On 7 December 1968, for the third anniversary of the closing of the Council, Pope Paul VI declared: « The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one could almost say of auto-demolition. It is like an inward upheaval, complex and full of anguish, such as no one would have expected after the Council… »

I beg your pardon! The Letter of the Abbé de Nantes to Cardinal Ottaviani of 16 July 1966 attests that the founder of the Catholic Counter-Reformation had expected and announced it, and he denounced it as a movement of apostasy and idolatry under the guise of a Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy (Masdu).

Pope Paul VI knew it full well; he had been informed of the explicit, well motivated, public accusations that the Abbé de Nantes had formulated against him and against the Second Vatican Council. In fact, one day in 1965, before the closing of the Council, Cardinal Marty, Archbishop of Reims at the time, complained to the Pope and told him that the Abbé de Nantes’ critiques were hindering the progress of the conciliar reform. Paul VI threw his arms up in the air saying: « How can he say: the Pope is a heretic! »

In fact, that is precisely the problem!

Mgr Le Couëdic came back from the Council in December of the same year with the order to silence the Abbé de Nantes. He enjoined him 1o to leave the diocese, 2o to stop publishing the Letters to My Friends, under pain of interdict, without further explanation. Our Father appealed to Rome and won his case: the collection of the Letters to My Friends was submitted to a doctrinal examination. While awaiting the judgement of the Roman authorities, the writing of these Letters could continue but under the bishop’s censor. In consideration of this, we were authorised to remain at Saint-Parres…

Well! Forty years have passed. We are still waiting for the judgement… It may be said that for forty years the entire history of the Church can be summed up in the history of the derelictions of duty by which the reformist party, which triumphed at the Council, turned a deaf ear to the appeals of the Abbé de Nantes, pursued its « permanent reform » of the Church, yet without succeeding in stifling the Catholic Counter-Reformation. This proves that the Church is still the Church. « The precarious survival of an oppressed traditionalist school, of an openly counter-reformist minority, is a sign that the Church cannot be absorbed by any sect, and that the divine will never be supplanted by the human in her living Magisterium. Beyond all the Reform, Dialogue, Ecumenism, Opening to and Service of the World and the Cult of Man », all the themes of the Second Vatican Council that were studied in the camp last year, « there remains the Church, which is “God’s great thought about the World”, the inviolably faithful Bride of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and I add, because this word specifies the mainspring of all our hope, Roman. » (ibid.)

It was to this One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church that the Abbé de Nantes appealed, without letting himself be discouraged, even though Rome did everything it could to avoid making a decision, to avoid judging… until today! But what becomes every day more obvious is that the facts are sufficient to render a judgement.

The tree is known by its fruit.

THE FRUITS OF THE COUNCIL: A DIABOLICAL INFESTATION

In 1968, Paul VI also said: « We had expected to see, rather, an expansion and flourishing of the ideas ripened in the great sessions of the Council. This aspect exists also, but... it is the sad aspect that is the more prominent. It is as though the Church were striking herself. »

In his Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, by which he was introducing his cause, the Abbé de Nantes drew up the list – in 1966! – of the wounds of the Church who was « striking herself ». You are going to recognise the picture of our present situation. Thus, it has lasted forty years!

« Abandonment of religious dress by priests and even by consecrated virgins.

« The drying up of piety and contempt for devotions dear to the Church.

« Priests are no longer to be seen praying before or visiting the Blessed Sacrament.

« Benediction and other services have practically disappeared from France’s forty thousand parish churches. All that is left is Sunday worship.

« A Christian sense of decency has ceased to exist,

« ecclesiastical celibacy is denigrated,

« penance is proscribed.

« External signs of the faith, emblems, statues and insignia, are no longer appreciated ». That is an understatement. Today they have disappeared!

« There are many priests who have banned the Rosary and the image of the divine Crucifix even from their churches. » Or His Cross, as at Lisieux, in the chapel of the Carmel!

« Catholic organisations and publications seek every means to appear as little “denominational” as possible. » The journal La Croix sets the tone.

Furthermore, « the innovators hold up for our admiration and service everything that is not the Church. They recommend that we be affiliated to and cooperate with all sorts of organisations, parties and works, secular and even atheist, whose exclusive goal is of a temporal order. »

This was the assessment six months after the closing of the Council. On 1 July 1972, Paul VI once again bemoaned: « Through some crack the fumes of Satan have entered the temple of God. »

« The fumes of Satan ? » Exactly! In his Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, the Abbé de Nantes asked the question: « Does the storm, this great wind of subversion that rose in the Church come from the Holy Spirit or from the Spirit of Satan? »

The cardinal did not answer, but six years later the Pope found himself forced to answer himself: Yes, it was true. There is a crack… the Devil entered through it.

