Give the radical modernists enough rope and they will -- eventually -- hang themselves!
In the meantime, they will twist and distort real Catholic Church doctrines and teachings to fit their own diabolical agenda.
A case in point: ‘Embarrassing in the extreme’: Liturgy scholar demolishes Cardinal Roche’s document on Latin Mass...
From lifesitenews.com, and written by Emily Mangiaracina Thu Feb 19, 2026 - 5:25 pm ES: ‘Embarrassing in the extreme’: Liturgy scholar demolishes Cardinal Roche’s document on Latin Mass - LifeSite, comes this article.
"(LifeSiteNews) — A Benedictine priest and liturgical scholar ripped as “embarrassing,” even “in the extreme,” points made by Cardinal Arthur Roche in his recent document on the liturgy distributed at the extraordinary consistory convened by Pope Leo XIV.
Dom Alcuin Reid, a Benedictine monk, priest, and liturgical scholar, broke down Roche’s document defending Traditionis Custodes and the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass in an analysis recently published by journalist Diane Montagna. In the missive, which is expected to be discussed by the next consistory in late June, Roche claimed that “we cannot go back” to the Traditional Latin Mass.
Reid called out Roche’s invoking of Quo Primum because it declared that “there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass” as “gravely intellectually dishonest.”
“Trent asked the bishops to correct abuses, not to remake or standardize their rites, and Quo Primum included the explicit provision that rites with more than 200 years of legitimate practice were exempt from the unifying intent of the said bull,” Reid noted.
The priest highlighted Roche’s statement that “the reform of the Liturgy wanted by the Second Vatican Council is not only in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition,” calling his failure to distinguish between the reform that the Council “wanted” and the actual liturgical rites that followed the Council, “academically embarrassing.”
Reid addressed Roche’s suggestion that the liturgy must be open to “legitimate progress,” which he used to defend his position that the TLM must give way to the Novus Ordo.
“To speak constantly of the liturgy being ‘dynamic’ and ‘progressing’ and ‘changing’ is to risk turning it into a form of religious entertainment for people who, without the necessary formation with which to unlock its riches, will become bored and constantly seek something new, more dynamic and different if we are somehow to retain their attention,” Reid remarked.
The Benedictine scholar had distinguished between “organic development” of the liturgy and “disproportionate positivist intervention,” which he said was “unknown in the history of the Western rite until the 20th century, and reached its zenith after the Second Vatican Council.” In the case of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, such intervention failed to “respect the integrity of the inherited liturgical tradition.”
Reid then took aim at Roche’s claim that the so-called “liturgical reform” was made on the “basis of accurate theological, historical and pastoral investigation,” calling this “embarrassing in the extreme.”
The Benedictine monk countered that “some of the assumptions made” by the reformers of the liturgy have been found to be “false.” He cited as an example the use of ““Eucharistic Prayer II,” which allegedly uses the earliest Roman anaphora, but which Reid said instead is the “construct of faulty mid-twentieth century scholarship theologically edited according to the zeitgeist of the mid 1960s and imposed on the Church.”
Reid continued, pointing out that calls for … “accurate theological, historical and pastoral investigation” into the rites “most certainly did not envisage the evisceration of central teachings of Sacred Scripture.”
We must admit that the new liturgy “failed to usher in the new springtime in the life of the Church with which it was ‘marketed,’” he wrote, highlighting the fact that most baptized in the Catholics do not even attend Mass.
This is “due to various causes,” he said, “but the reformed liturgy has not proved to be a successful antidote to them. It does not serve to unite them to God.” In fact, evidence suggests that the changes following Vatican II, the most prominent and tangible of which were the changes to the Mass, were associated with the steep decline in Catholic practice. Mass attendance and religious vocations plummeted since Vatican II around the world.
In the U.S. in particular, the number of priests flatlined in 1965 after the Second Vatican Council and then began to plummet around 1985 as the Catholic population continued to explode. This suggests significant harm to vocations was inflicted by the changes to the liturgy and teaching of the faith initiated by the Council.
In support of this association, a secular study published in 2025 found that Vatican II “triggered a decline” in worldwide Catholic Mass attendance relative to religious service attendance of other religions, including Protestant Christianity.
This Church crisis lends credence to Reid’s assertion that Roche’s aim of not just promoting the Novus Ordo Missae but suppressing the traditional Latin Mass “does not seek the good of souls today; rather it seeks to protect at all costs the cherished liturgical ideologies of yesterday.”
“In the end, it must be said clearly that this briefing document lacks intellectual honesty and displays a woeful ignorance of liturgical history,” Reid wrote. “Similarly, it lacks the pastoral outreach and generosity one would expect to find, replacing it with a rigidity that clings to a very narrow vision of the Church’s liturgical life and history.”
“That this document bears the name of the Prefect of the Dicastery of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments renders it nothing less than a scandal,” Reid concluded. “If it is the work of the Prefect himself, he should ‘consider his position,’ as politicians in his native country would say. If it is the work of his staff, he should consider their positions also, whilst himself accepting ultimate responsibility for having distributed it to members of the Sacred College.”
“For this document is certainly not a profound theological, historical, and pastoral inquiry with the aim that sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remains open to legitimate progress. It is little more than a piece of shallow propaganda and should be set aside as such. The College of Cardinals, indeed the Church – most especially her faithful – deserve far better.”
End of devastating critique!
Pray for strength and honor!
Viva Cristo Rey! Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
St. Joseph, pray for us!!
Gene DeLalla
