"TINY BAND OF REALISTS: THE SSPX" SAYS THE SPECTATOR

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

If only 'Bad Bunny' had told Leo XIV he supports the upcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations

"The Catholic Church Has Turned on the Faithful." The Spectator - that prestigious, political and cultural news magazine (oldest in the world) is headlining "the uproar" in the Church since the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) declared its intention of consecrating its own bishops on July 1.

Followed by a resounding "Declaration of Faith", the Society's February announcement was a gauntlet thrown down before Leo XIV and his new, conciliar, synodal religion. The Spectator says the Society has started "a battle over the identity of the Church fought between what on one side is an uneasy conglomerate of cynics and idealists; and on the other, a tiny band of realists: the Society of St Pius X".

The rest of the article lies behind a paywall. In its secular wisdom, it may or may not address the underlying issue, namely the Society's inconsistency in calling out the Modernist errors of the post-conciliar Vaticanwhile at the same time bowing and scraping for an audience with "the Holy Father" and seeking a papal mandate for bishops who will continue, one hopes, to call out Modernism in all its promethean forms.

In 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre declared: “This Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time." Well, in 2026 that schism is wider than ever. So why does +Lefebvre's Society go cap in hand to a schismatic, apostate church, which can have no true authority, for permission to consecrate bishops for the defence and preservation of Catholic doctrine, from Leo XIV who does not profess that doctrine himself?

The SSPX is the only group saying the quiet part - the thoughts harboured by most trad Catholics in regard to this Modernist pontificate - out loud. The other priestly fraternities in Ecclesia Dei hangouts (FSSP, ICKSP) have been muzzled and corralled in the new synodal religion, where anodyne sermons and biddability pose no threat to its enforced, faux, pax romana. The Society therefore, by its outlier status and sheer numbers, enjoys a uniquely privileged and powerful position in the Church which it could parlay into promotion for Tradition. Having won universal respect for the Society's beautiful Declaration of Faith its Superior General, Fr Davide Pagliarani, could well afford to raise his voice in a challenge to the authority of a regime which:

• rewards clerical sodomites
• enabled an LGBTQ pilgrimage to St Peter's
• enthuses over an heretical nun (Lucia Caram) who denies Mary's perpetual virginity and advocates for abortion and LGBTQ
• ignores, like other Western powers, the Islamic pillaging and persecution of indigenous Christians in the Middle East
• quarrels with the leader of the world's most powerful nation over enforcement of its own, just, laws
• welcomed an heretical Anglican archbishopress into St Peter's
• forbids the death penalty endorsed for centuries by the Magisterium
• meets with the heretical Jesuit +James Martin
• meets with 'queer' activist Bad Bunny, who affects women's clothing
• permits episcopal consecrations by the Communist Party in China but sanctions those of a society of traditional Catholic priests
• suppresses celebration of the Mass of Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass, throughout the world
• declares it is "one" with Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox
• says Jews need not convert to the Catholic faith to be saved
• says "man has infinite dignity" without reference to the infinite dignity of man's Saviour, Jesus Christ
• allows all kinds of liturgical abuses including many opposed to the documents of Vatican II such as Communion in the hand, lay ministers of Communion, altar girls

+Pagliarani says punitive measures against the Society would be "objectively unjust". But for +Lefebvre, excommunication was "a mark of honour". The SSPX needs to raise its game. The Society may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb and declare the Vatican to be what it is: anti-Catholic.

Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX states that God wants the Society today to be "the sign of contradiction - the sign of the cross". That is, the sign of the power and the wisdom of God.

+Pagliarani, bishops and priests of the Society of St Pius X: go to it, and God speed.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum: Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld. For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-24)

From Integrity Magazine:

Sunday marked the release of the first installment of Traditio: For the Love of the Church, a new three-part documentary produced in collaboration with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). It is being promoted as the largest and most ambitious film project in the Society’s history. 

 

Filmed over a period of two years across multiple countries and continents, the project seeks to present the life, apostolic work, and priestly mission of the SSPX as it exists today: global, established, and increasingly confident.

 

Across more than four hours of film, Traditio promises viewers an extensive look into seminary formation, missionary activity, liturgical practice, and the worldwide expansion of the Society’s efforts.

