Monday, October 10, 2011

The "Vatican Two" Liturgy in a Nutshell

From an interview with Fr. Alcuin Reid:

3. Continuity or Rupture? Could one say that “traditionalist” Catholics agree with the thesis of a rupture?

I am not a “traditionalist”. I am a Catholic. I am also a liturgical historian. As the latter I can say that there is evidence that those responsible for the reform intended rupture – ritual and also theological. They did not want what was handed on in tradition. They did not want to develop that. They wanted something new, something that would reflect ‘modern man’ in the 1960’s and what they thought he needed.

This is an historical reality, not an ecclesio-political position. Liturgists from ‘both sides’ agree that the reform was radical and a rupture. As a Catholic I regard this as a significant problem, because it is unprecedented in liturgical history and it is not what the Council, out of respect for liturgical tradition, called for.

The first two sentences are wonderful!  Thank you, Fr. R., for that proclamation--which happens to fit a lot of other people, by the way.

The rest of the red-highligted text is absolutely correct.  There was zero, zip, nada "development" of the extant Rite.  The bare bones remained, and most of the flesh was replaced----with plastic.



GOR said...

And Alcuin Reid should know as he is the editor of the most recent (2009) edition of Fortescue/O’Connell’s ”The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described”.

Do you know Dad if Alcuin has been ordained? The last I heard he was still a Deacon. Regardless, when it comes to the Liturgy, he knows his stuff!

Dad29 said...


The Tablet says he's not a priest (at least through the end of 2010.)

Don't have further info.