Given that « this “Spirit” changes the Church into a People without a precise faith, without sacramental vitality, without moral strength, the Abbé de Nantes observed, a People who will soon no longer have priests, nuns, monks, or missionaries, no converts or defenders animated with an exclusive and absolute fidelity », it was clear that the new Spirit, the Spirit of the Council, could not be the Holy Spirit.

« We should have expected the dawn following the Council, Paul VI also said, to be a day of sunshine for the Church. But we have had new storms. We are doing our best to create new chasms instead of filling them in. But what has happened? We will confide to you our thought: that an adverse power has intervened – the Devil – that mysterious being, this enemy of all men, this supernatural thing (?) has appeared in order to ruin and dry up the fruits of the Ecumenical Council… »

This « thing » is Someone, and here is the truth: He did not have to seek a « crack » because the Council itself opened the door to him.

The door that was opened by which the Adversary entered was the suppression of the Holy Office. Cardinal Frings, advised by Fr. Ratzinger, obtained this suppression in accordance with a principle set down by John XXIII in his opening speech « on the thrice ill-fated day of 11 October 1962, when the Pastors of the Church decided to condemn no longer schismatics, heretics and atheists or their accomplices », entertaining an old claim of Modernism that refuses the Church the right to pronounce anathemas. The Abbé de Nantes immediately described this “pastoral” decision of « the Church in a state of Council », as a « declaration of spiritual polygamy, let us say the word, of adultery. Christ’s Church also accepts the embrace, the stamp, and the seed of the other religions and doctrines. She sits at the table of the demons! » (Letter to My Friends n° 248, 29 June 1967).

In fact, « the unadorned truth is that the abandoning of religious vows, as well as of all obligation of subjection, is where the conciliar declaration on religious freedom is heading » (Letter to My Friends n° 242, Lent 1967, p. 5). In virtue of this « Satan roams freely round the Church. He debauches monks and nuns, as he did in Luther’s heyday. » (Letter to My Friends n° 250, 25 August 1967, p. 2) « It is not the Church who is going to the dance, it is the dance that is coming to the Church, and Satan is calling the tune! » (n° 251, 15 September 1967, p. 10)

Well! An initial victory against the Devil that the Abbé de Nantes, founder of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, won in 1967 was to obtain the re-opening of the Holy Office in 1968… for himself!

It was not without effort.

In order to institute the proceedings of his appeal to Rome, our Father had therefore left his Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani at the Bishop’s House at Troyes for transmission to Rome through official channels. Monseigneur judged this petition to be “offensive”, and refused to transmit it.

Our Father had asked him to do it in accordance with Law, and had given him a copy so that he could take cognizance of it, not that he was obliged by Law to do so, but out of courtesy. He informed him that he would send it to all the bishops of France, then « later on, out of consideration for his Eminence the Cardinal and Our Lord Bishops, I will communicate it to my friends, in virtue of the principles of freedom and publicity that have become the rule in the Church in our days ».

By refusing to transmit the Letter to Ottaviani and the file of the Letters to My Friends, the object of the dispute, Mgr Le Couëdic was putting an end, on his own initiative, to the entire proceedings before they began! This is the first denial of justice that would be followed by many others.

Furthermore, the bishop forbade the Abbé de Nantes to publish this Letter under pain of suspens a divinis. « They wanted to hush up the affair! I carried on regardless, and I published my petition to Cardinal Ottaviani so that my cry would not be lost in the desert. »

It was sent to the readers of the Letter to My Friends on 13 August 1966. On the 25th, Mgr Le Couëdic imposed a suspens a divinis on the Abbé de Nantes. This sanction forbade him every ecclesiastical function, including the celebration of Holy Mass in the Diocese of Troyes, on the ground that « the ideas and the terms of this lampoon are very gravely insulting to the Council, the Bishops and the Holy Father himself », the bishop declared.

The whole question is to know whether it is the Abbé de Nantes who insults the Council, the bishops, and the Holy Father by falsely accusing them of heresy, schism, and scandal, or whether it is the Council, the bishops, and the Holy Father who insult God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary and the saints by their Reform of the Church. For example, was it insulting for Mgr Le Couëdic himself on his return from the first session to write in his Diocesan Review that the Church has espoused the world at the Council! But it is an appalling adultery, our Father protested. Where is the insult? Is it in the Abbé de Nantes’ remarks or in this known adultery, which Mgr Le Couëdic acknowledges?

PROFESSION OF FAITH.

« The Church is the Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Abbé de Nantes recalled. He expects from her the decision and the impulse to return. By the virtue of the irrevocable gift of the Holy Spirit that has been given to her, we firmly believe that the Church retains in her faithful, in her Doctors, in her Saints, and finally in her indefectible Magisterium, the energies needed today for her recovery. » (Letter to My Friends no 242, Lent 1967)

This explains his persevering appeal to this Magisterium, even today (cf. my letter to Mgr Stenger on 18 November 2007, in He is Risen, no 63, December 2007, pp. 2-3), because the whole question depends on the discernment of “Spirits”. The Abbé de Nantes asked for it in terms that Mgr Le Couëdic judged to be “offensive” because they were extraordinarily accusatory, and this prelate felt targeted.