 

The brainchild of “two young students” — the identities of whom oddly seem to not be public knowledge — the documentary was produced in conjunction with the SSPX’s General House. One of the students told an audience at the film’s premiere in May that they did not want it to engage in “theological polemics or polemics of church politics” but only to present the life and work of SSPX clergy.

 

A global apostolate

The scale of the production says something. This is no longer a movement presenting itself merely as an emergency response to a temporary crisis. The imagery being presented is one of permanence: seminaries, schools, missions, parishes, pilgrimages, families, and institutions built over decades.

 

The message being sent is clear, whatever the canonical situation may be, the Society intends to demonstrate that it is a worldwide reality.

 

For decades, traditional Catholics have watched the post-conciliar landscape with growing concern: collapsing Mass attendance, shrinking seminaries, disappearing religious orders, doctrinal confusion, and liturgical experimentation that transformed Catholic life throughout much of the world. 

 

Against this background, footage of packed churches, cassocks, thriving seminaries, and traditional liturgical life naturally carries rhetorical force. But beneath the cinematography and production quality lies several important issues the Society needs to address.

 

Resistance yes, but questions remain

 

The SSPX has staked out a position that appears increasingly difficult to explain coherently. On the one hand, Rome is recognized and its authority acknowledged, while on the other it is routinely ignored and frequently resisted.

 

The Society habitually refers to Leo as the “Holy Father” and seeks his approval (at least indirectly through Bishop Athanasius Schneider) for their upcoming consecrations, all while criticizing and rejecting outright his and his predecessor’s encyclicals, disciplinary decisions, reforms, liturgical legislation, ecumenical programs, and pastoral directives.

 

Undoubtedly, such resistance is necessary in this time of apostasy as Modernism flows from the Vatican daily, but the question that naturally emerges is: is it fitting to ask for the imprimatur of a man who does not outwardly profess the Catholic faith? What, moreover, does “attachment” to the “successor of St. Peter” mean if practical resistance to him is permanent?

 

The Society has presented its position as a temporary necessity during extraordinary circumstances, but more than a half century of perpetual disobedience has become its own theological system, one that does not appear to align with what the popes of old taught on how Catholics ought to behave toward the Vicar of Christ.

 

In his famous 1864 document Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX said he could not “pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that … assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See … so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.”

 

In 1870, Pius declared that “all those who glory in the title of Catholic must not only be united to him in matters of faith and dogmatic truth, but also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.”

 

If modern ecclesiastical authorities have genuinely promoted — as the SSPX correctly argues they have — harmful doctrines, dangerous pastoral innovations, “Protestantized” liturgical rites, “Modernist errors,” and ecumenical practices incompatible with Catholic tradition, then continuously insisting upon “profound attachment” to “the Holy Father” not only begins to appear contradictory but should compel the Society to question whether these men are legitimate Church authorities in the first place.

 

A shift in messaging

 

Even critics of the Society will generally acknowledge that its priests and faithful have spent decades preserving traditional liturgy, catechesis, sacramental life, religious formation, and Catholic education. All this the documentary highlights admirably. In doing so, it is in keeping with the Society’s “branding” campaign over the past 15 years to focus more on the beauty of Tradition and on what the Society offers the Church rather than primarily the condemnation of the errors coming from the Vatican.

 

 

But this leaves out the other half of the equation: the doctrinal reasons for the Society’s existence.

 

In 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre declared: “This Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time.

 

It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship — already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents.” He also said “to whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”

 

Has Leo not proven that he fully adheres to these “new dogmas”? Has he not shown that he has “separated” himself from the Catholic Church and is now a part of the “Conciliar Church?”

 

 

Archbishop Lefebvre reiterated his views in his 1991 book Spiritual Journey. In it, he accused the “current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI” of having “made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism.”

 

He also stated that it is “a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”

 

One can’t help but notice that this sort of tough talk has been absent from the many public statements issued by the SSPX and their chief ally Bishop Schneider in recent months.

 

The collective message being sent now is not that Leo is head of a schismatic church or a promoter of Jewish Freemasonry, but that the SSPX is only wanting to serve the Church by helping souls in need, and that Leo should be pastoral to them and treat them in the same way he does when he meets with Anglicans and others.

 

“If we come to be declared excommunicated and schismatic, this would not mean that we seek such a sanction or rejoice in it, for it would be objectively unjust,” Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the current SSPX Superior General, has said.

