peter Kwasniewski, Alcuin Reid, or any other such character.]
The bottom line is simply this: The Novus Ordo Missae has conciliar DNA. I welcome the arguments of Reid, Kwasniewski, or any other such person of note who is willing to have a sincere discussion about the numerous citations in Sacrosanctum Concilium that highlight its hyper-ecumenical focus.
At this, let’s now consider the origin of the quote that Reid provided (without citation).
In a 2023 article, Reid provided greater detail, writing:
In the next session Bishop Henri Jenny intervened. A member of the liturgical preparatory and conciliar commissions, Bishop Jenny set forth the content of the declaratio on the reform of the Order of Mass asked for by Bishop Elchinger. Before outlining the specific reforms, the assurance was given that: “Hodiernus Ordo Missæ, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, certe retinendus est.” (“The current Ordo Missæ, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, certainly is to be retained.”)
Once again, Reid evidently didn’t feel compelled to substantiate his claim with a citation. Even so, let’s assume (as it is likely safe to do) that he found this information in the Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (the Synodal Acts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) that includes the declarations and interventions given during the conciliar debates.
What Reid provided in 2023 seems to suggest, at most, that the list of specific reforms highlighted in his more recent article was delivered to the Council Fathers by Bishop Jenny in response to concerns raised by Bishop Elchinger.
Curiously, one notes that Ried chose not to place that list in quotation marks.
Why not? Only he can say.
In any event, whether Bishop Jenny’s clarification was given only orally, in writing, or both, one thing seems certain:
The declarationes – that is, the explanatory statements occasionally provided to the Council by the competent parties (e.g., Commission members like Bishop Jenny) – were not voted upon by the body of bishops, i.e., they were neither approved nor rejected by the body. Rather, they were merely taken into consideration as debate continued concerning the contents of the drafts that would eventually become the final document.
This being so, it is far more accurate to say (again, at best, assuming that Reid’s account is accurate) that the Fathers of the Council took to heart or placed their trust in the explanation that was given, including that exhaustive list.
Let’s not forget, however, that the Council did not presume to propose a list of specific liturgical reforms in the final document, and even it had done so, that list would have amounted to exactly nothing without the approval of the man that they (and Alcuin and Peter) consider to have been the Sovereign Pontiff. And even then, the pope would not in any way have been obligated to actually adopt those specific revisions movig forward.
As it is, the document that the Fathers most definitely approved, and overwhelmingly so, demonstrably paved the way for the Novus Ordo Missae.
Reid went on to make great hay over a Mass celebrated in the vernacular by Paul VI (evidently with some additional changes) on December 8, 1965, just prior to the Council’s formal closing, and then again in March of the same year.
Reid contends that this liturgy was “the Mass called for by the Council.” Elsewhere, he refers to the Mass that “the Second Vatican Council called for or authorised.”
One small problem: The Council didn’t call for, much less authorize, any particular Mass. An ecumenical council has no power to “authorize” a Mass of any sort. That’s the pope’s sole prerogative.
Reid also makes the claim with respect to the 1965 Mass that Paul VI “did not regard it as a transitional phase – a mere stop along the way to a ‘brave new liturgical world’ in the future.”
What Montini may, or may not, have thought of that Mass was proven irrelevant with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.
Despite so many dubious claims, Reid actually went on to declare:
In marking the sixtieth anniversary of the closing of the Council it is important that we are clear about the facts.
So, exactly what overarching point is Alcuin Reid attempting to make in his “definitive” article?
It seems to me that it is summed up in the following assertion made toward the conclusion:
It is possible to question and even reject the modern rites without being disloyal to the Council.
If what has been said up to this point hasn’t given the reader sufficient reason to dismiss the opinions of Alcuin Reid (and his cheerleaders), this alone – the mere suggestion that loyalty to the Council is a virtue – ought to do it.