« The Spirit in whom we believe has been perfectly made known to us; He is the Holy Spirit. We know whence He comes: He proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one and the same Principle. His mission has been revealed to us: just as the Father sent His Son Jesus into this world to save it, so the Father and the Son send Their Holy Spirit to continue this work of redemption, by guarding the Revelation of Christ, by assisting His Church, by spreading His grace and His charity through all the members of His Mystical Body. There are no shadows, equivocation or contradiction in the Holy Spirit. His rays are all light. Come from Heaven, from God, on the day of the one and eternal Pentecost, He rested on the Apostles and remains in the teaching Church, from generation to generation. His mission is one of tradition, not of evolution, reform or subversion. He inspires penance, conversion, religious instruction and the sanctification of the faithful, not their secularisation, liberation, socialisation or laicisation. »

« This Holy Spirit could not free Himself from Jesus Christ who, being God and Word of God, is, with the Father, His Unique Principle. Neither could He detach Himself from the Church that is His own, nor take sides against her since the Church is the very work of His divine power and the form of His holy operations. »

« On the contrary, He inspires all men, but more especially the faithful and still more the Pastors of the flock, with esteem, respect and love for all that is Catholic, and with a defiance, contempt and hatred for errors and disorders inimical to it. He neither hesitates nor compromises. He is a Spirit of Light and of Truth, pushing back the shadows and exorcising the world of the Powers of Hell. In a word, He is the Holy Spirit. » (Letter to My Friends n° 231)

It suffices to recall these elementary truths in order to understand that this is not “the spirit of the Council”. Then, « the most urgent and implacable question of our times, the Abbé de Nantes wrote, is to know Who is this Spirit, Who sent him, and the nature of this flame that he kindles in the heart of Christians. »

Our Father ended his petition to Cardinal Ottaviani with these lines:

« Forget, Eminence, the little that we are. Raise your eyes to Our Lord Jesus Christ and, aided, upheld and surrounded by the august assembly of this Supreme Sacred Congregation, teach us to distinguish among the different Spirits disputing the Saviour’s blessed inheritance, where the Holy Spirit of God is and where the Spirit of Evil. Fortified by your knowledge and armed with your commands, we shall regain peace. »

To begin, our Father himself wanted « to forget » the injustice of the episcopal sanction so as not to lose sight of his objective: the opening of a canonical trial in the court of Rome. This is why he scrupulously submitted to this suspension.

In the months to come, the Holy Office set to work « in its time-honoured and impressive way, whereby nothing is left to chance and everything is judged according to the Rule of Faith », our Father wrote. But it was due to him who had forced them to do so! It was the First Victory. For « by submitting my demonstrations, my cries, my anathemas against the Masdu of the Pope and the Council to the tribunal of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, it was in reality their work that I was referring to its tribunal. »

While awaiting the opening of this « trial », since Mgr Le Couëdic unilaterally broke the agreement that had been signed the preceding 29 December, the Abbé de Nantes regained his freedom of expression, and it was an advantage of the operation. Freed from the clause that compelled him to be silent, he took up his pen again in order to « explain ever better the tragedy into which the Church was sinking ».

« A SORT OF PERMANENT EXCOMMUNICATION »

One year after the closing of the Council, in January 1967, he assessed the catastrophic situation of this first postconciliar year. He compared « the appalling moral dissolution » that had followed the “opening” of the Church to a corrupted world with « a large iceberg » of which « only a tenth of the size shows on the surface and can be seen ». Forty years afterwards, the evil is plain for all to see in its full depth and scope.

Our Father had foreseen it in the same Letter:

« It is too easy to blame the fault on “the pagan world” and its “obsessive eroticism” ». This is what Benedict XVI did at the White House this year. « No one commanded the bishops, priests, or moralists, to open the Church to that world and to lead Christians to live in a pagan manner. Worse yet, the example comes from above, slackening is taught and imposed on the faithful, who were not asking for it. Whether one likes it or not, the evil goes back to the Council that promised us and made us, despite so many feigned reluctances and so much verbal deftness, a facile, worldly, carnal religion without sin, grace, cross, penance, without Heaven, Hell, temporal punishments or last judgement. “Hardly easy”, as Guitton likes to justify it! Henceforth, the (apparent) Church no longer cultivates heroic virtues, but she disguises vices in order to assume them in a new Christianity.