 

Compare that to what the SSPX superiors declared after the 1988 excommunications: “To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.

 

"They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.”

 

While it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to avoid carrying out the consecrations against the wishes of John Paul II by seeking a deal with Cardinal Ratzinger in the 1980s, he admitted in 1991 that, “I think I can reply that I have gone further than I ought to have gone.”

 

This confession alone throws cold water on the arguments made by those who continue to insist the Society should exhaust diplomatic options with Rome and seek Leo’s approval for July 1, or some other arrangement.

 

No practical accord

 

Archbishop Lefebvre’s most mature thought on the matter was that recourse to the conciliar authorities was not needed. “Hence we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, ‘Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?’

 

Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course,” he said after the consecrations.

 

The Society’s leaders heeded that wisdom in the ensuing years. In 1991, Bishop Tissier — assisted by Bishops de Galarreta and Williamson — consecrated Fr. Licínio Rangel as the successor of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer for the Diocese of Campos, Brazil. There is no evidence that they asked the Vatican for permission to do so.

 

When the priests of Campos made an agreement with the Vatican in 2003, Bishop Fellay denounced the capitulation, stating that it was tantamount to putting Tradition in an “ecumenical zoo.” This was in keeping with Archbishop Lefebvre’s remark one year after the ’88 consecrations that to “re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic … is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”

 

At its 2006 General Chapter, the SSPX officially embraced the position that talks with the Vatican were for doctrinal reasons only. “The contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement.”

 

That policy was done away with in the early 2010s by Bishop Fellay whilst he was Superior General. He said Rome had sufficiently changed its perspective toward the Society and that a new posture was needed.

 

The dramatic shift caused intense internal debates that have lasted to the present day. Not only did Bishop de Galarreta but Bishops Williamson and Tissier express opposition, both privately and publicly.

 

“This project of ‘officialization’ of the SSPX leaves me indifferent,” Tissier said during an interview in 2012. “This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to ‘regularize the war.’ … the irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome.”

 

On New Year’s Day in 2015, Tissier pushed back again, boldly stating in a sermon that “bad friends” were seeking the “normalization” of the SSPX with the “Conciliar Church.”

 

The SSPX can be a leader for the Counter-Revolution

 

 

Traditio deserves to be praised for highlighting the Society’s many admirable priests. Their tireless efforts to bring the Gospel to all corners of the earth while the Novus Ordo hierarchy refuses to do so should be applauded.

 

But something more is needed right now. For decades, the men who have worn the white papal vestments have waged war on Catholic doctrine and liturgy. They have held prayer meetings with heretics and schismatics.

 

They have brought pagan idols into the Vatican, destroyed religious life, installed unworthy men into positions of power, and have partnered with the global Deep State.

 

These same “Vicars of Christ” proudly declare that they are “one” with Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox. They teach that Jews don’t need to convert to the Catholic faith in order to be saved. They promote the “infinite dignity” of man and support “healthy pluralism” in the civil sphere.

 

What this moment calls for is a full-on, public denunciation of these men and the false religion they are spreading in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

The SSPX’s leaders should recognize that the Vatican is not interested in their concerns with the Second Vatican Council. They should not make future attempts at a practical accord. Instead, they should “shake the dust off” their feet (Mt. 10:14) and, following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre, denounce Leo as the head of the Conciliar Church and accuse him of being in schism with the great popes of the past.

 

They should also declare that it is he — not they — who is “canonically irregular” with the Catholic Church, while stating that it would be an honor to be “excommunicated” by men like him who do not preach the Gospel.

 

Time will surely tell whether the Society will embrace its roots, take up this important mission, and become what it should be for the Counter-Revolutionary movement.

 

We can only pray that it will do so sooner rather than later, and that it will extend an olive branch to other Traditionalists who have been fighting for the faith since the Modernist coup at the Second Vatican Council.https://integritymagazine.org/2026/06/10/sspx-documentary-impresses-but-the-society-needs-stronger-messaging

 

Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis!

WHY DOES ROME STILL TOLERATE VAT2 ABUSES?

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. 

