“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 practice 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