« First, lust is bursting out at every level. From “theology” books that rival with books on anatomy and pornography to summaries of the Catholic press and to catechism sheets in which the discovery of sex becomes the essential revelation to be brought to the world. We have been immersed all year long in the nauseating problem of the pill, in the muck of enquiries on the marriage of priests… Rome, moreover, has ceased to protect the vows of consecrated souls, and consequently endorses the defections, and gives them legal forms. The haemorrhages for venereal causes are taking alarming proportions. Those who are responsible are at the Head. Even more serious, youth cannot be entrusted without serious risk to mandated educational institutions or movements because they are spoiled by coeducation, sexual initiation, and sexual “mysticism”. The postconciliar Church has brought devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the saints “into proportion”, alas! Here she is invaded by the cult of Sex and the divinisation of Love! If God does not strike this new Gomorrah, Paul VI will soon be no more than this shepherd about whom the Gospel tells us, “His master sent him to his farm to tend the swine” (Lk 15:15) » (Letter n° 240, p. 2)

Here is the explanation for this dissolute living: « Consecrated virginity like celibacy are only secondary graces that depend entirely on the primary purity of the Faith. The latter is slackening, and that is why the former is becoming corrupt. » (Letter n° 248, June 1967, p. 2)

Not only in America! Everyone celebrated the anniversary of May 1968, from La Croix to Famille chrétienne, seriously seeking its causes. It suffices to read number 8 of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, of May 1968, in order to understand how, at that time, « from Paul VI to Cardonnel, from General de Gaulle to Cohn-Bendit, the same declared will of Reform » led to « sexual freedom » and “total” Revolution.

With regard to “General de Gaulle”, the Abbé de Nantes remarked that he always had a « word to suit the situation. But as for the idea, it was the utopia of that time: “Yes to Reform, no to chaos.” »

With regard to Paul VI: « On 25 April, the Holy Father in his speech: “Yes, but no…” took the same risk in a different sphere and in a different language: Yes to Reform, but no to Revolution… This is tantamount to proclaiming too loudly that both are along the same line, have the same objective, but are different in approach. The one is violent and radical; the other, nonviolent and moderate. One is tremendous; the other, mediocre. » Here is the proof:

« This evening of Epiphany 1967, I listened to the Vicar of Jesus Christ sing the praise of Communist China and its Red Guards from the height of St. Peter’s throne for all to hear. Between their fifth atomic bomb explosion and the Nankin massacres, the time was well chosen! »

« “We wish to tell the youth of China with what emotion and affection We look upon its present striving towards the ideals of a new life of hard work, prosperity, and harmony… We send our good wishes to China – so far from Us geographically, but so close spiritually… We should like to speak about peace also with those who are today in charge of the life of mainland China. We know to what an extent that human and Christian ideal is shared also by the people of China.”

« What a revelation of feelings! This harmony between Paul VI and Mao, between the innovators in the Church and the Red Guards, the mad dogs of Asia, shows up and intensifies the discord between civilised people, between Catholics. Why attempt to conceal it? »

« How can it be denied any longer that there exists between this Pope and this Council, this New Church on the one hand and ourselves on the other, a sort of permanent excommunication? »

It was in this Letter of 6 January 1967 that it was question for the first time of “Catholic Counter-Reformation”. The Letters to My Friends would become under this title a periodical. Its first issue would come out in October as a providential response of God! – for we only establish the parallel today forty years later – a counter-attack, a refutation to Cardinal Bea, who said to the (so-called) Anglican bishop Robinson: « The Counter-Reformation is finished. » (quoted by our Father in Letter number 251, 15 September 1967)

The following month number 1 of the CCR, Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth Century came out…

The assessment of the situation in January 1967 is important because today everyone reverses the roles by explaining the Church’s present crisis by May 1968, instead of recognising that May 1968 was the fruit of the Council.

Benedict XVI claims that May 1968 prevented the Council from bearing its fruits… which he is still awaiting today, but Benedict XVI himself is the most effective and surest ally of the Revolution, as was Paul VI in 1968… in keeping with the Council! Here is the proof: he extends his hand to China in the same way… But he does not do so to us! – whom he leaves in « a sort of permanent excommunication »…

« If there is a break, if there is distrust, enmity, repression, it is not between revolutionary extremism and the hierarchy, but between the latter and our traditionalism, which it defames, refuses to hear, and muzzles […]. We must openly reckon all the authorities and all the forces of the present-day Church are against our fidelity, against our convictions and our combats borne of being good Catholics and good Frenchmen. »

Our Father was truly alone in this battle of Counter-Reformation, the lone architect of a reaction.

He became the undisputed exponent of “traditionalism”. For his part, Mgr Lefebvre did not budge. He merely contented himself with encouraging the Abbé de Nantes in private:

« As you say, he wrote to him, the evil is above all at Rome and in the Pope. It is impossible to escape it. »

REVOLUTION, A FRUIT OF THE COUNCIL.