In Catholic Novus Ordo churches today, even in those dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, His sacred Body and Blood is demoted and sidelined, in what was once a sanctuary, or excluded altogether from what was once a nave. The place at what was once an altar but is now a Cranmer table, the sacred place once dedicated to our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ and Saviour has been taken - usurped - by His minister, a priest. Or rather, the 'Presider'.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 60 years ago, at the Second Vatican Council, the aging Cardinal Ottaviani famously asked, "Are these Fathers planning a revolution?" He was infamously silenced by one of their number, Cardinal Alfrink, switching off his mike, at which the 'Fathers' clapped with glee at +Ottaviani's humiliation. Now, at the distance of 60 years, +Ottaviani is seen as a prophet and the Second Vatican Council is increasingly recognised for what it was and still is: a revolution. 

The Ottaviani Intervention was followed by those tragic years, still clearly remembered by many, when Catholics - bishops, priests and lay - trained life-long in obedience to the Church numbly and dumbly followed Rome's bewildering, catastrophic alterations to the liturgy, not realising that those they obeyed were no longer obedient to true authority themselves. If the changes made in a sudden, collective rush of blood to the head in 'the Spirit of Vatican II' and were not licit, then Rome simply made them licit. 


As early as 1969, Fr Raymond Dulac, writing for the bi-monthly review Courrier de Romewas convinced that these changes were intended expressly to destroy the Catholic Church. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci saw an "indubitable lessening of faith". How would they describe now the farcical 'faith' left to us by the post-Vatican II occupiers of the Seat of Peter, especially the grotesque Francis and his loyal but-oh-so-nice follower Leo? 

Writing for The Remnant (below) Robert Morrison concludes that "the accursed “spirit of Vatican II” is dedicated to wounding the Sacred Heart of Jesus through continuous assaults on the Blessed Sacrament." Catholics who love and adore Him are not bound by a false obedience to continue to countenance these abuses.  

The path before us lies clearly lit by the lamp of obedience to God, not to men. Not to false shepherds. Catholics of goodwill should seek refuge now, on His feast day,  in His most Sacred Heart.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus calls Catholics to make reparation for the outrages committed against Him in the Blessed Sacrament. But what if some of the gravest offenses came not from outside the Church, but from within? Drawing on the warnings of Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davies, and Fr. Raymond Dulac, this article examines the Vatican II revolution and its devastating impact on faith in the Eucharist.

 

“Could He Who willed to give men the treasure of His Body and Blood have failed at the same time to give them the mission and strength to defend it? Have no doubt: the fate of the Catholic Mass is today in our hands.” (Fr. Raymond Dulac, October 1969, In Defence of the Roman Mass, p. 162)

 

Fr. John Croiset was St. Margaret Mary Alocoque’s spiritual director and wrote The Devotion to the Sacred Heart in 1691, the year after the saint’s death. In the book’s chapter on the motives and sentiments with which we should practise devotion to the Sacred Heart, Fr. Croiset began with the following:

 

“As the holiness and merit of our actions depend on the motive for these actions and the spirit in which they are performed, the practice of this most holy devotion to the Sacred Heart will not bear its proper fruit if it is not animated by the motive which is essential to the devotion.

 

This motive, as has been already explained, is to make reparation, as far as is in our power, by our love and adoration and by every kind of homage, for all the indignities and outrages which Jesus Christ has suffered in the course of the ages and which He still suffers daily at the hands of wicked men in the Blessed Eucharist. It is with this spirit and these sentiments that we should perform the practices which are here proposed.” (p. 167)

For sixty years, the Vatican has been promoting abuses against the Blessed Sacrament, adding mountains of offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus every single day.

Tweet this quote

It is perhaps easy to imagine that outrages against the Blessed Sacrament are a relatively recent evil, but we can see that Fr. Croiset referred to the “daily” outrages which Jesus suffers at the hands of wicked men. Indeed, later in his chapter on the motivations for practicing the devotion, he identified the first sacrilege against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament:

 

“After doing everything for us and giving everything in order to show us how much He loved us, He gave us His own Body and Blood, He gave us Himself whole and entire in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar, and if He had anything better or more precious, He would have given it to us also. There is neither place which repels Him, not man, however miserable that disgusts Him, not time which obliges Him to defer His gift.

