Have to disagree. The difficulty is when one is looking at past reforms through the eyes of what happened in the Novus Ordo Missae. However, the liberal revolution was diametrically different from the legitimate reforms made under St. Pius X and Pius XII, as the former are based upon theological deficiencies (i.e., false ecumenism) as well as the error of antiquarianism.

If you do not make the proper distinctions between the two differing sets of reforms (the Novus Ordo actually being a revolution), then you will end up adopting the same hypo-crictical method of the Modernists (which was condemned concerning the examination of Sacred Scripture).

Changes can -- and have -- been made to the sacred liturgy over the centuries, though it certainly is true that Church has often shown a reluctance to do this (e.g., in the case of inserting St. Joseph's name into the Canon, which "Deo gratias" finally occurred and for the benefit of the Church today).

Also, I would like to know on who's authority (which is the writer's assertion, not Bishop Schneider's) that the Reformed Rite of Holy Week was a "failure"? It certainly was not by all contemporary accounts and was enthusiastically received by nearly all, cleric and laic as reports of the time document.

The SSPX has supplied jurisdiction due to the state of necessity in the Church (which Pope Benedict XVI admitted to Bishop Fellay actually existed); see www.sspx.org for details (sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_supplied_jur…).

In any case, so much for ecumenism and toleration towards all. If the children had been Muslims (or even Baptists), they probably would have been welcomed with open arms.

When I was in a Novus Ordo Youth Group (many years ago), we allowed non-Catholics to attend and participate and when it was suggested we regularly pray the rosary, the answer was: "Oh, we don't want to offend those who aren't Catholic." Well, I thought we were a *Catholic* group - guess not.