But let us return to “May 1968”. Its true initiator was Rev. Fr Cardonnel, O.P., whom the Abbé de Nantes had denounced in February 1968, two months before the events:

« Here is the heresiarch of the twentieth century, the Luther or the Lammenais of our time, finally revealed: Jean Cardonnel, Dominican, from the convent of Montpellier, a disciple of Fr. Chenu and a friend of Fr. Congar, Doctor in revolutionary theology at Témoignage Chrétien. It was during their workday of 5 October 1967 “to define the main orientations of the year” that “Fr. Cardonnel, at the request of Témoignage chrétien, presented the theological choice that must be asked of the Church today […]. Loud applause greeted his peroration, which announced apostasy and blossomed into blasphemy:

« “I do not know; I cannot foresee where the passion to bring every man close to men, to bring the human masses close to every man will lead me. Where will this Passion lead us? It will lead us to the coming of human masses in a radiant form of humanity. So, may the Church disappear so that the world may come. May the Solitary, Almighty God die, so that Solidaristic God may live to the full!”

« Well! Here is a hearty fellow… » Bernard Schreiner, whom our Father calls “the ‘Red Pioneer’ of Strasbourg”, « head of the organisation of the Friends of Témoignage chrétien, presents his manifesto without leaving anything veiled in shadow: “The year that is beginning may be a key year for the future of our country and of the Church… Of the Church, because the virtual standstill, after the progress of the Council, makes it feared that her renovation was only considered on the institutional level by strengthening her organisation but by leaving aside the necessary revolution of the Christians’ mentalities and attitudes towards the world.” » Thus, we are well in the line, the continuation, “the Spirit of the Council”…

The Abbé de Nantes engaged in a thorough study of Cardonnel’s “theology” foreseeing the devastating effects that would break out three months later.

MAY 1968: THE COUNCIL IN THE DOCK

The Abbé de Nantes was summoned to Bishop’s House in Troyes on Good Friday 12 April 1968. He received the order to go to Rome for the preliminary investigation of his trial at the Holy Office. He arrived there on Thursday 25th, the day of the general audience.

On that day, as though by chance, Paul VI spoke to pilgrims about “the serious postconciliar crisis of the faith”, telling them how deep was his apprehension and great his bitterness to see apostasy spreading and the Devil acting in the very heart of the Church. But, it was a reason to ask of them their filial adhesion to the Church, in particular, to the teaching of the Council! Truly it was the Devil biting his own tail!

In the meanwhile, on the same day, after having celebrated Holy Mass at the altar of St. Pius X in St. Peter’s, our Father entered the palace of the Holy Office. Kneeling, he kissed the ground « in a sign of admiration, gratitude, and submission ».

Mgr Philippe, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as this dicastery was called henceforth, opened the session by asking the Abbé de Nantes to keep the secret. Our Father accepted, but only until the conclusion of the trial; when the sentence would be pronounced, he would be released from the secret.

The consultors began by blaming him for falsely interpreting the Council as a sack of heresies. Our Father replied by placing on the table the “Fonds commun obligatoire” of the new catechism that the French bishops had just published, saying:

« Before accusing me of wrongly interpreting the Council, observe that it is the very interpretation that our bishops give it, and judge the results: this heretical catechism will soon poison the children of France.

– For the moment, it is you whom we are judging. This book will be the object of the examination of this Congregation, if the Holy Father thinks it right to do so.

The consultors, two Dominican “friends” of our Father, good Thomist theologians, and a Jesuit, Fr. Dhanis, in whom Pope Paul VI had entire confidence, the great adversary of Sister Lucy, the seer of Fatima, had studied the file of the Abbé de Nantes, with a view to finding errors at all cost.

A certain “traditionalism” might be blameworthy – and it has been in the past – for its narrow-mindedness, its “integrism”; the consultors did not find a trace of it in the writings of our Father, and for good reason (cf. Letter to My Friends no 151, 1 September 1963).

But they asked him trick questions:

Are pagans capable of having natural virtues?

– Yes, most certainly. Today, we know that the Third Secret of Fatima calls them « the souls that were making their way to God ». Nevertheless, « the gods of the pagans are demons », and the conciliar declaration Nostra ætate is heretical!

Is the baptism of heretics valid?

– Yes, of course, in certain cases; nevertheless, the conciliar decree Unitatis redintegratio is schismatic.

Cannot the idea of Christendom have taken on very different forms throughout the course of time?

– Of course. But not that of the secular and profane world of Gaudium et Spes!

Does not the Holy See have the right to collaborate with Communist governements?

– Yes, of course. Just as Marshal Pétain had the right to collaborate with Hitler… but in order to protect prisoners and the occupied zone… I mean: the martyrs and the Uniates, and not to betray them.

Thus it was that during the twelve days of the preliminary investigation, the accused turned himself into an accuser. His examiners became defenders of the accused: the new reformed religion. Collegiality, the servant Church, religious freedom, openness to the world, peace, culture… every subject was examined. On all this, the Abbé de Nantes was unbeatable; we saw so in last summer’s Phalangist camp. The worst was that these theologians were in agreement with him: Yes, Masdu exists, but not in the Council, nor in the thinking and the acts of the Pope. Take on Cardonnel; no one will say anything, but not the Pope.