 

Nevertheless, this marvelous condescension, this prodigious gift, the stupendous love which has amazed both Heaven and earth, has not been able to protect Him from the ingratitude and outrages of men. The first distribution of Holy Communion at the Last Supper was dishonored by the most horrible of all sacrileges, and this horrible sacrilege has been followed during the ages by all the outrages and profanations that Hell could invent.” (p. 168)

 

 

As holy as these words are, it seems that Fr. Croiset was sadly mistaken in suggesting that the world had already seen in the 1600s all of the sacrileges that Hell could invent. Since Vatican II, Hell has unleashed a special category of outrages against the Blessed Sacrament, one that makes those detailed by Fr. Croiset seem almost pious in comparison: the institutionalized attacks on the Eucharist carried out by the ostensible hierarchy in the name of the Vatican II revolution.

 

The accounts below are from men who saw these unfathomably grave offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus as they were developing. They were ignored at the time. If Catholics today are serious about honoring the Sacred Heart, it is time for us to take their words seriously.

 

Cardinal Ottaviani Was Partly Blind But Saw It All in 1962

 

Michael Davies began his Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II with the famous story of Cardinal Ottaviani’s intervention at Vatican II:

 

“During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: ‘Are these Fathers planning a revolution?’ The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart about a subject that moved him deeply: ‘Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite that had been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar?

 

The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.’” (p. 1)

 

Already in 1962, Cardinal Ottaviani saw the inevitable scandals involved with fundamental changes to the Mass. Michael Davies continued his narration of the moment by describing the way in which the Council Fathers welcomed Ottaviani’s prophetic warning:

 

“So concerned was the elderly Cardinal at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, due to his very poor sight, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The Council Fathers clapped with glee . . . .” (p. 1)

The liturgical reform is in a very deep sense the key to the aggiornamento. Make no mistake, this is the starting point of the revolution.

Tweet this quote

In hindsight, Cardinal Ottaviani was right, and those Council Fathers who cheered the humiliation were wrong. But there is more to it. As Professor Roberto de Mattei wrote in his The Second Vatican Council (an untold story), “Bishop Helder Câmara saw in that applause the emergence of ‘the spirit of the council’” (p. 220). On the other side of the spectrum, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre described the incident as follows:

 

“I was ashamed for the bishops who behaved in such a deplorable manner toward one of the best among them. Such things are like a curse. They are certainly at the origin of the blindness which has struck so many bishops today. How could one believe in the presence of the Holy Spirit under such conditions?” (Vatican Encounter, p. 63)

 

Bishop Câmara and Archbishop Lefebvre were both right: the disgraceful humiliation of one of the Council’s true voices of Tradition, Cardinal Ottaviani, was both a curse and the fountainhead of the spirit of the Council.

 

Fittingly, one of the most accurate early diagnoses of the Novus Ordo Missae is from the so-called Ottaviani Intervention, a 1969 study of the new Mass. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote the following to Paul VI in the letter accompanying the study:

 

“The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever.

 

Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy, the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.”

 

In his view, the new Mass would undermine the faith of Catholics, which would invariably lead to greater offenses against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. If only the Council Fathers had listened to his warning seven years earlier…

Given that we still see blasphemous “creativeness” with alarming frequency today, one must ask: why has the Vatican continued to tolerate these abuses for so many decades?

Tweet this quote

 

Leo welcomes an heretical Archbishopress to St Peter's but not his faithful priest Fr Davide Pagliarani

 

What Archbishop Lefebvre Saw in 1986

 

In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre described three photographs of the Novus Ordo Missae that had been published in Catholic newspapers:

First. “I have before me some photos published in Catholic newspapers representing the Mass as it is now often said. Looking at the first photo, I find it difficult to understand at what moment of the Holy Sacrifice it has been taken. Behind an ordinary wooden table, which does not appear very clean and which has no cloth covering it, two persons wearing suits and ties elevate or present, one a chalice, the other a ciborium. The text informs me they are priests, one of them the federal chaplain of Catholic Action. On the same side of the table, close to the first celebrant, are two girls wearing trousers, and near the second celebrant, two boys in sweaters. A guitar is placed against a stool.”

 

Second. “In another photo, the scene is the corner of a room, which might be the main room of a youth club. The priest is standing, wearing a Taizé-like alb, before a milking-stool which serves as an altar; there is a large earthenware bowl and a small mug of the same sort, together with two lighted candle-ends. Five young people are sitting cross-legged on the floor, one of them strumming a guitar.”

