It has been suggested that O'Connell was a Modernist due to a connexion with the liturgical movement (I don't know if this connexion existed but I will assume that it did for the sake of argument.). I find this hard to believe considering how particular he is about the rubrics, especially those which Modernists would generally consider to be ridiculous (such as those governing the correct conclusion of a collect). Even if he were a Modernist, he cites so often the rubrics that it would be difficult to insert his own opinions without it being obvious.
Here is O'Connell -featured in Reid's book, alongside McManus (p. 261)- in praise of the liturgical movement (of which he was a part),
and even of the proto-liturgical modernist, Dom Lambert Beauduin:Speaking of the liturgical movement, O'Connell says:
"That seed first appeared above ground as a tender seedling when fifty years ago the Liturgical Movement was inaugurated in Belgium by Dom Lambert Beauduin, OSB...who laid its foundations firmly on a sound theological basis (especially in his booklet [
The Piety of the Church], and vigorously promoted its growth by the indoctrination of the clergy into the real meaning of the Liturgy, and spread the true doctrine by the liturgical "weeks", the writing of articles and the preparation and the distribution of suitable books...and leaflets. Over the years the seedling...has grown into a sturdy plant through the exertions of the hierarchy in many countries...and the devoted and untiring labors of a band of clergy and layfolk...Now those of them who are still alive- and happily Fr. Beauduin is one of them- see the visible triumph of their work and bless God for the success of their efforts.
"Now their endeavor to promote the active participation of the people in the Church's worship...has received the official sanction of the Church, and under the direction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, at the hands of liturgical and musical experts, the chief forms of active participation have been systematized and have been issued as part of the Church's code of liturgical law.
"The fruits of the labors of fifty years must now be thankfully garnered by a multitude of priests, religious and layfolk of good will throughout the Latin Church."
https://books.google.com/books?id=QCO3Oc9C87wC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=reid+o%27connell+liturgical+movement&source=bl&ots=H_VE9Nk_c6&sig=ACfU3U2rATwwa7czsDFTwlKE7qP5Ry_rXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixu83z0tbhAhUS1qwKHaxGCbMQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=reid%20o'connell%20liturgical%20movement&f=falseNote that for O'Connell, the liturgical movement did not originate with Dom Gueranger, or even St. Pius X,
but with Dom Lambert Beauduin.
Note also how juxtaposed it is for SSPX apologists to be defending the liturgical movement in general, and O'Connells' ilk in particular, when in former years the Society was publishing books like that of Fr. Diddier Bonneterre's
The Liturgical Movement: Gueranger to Beauduin to Bugnini, Roots, Radicals Results:O'Connell praises him whom the old SSPX denounces.
A Remnant article on Fr. Bonneterre's book seems appropos in view of the comments by Mr. Hollingsworth and Beda:
"
As most Catholics know very little about the liturgical movement, most of what they read in Father Bonneterre’s book will come as a complete surprise. Those who know anything of its history will be aware that it was endorsed by the pre-Vatican II popes and may be surprised at the strength of Father Bonneterre’s criticism and his insistence that it is the font and origin of the liturgical anarchy which is emptying our churches today. The inescapable conclusion of his book is that the movement, like Vatican II, was hijacked by liberals."[...]Crushed by St. Pius X, the Modernists understood that they could not penetrate the Church by theology, that is, by a clear exposé of their doctrines. They had recourse to the Marxist notion of praxis, having understood that the Church could become modernist through action, especially through the sacred action of the liturgy. Revolutions always use the living energies of the organism itself, taking control of them little by little and finally using them to destroy the body under attack. It is the well-known process of the Trojan horse.
[Note on "praxis:" It is for the exact same reason that many are apprehensive regarding the new instructions on the postures of the faithful at Mass, or the altar servers now repeating the "Domine non sum dignus" with the priest, etc: These innovations all seem to traject with the aims of the liturgical movement; a movement which Rome has announced its intention to enforce upon the traditional Mass. -X]
The Liturgical Movement of Dom Guéranger, of St. Pius X, and of the Belgian monasteries, in origin at any rate, was a considerable force in the Church, a prodigious means of spiritual rejuvenation which, moreover, brought forth good fruits. The Liturgical Movement was thus the ideal Trojan horse for the modernist revolution. It was easy for all the revolutionaries to hide themselves in the belly of such a large carcass. Before Mediator Dei, who among the Catholic hierarchy was concerned about liturgy? What vigilance was applied to detecting this particularly subtle form of practical Modernism?
It was from the 1920's onward that it became clear that the Liturgical Movement had been diverted from its original admirable aims:
Dom Beauduin first of all favored in an exaggerated way the teaching and preaching aspect of the liturgy, and then conceived the idea of making it serve the "Ecuмenical Movement" to which he was devoted body and soul. Dom Parsch tied the movement to Biblical renewal. Dom Casel made it the vehicle of a fanatical antiquarianism and of a completely personal conception of the "Christian mystery." These first revolutionaries were largely overtaken by the generation of the new liturgists of the various preconciliar liturgical commissions.
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-bug.htmThis is the man O'Connell praises.
It is typical that persons ill-informed should arrive at ill-informed conclusions: "The SSPX uses O'connell; it was pre-conciliar; he has a famous name; etc."
To use his manuals to study the rubrics and/or the performance of the rites is one thing, but to hold him out as an orthodox defender of sound liturgical principles when he was very much in line with the deviated liturgical movement is quite another.
He promoted the deviant liturgical movement, and that is a fact.
Reading this book will provide a convenient entry into the study of the Liturgical Movement, but it is only a start:
Topic: SSPX Chapel Palm Sunday (Read 6724 times)