« Poor, admirable Roman theologians, our Father thought. How I would have liked to share your good faith! But when you ended up believing that I was carried away by your example or convinced by your authority, I was only measuring the abyss that separated you from the rest of the Church and from the Pope himself. I remained sore but inert to your appeal: “Tell us simply that you accept the Council and that you have faith in the Holy Father, a pure, simple adhesion without reserve. We will not ask anything more of you!” »

« It had to be brought to an end. I dictated to the Italian clerk:

« Est, est. Non, non.

– What does that mean? the president asked me.

– That means that what is, is and remains so, independent of my accusations.

– … Thus you persist in your criticism of the Acts of the Pope and the Council?

– Yes.” »

THE RECORD WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED.

« At the end of the preliminary investigation, the Abbé de Nantes wrote, I was invited to read and countersign the record written by the ecclesiastical clerk of the court. But this man was Italian, and he manifestly did not understand anything. The judges and I agreed: this document was inadmissible. What should be done? Who, in three days, could write a precise, accurate, exhaustive and, most of all, impartial report concerning these long hours of subtle theological debate? The judges, quite embarrassed, entrusted this task... to the plaintiff.

« I thus wrote the record of my own trial. I was a good plaintiff. I avoided showing myself in too good a light, and I omitted some of my damning rejoinders, when their task of defending the Council and Paul VI’s heresy threw them into the most awkward of positions.

« On the appointed day, the judges read, approved and countersigned the minutes written by the plaintiff. This document was the only one by which the tribunal of the cardinals and the Pope himself learned of the matter later on. I believe that this fact is unique in the annals of Holy Office! »

What do you believe happened?

On 1 July 1968, the Abbé de Nantes was summoned to Rome in order to sign there a pure and simple retraction of all his criticism of the Pope, the Council, the French bishops, with the promise to obey them, under the pain of excommunication, according to a formula in four points that had been approved by the Pope:

« 1° I declare that I submit to all the doctrinal and disciplinary acts of H.H. Pope Paul VI and of the Second Vatican Council as their nature requires and taking into account the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Council (cf. Lumen Gentium, no 25).

« 2° I retract the grave accusations that I have not feared to propagate against the acts of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Council. I express my sincere regret for these imputations. I especially disavow the accusation of heresy brought against Pope Paul VI and the aberrant conclusion I have drawn therefrom concerning the advisability of his deposition by the Cardinals.

« 3° To my Bishop and to the Episcopate of my nation I promise obedience in accordance with canonical norms.

« 4° I undertake always to speak and write with respect concerning the acts and teachings of the Pope, the Council and the Bishops. »

Our Father considered signing for the good of peace. From a doctrinal viewpoint, he was certain to be right, since no answer had been made to his accusations. But it is not enough to be right to remain a son of the Church, as he has reminded us time and again. This is the grand lesson of the history of all the crises of the past.

« NON POSSUM ».

Mgr Lefebvre, who at the time was superior general of the Fathers of the Holy Spirit, received our Father in audience and made it a duty for him to refuse to sign. We must underscore the good spirit of our Father who recognised in this very firm advice, « justified by the most invincible reasons » the indication of his duty. He did not have the idea of asking Mgr Lefebvre to accompany him to the Holy Office in order to explain the « invincible reasons » himself, that is, why he had to say, « Non possum! »

The Abbé de Nantes thus went alone: « Non vobis licet. Non possum! You may not. I cannot » At least, as regards the first three articles; the fourth only had to do with the « disputable » form, « I admit, of my writings ».

« The excommunication that would have had the « inevitable effect of canonising with a kind of subsequent infallibility and irrevocable necessity this accursed Council, as well as all words crossing the lips of the present Pope », never came… This proves that the Church is infallible. It was only in the following year, in May 1969, that the Abbé de Nantes was once again summoned to Bishop’s House in Troyes to meet with Cardinal Lefebvre, who had been charged by Cardinal Seper, the Prefect of the Holy Office, to present once again the formula of retraction to the accused and to have him sign it. Our Father objected to the person of the cardinal because he guaranteed the New Catechism and the note that the French episcopate had published in favour of contraception, against Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanæ Vitæ.

On 7 July 1969, Cardinal Seper enjoined the Abbé de Nantes to sign. Our Father answered with a magnificent Profession of Faith.

PROFESSION OF CATHOLIC FAITH
Letter to Cardinal Seper

Eminence,

« It is my honour to answer your ultimatum of 7 July in the following terms:

« 1° I declare my internal as well as my external adherence to all of the doctrinal acts of H.H. Paul VI, true and legitimate Pope, and of the Second Vatican Council, true and legitimate Ecumenical Council, as I do to all those of their predecessors, insofar as they are approved by their authors and are received by the entirety of the faithful as the authentic expression, free from all innovation and alteration, of the Apostolic Tradition, infallibly conserved by the ordinary or solemn Magisterium of the Roman Church.