 

Third. “The third photo shows an event which occurred a few years ago, the cruise of some ecologists who were seeking to prevent the French atomic experiments on the Isle of Mururoa.

 

Amongst them was a priest who celebrated Mass on the deck of the sailing ship, in the company of two other men. All three were wearing shorts; one is even stripped to the waist. The priest is raising the Host, no doubt for the elevation. He is neither standing nor kneeling, but sitting or rather slumped against the boat’s superstructure.”

 

These three examples are shocking, of course. But the first is probably more reverent than the “youth Masses” in many parishes today. The second and third examples are extreme, but many of us have seen far more egregious examples from around the world in just the past few years. Archbishop Lefebvre continued by explaining a common feature among the three pictures:

 

“One common feature emerges from these scandalous pictures; the Eucharist is reduced to an everyday act, in commonplace surroundings, with commonplace utensils, attitudes, and clothing. Now the so-called Catholic magazines which are sold on church bookstalls do not show these photos in order to criticize such ways, but on the contrary, to recommend them.

 

La Vie even considers that that is not enough. Using in its habitual manner extracts from readers’ letters to express its own thoughts without having them attributed to itself, it says, ‘The liturgical reform must go further . . . the unnecessary repetitions, the same form of words ever repeated, all this regulation holds back creativeness.’”

 

Given that we still see blasphemous “creativeness” with alarming frequency today, one must ask: why has the Vatican continued to tolerate these abuses for so many decades?

Although Rome has long tried to persuade us otherwise, God wants us to open our eyes and observe reality in these matters.

Tweet this quote

Michael Davies on the Changes

 

In one of the particularly biting passages from Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, Michael Davies highlighted how the Vatican has responded to abuses over the years:

 

“Rome adopted the tactic of bringing illicit innovations to an end by making them licit and official. Communion was given in the hand illicitly — let it be given in the hand officially! Communion was illicitly distributed by laymen — then appoint laymen as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. . . . Communion was given under both kinds at Sunday Mass in defiance of Vatican legislation — the practice was legalized, and so it could not be claimed that the law concerning Communion under both kinds was being defied.

 

Liturgical law was broken by allowing female acolytes into the sanctuary. Female acolytes were legalized, so the law permitting only male acolytes was no longer being broken — liturgical discipline had been restored!” (p. 57)

 

Although Rome has long tried to persuade us otherwise, God wants us to open our eyes and observe reality in these matters. If we do, then we can readily discern that this repeated pattern of legalizing abuses signals a complete disrespect for the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.

 

We should also keep in mind that Rome has not been unaware that the changes to the Mass have corresponded with a remarkable loss of faith and a corresponding disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament. Instead of taking real steps to correct them, though, those with the power to rectify the abuses only double-down on the practices that give rise to the abuses.

 

We might be tempted to claim that Rome has no real ability to intervene were it not for the fact that the Vatican has done so much to oppose the Traditional Latin Mass. Thus, we must conclude that the accursed “spirit of Vatican II” is dedicated to wounding the Sacred Heart of Jesus through continuous assaults on the Blessed Sacrament.

 

Catholic Sense from Fr. Raymond Dulac

 

Fr. Raymond Dulac (1903-1987) was a canon lawyer who authored several articles about the liturgical changes for the bi-monthly review Courrier de Rome. Among these articles (published together in an English edition, In Defence of the Roman Mass), is one from October 10, 1969 entitled “The Motives for Our Resistance.” It is remarkable for its simple and powerful willingness to portray reality as seen with the eyes of the Catholic Faith. He began by explaining why he was writing on this topic for the fifth time:

 

“If we are returning for the fifth time to the Mass which Paul VI substituted one fine day in April of this year for a Mass which is fifteen centuries old, it is firstly because of the good that is at stake, but also because the event, taken in itself, in its structure alone, is a revelation. It is like being able to see the naked beating heart of the Church’s auto-demolition.

 

The procedures used for the last four years to imperceptibly prepare the faithful for this double-meaning Mass can now be clearly seen everywhere: in the reform of the seminaries, universities, religious orders, theology and catechism books, and the hierarchy. Quidquid latet apparebit . . . .” (p. 159)

 

Fr. Dulac was certain that these changes were all part of an effort to destroy the Catholic Church. For those who still had the unadulterated Faith and were paying attention to Rome’s actions, there was no other sensible explanation.