« Which cannot be the case, on the authors’ own admission and by general consent, concerning the number of “pastoral” nay “prophetic” acts that I call in question, entirely or partially, absolutely or relatively, making my point both explicit and public in conformity with my right, and if I am not mistaken, my duty.

« The formula of retraction that is imposed on me leaves no possibility, not even in theory, of casting doubt on such acts of the Magisterium, as though I and I alone were required to hold them as indisputable and infallible a priori and a posteriori, Such a requirement, which would constrain me to a blind assent to every act of the Pope’s and the Council’s regardless of their official qualification, is exorbitant and patently contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. It constitutes a repugnant abuse of power.

I beg you, therefore, to amend your formula in an orthodox sense.

« 2° I declare that I submit to the disciplinary acts of the same legitimate authorities, for as much as their declared intention, real and recognised, is all to the honour of God and directed to the supernatural good of the Church and working for the sanctification of souls.

« Which is certainly not the case with the number of Acts, conveying “the reform of the Church”, “opening to the world”, “aggiornamento” and such like that have no connection with Catholic Discipline. I have the right, and, if I am not mistaken, the duty to reject and to criticise such acts insofar as they manifest an intention that is unquestionably contrary or alien to the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

« The formula imposed on me leaves no possibility, not even in theory, of hesitation with regard to the submission owing to such innovations, and though every reformist decision of this Council or of Paul VI had to be held by me, and by me alone, as though it proceeded from one indefectible man or assembly, incapable of error or mistake in their government of the Church. Such a requirement demands of me a general and unconditional obedience to fallible men, which is exorbitant and contrary to Catholic morality. There are cases, at least in theory, when “one must obey God rather than men”, even bishops or Pope.

« I beg you, therefore, to amend your formula in a human and Catholic sense.

« 3° I cannot in conscience retract the grave accusations that I have made in all lucidity and prudence against the reigning Pope and the Second Vatican Council for their so-called pastoral and reforming acts, because, after profound study, they seem to me to be contrary to the Catholic Faith and in practice they are manifestly the cause of the Church’s disorder and actual ruin. [Thirty years later, the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima will give extraordinary support to this observation of the state of the Church as « a great city half in ruins » through which the Holy Father passes.]

« There have been no solid objections to my analyses and demonstrations. To consider my demonstrations as temerarious and as calumnious imputations, a priori and without further proof or examination is a facile, ungracious expedient and worthless. » [And accomplishes nothing less than worsening the state of ruin.]

« The facts that are referred to in my writings are known to all and established beyond question. I am ready to withdraw any point that is found to have been invented or officially disavowed. The interpretation that I place on these facts is the interpretation that is constantly followed and generally declared by their authors and as received by public opinion. What others find praiseworthy precisely by virtue of its being a mutation of the Faith and revolutionary within the Church, I find blameworthy. It is not possible to forbid me, and me alone, to mention these facts and make note of their current interpretations, under the pretext that I deplore and reprobate them, whilst Modernists and Progressivists are everywhere free to claim these facts and interpretations and to shelter behind them in order to agitate the entire Church and to pervert souls.

« The formula that is imposed on me is not based on any repudiation of these facts or of their accepted interpretations; hence it represents a demand for total intellectual and moral resignation before the errors and faults of the innovators.

« 4° I cannot in conscience repudiate the charge of heresy that I have formulated on several specific and public occasions against Pope Paul VI, nor, therefore, can I take back the conclusion that I drew from it, concerning the advisability of his deposition by the clergy of Rome should he persist in this heresy after due warning, because no serious argument has been opposed to me either with respect to the fact of heresy or to the steps that should be taken in such a case.

« I shall withdraw my accusations and make due amends if the strange ideas and expressed aims of the reigning Pope can be proved to me to be truthful and honest and in keeping with the sacred deposit of the Faith, something that no one has ventured to attempt. Or if they were one day to form the subject of infallible definitions by the solemn Magisterium, something that is clearly impossible!

« This formula imposed on me, forbids me in violation of Catholic doctrine, to conceive of any possibility even theoretical of any material or formal heresy on the part of the Pope either as a private or a public person. Furthermore it presents as aberrant the normal, prudent and inevitable conclusion taught by the Church’s best theologians: Papa hæreticus deponendus est. Contrary to all truth and justice, this formula considers that to oppose the Pope on account of heresy in any circumstances is always sacrilegious and punishable, whereas the Church recognises such action as legitimate and sometimes obligatory.

« This a priori refusal even to examine the very matter of my accusation is in itself an indication of the difficulty encountered when wanting to refute by the authority of Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Infallible Magisterium. The demand formulated for my unconditional submission is, under these conditions, abusive and profoundly immoral. The Sovereign Pontiff cannot make himself responsible for that without committing the worst form of prevarication. This man is not a god.

« 5° I promised obedience to the Church in the person of the Sovereign Pontiff and of my Bishop, but not in that of my nation’s Episcopate, which is a collectivity of whose jurisdiction I know nothing, not being a Gallican. I have always borne respect for persons established in dignity, according to the justice that is their due. To such obedience and respect I intend to remain faithful. But this virtue remains subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity and respect for persons could never provide the least obstacle or contradiction to the supreme rights of God and the service of one’s neighbour. For this reason I cannot obey prevaricators in their prevarication nor can I respect them in their crimes, for I would thereby become their accomplice. It is the misfortune of the present time that makes me proportion my obedience and respect to the actual dignity of the person and to the intrinsic morality of his actions.

« By demanding unconditional obedience of me to my Bishop and the French Episcopate, who are collegially prevaricating, this formula placed me under the obligation of following their teaching, laws and precepts, thereby entering the paths of heresy and luring others after me. To demand that I respect ecclesiastical authorities whoever they may be and whatever they may do, is to command me to show esteem and admiration for prevaricators in their prevarication, thereby making a stumbling block of me.

« Obedience is exercised within the setting of canonical norms, which today are trampled on at the Reformers’ pleasure. Such obedience presupposes on the part of superiors a fundamental submission to Catholic Faith and morality. Likewise, respect is given to leaders who first respect their own function. “He who hears you, hears Me; he who despises you, despises Me.” It happens that our bishops in claiming such respect for themselves do not grant the same respect to the Church of Christ, whose servants they are. I cannot enter, as I am asked, into the servitude of unworthy and ill-intentioned leaders whose first decision would be to rid themselves of me as an adversary. Let them first return to order!

« Eminence,

« On 16 July 1966, I requested of Cardinal Ottaviani, in his capacity as Pro Prefect of the Holy Office, a judgement on the conformity of my writings with Catholic dogma and morals and therefore with Divine Revelation. You answer me with an ultimatum, enjoining me to accept every thought and desire of the reigning Pontiff with blind, servile obedience, and every desire of the Bishops without limit or condition. From this I draw the conclusion that a scrupulous examination of my writings did not yield a single doctrinal deviation to your scrutiny. If therefore I am in the truth, apart from misunderstandings that would be easy for you to dispel, then those whom I criticise are in error. To use blackmail, threats and violence to have me side with their Reform is therefore immoral and to no avail. This ultimatum merely shows your incapacity to legitimate and justify the “doctrinal and disciplinary acts” of the new reformers.

« I have no illusions in asking Supreme Authority to amend this unacceptable formula, which has been imposed on me for my signature within three days. Just as I received your ultimatum I was reading the following announcement from the Holy Father:

« “We are going to have a period of greater freedom in the life of the Church and consequently for each one of her sons. This freedom will mean fewer legal obligations and fewer interior inhibitions. Formal discipline will be reduced and all arbitrariness will be abolished…”

« With horror I saw in those words the supreme consecration of that galloping anarchy in which the Church is rushing to its abyss and destruction. And when further on I read the words: “All intolerance and absolutism will likewise be abolished”, I realised that this declaration of freedom was our death knell. It sounded the death knell for all just and holy Catholic virtues, for the absolutism of our Faith, for the intolerance of our Divine morality and its Sacred Canons.

« This liberalisation, coming as it did in an atmosphere of unbridled licence, would necessarily have to pass through our condemnation first. Besides, did not the same Paul VI recently declare at Geneva, quoting Lacordaire: “Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom that oppresses and law that sets free.”?

« We have everything to fear from this freedom, which the strong man has granted himself: it is a violence that oppresses. We miss the times past and we sigh for the time to come when benign Roman Authority, itself submissive to the law of faith, will, in setting us free, free us from all fear and from all unworthy servitude.

« Since, therefore, you can no longer tolerate our legitimate opposition to your so-called pastoral innovations and to your Reform of the Church, and since you have decided on our ruin, what you have to do, Eminence, do it quickly!

Cardinal Seper did not even acknowledge receipt. But, on 10 August, the Osservatore Romano published an undated and unsigned “notification” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that declared the Abbé de Nantes “disqualified”, « as in football, a cheater »…

No excommunication, no interdict, no suspension for a month or a year. Nothing. No true canonical, doctrinal, or disciplinary sanction. It was a complete victory!

« For after all, a “disqualification” in answer to precise, repeated, public, and absolutely unbearable accusations against the Pope and the Council, a “disqualification” about which the press is “notified” but that is not a sentence from the Magisterium and that leaves the “disqualified person” in possession of his entire priesthood and even his Celebret! What an admission! What an admission of weakness, but even more so, what an admission of culpability! »

The case is closed!

The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century
www.crc-internet.org