 

Fr. Dulac continued with an assertion that seems to explain why so few Catholics seem to understand the very basic issues today — all of the contradictory nonsense from Rome to promote the Vatican II revolution had left Catholics completely bewildered and effectively unable to resist evil developments, even in 1969:

 

“With a haste difficult to explain, the demolishers this time threw off the mask, as if they felt certain henceforward of the perfect malleability of the faithful whom they had bewildered with their uninterrupted succession of contradictory declarations, sham promises, ‘experiments,’ opinion polls, and statistics, all crowned by the inevitable references to ‘Vatican II.’ But this ambiguous Council never dreamt of a like upheaval of the Liturgy.” (pp. 159-160)

 

This wisdom is absolutely essential and yet little appreciated. Even in 1969, Fr. Dulac could see that those leading the revolution were deliberately working to overcome the natural Catholic resistance to these unholy changes. “Obey-obey-obey,” they said, even as they themselves were disobeying many of the key teachings that God has given us through His Church. All of this has led to countless offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Not all participants in the revolution were malicious, but many of its most powerful leaders knew that they were overthrowing the Catholic Church.

Tweet this quote

As Fr. Dulac described, these conclusions are not merely a matter of cynical speculation, for we have the admissions of the revolution’s architects:

“The so-called post-Conciliar revolution starts here. It is not we who say so, but one of the conspirators, Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, the tireless orator of the ‘European’ symposium. ‘The liturgical reform is in a very deep sense the key to the aggiornamento. Make no mistake, this is the starting point of the revolution.’ (words spoken [by Archbishop Dwyer] in Rome at the end of the 1967 Synod and reported in La Croix of 25th October 1967).” (p. 160)

For those who are interested in discovering the truth of what happened at the Council and in its aftermath, there is no shortage of admissions such as this from those who led the revolution. Not all participants in the revolution were malicious, but many of its most powerful leaders knew that they were overthrowing the Catholic Church.

 

Fr. Dulac continued by putting all of this within the light of God’s Providence:

 

“Yes, Providence has willed to make us live in a time when these very common truths can be abused. But is there a single spiritual good which the Father of Lies has not ceaselessly tried to misappropriate? Should we allow ourselves to be caught in this trap? Should we compromise truth in order to obey an authority which only retains its power to command if itself, in the first place, observes obedience to the Faith?” (p. 161)

 

God has permitted these evils for a reason, but it would be a mistake to imagine that we are to mutate our Catholic Faith to follow the shepherds who seek to lead us to perdition. As such, we cannot simply follow the same path that we would in normal times:

 

“In normal times, the spirit of childhood which he received in Baptism makes the Catholic surrender himself to his leaders with his eyes closed. In so doing, he follows the doctrine of Saint Paul: ‘Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account for your souls’ (Hebrews XIII, 17).

 

Yes, in normal times! But what about a time when one who is to be the visible rock of the Church contents himself with shedding tears over what he calls his ‘authorization’? In a time when we see prelates sleeping instead of watching, following the flock instead of going ahead of it and abandoning the sheep instead of giving their lives to defend them?” (p. 161)

 

It is good to recall that Fr. Dulac wrote these words in 1969, when the crisis was far less evident and painful than it is now. However, even then he saw that the ordinary obedience with “eyes closed” was not appropriate because it was not “normal times.” When those whom we should normally obey are leading the attacks on the Sacred Heart of Jesus, we no longer have a right to blindly follow them.

 

We live in confusing times, but not everything is confusing. For sixty years, the Vatican has been promoting abuses against the Blessed Sacrament, adding mountains of offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus every single day.

 

During this same time, the Vatican has been persecuting Traditional Catholics, who simply want to know, love, and serve God as faithfully as possible. God alone can resolve this diabolical disorientation.

 

In the meantime, our love for the Sacred Heart requires us to follow the holy wisdom of Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Dulac, and Michael Davies rather than the blasphemous impiety of Helder Câmara, Annibale Bugnini, Francis, and Tucho. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/sacred-heart-vatican-ii-revolution-mass/

 

 

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us who have recourse to thee