| Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes | N° 78 – March 2009 |
|
« STRIKE THE HEAD! »
« The evil, which came from below and from the periphery, was courageously fought by the Popes, often virtually alone because they had to endure the hatred of the world and to brave unpopularity. Thus it was that liberalism, Modernism, and progressivism were contained until our time. St. Pius X, in the spirit of prophecy that God grants to the greatest Pontiffs, clearly denounced the errors and disorders of a New Reformation and a Revolution that dreamers with a great love of change were preaching for the misfortune of the world… The encyclical Pascendi and the Letter on the Sillon accuse in advance the Innovators who led the Church in the space of ten years to the state of decomposition in which we see her.
« The fact is outstanding in history: the evil has risen to the Head, and it is by means of authority that it is imposing itself today. In order to do good and fight evil, in order to reject error and maintain a firm hold on the truth of the Faith, we are led to resist the Pope out of obedience to God, as we are led to resist the spirit of this Council out of fidelity to all the others, for “we must obey God rather than men” (Ac 5:29). »
This is the formidable tragedy that the Abbé de Nantes expounded in his editorial of February 1973 entitled The Last Resort (CRC n° 65).
« To resist the Pope out of obedience to God », this is indeed a principle that our Father has often been criticised for applying: is it not precisely the principle and foundation of reform, of revolt, of anarchy in the Church? On the basis of what authority does the Abbé de Nantes not pay heed to the will of the Pope, which is, he is told, that of God? How dare he judge the Pope and write that « the evil has risen to the Head »?
These burning questions « are of great interest to our Catholic Counter-Reformation, but also to all theologians, all those who are concerned with the future of the Church, as well as to Holy Church in her hierarchy and her supreme Authority ». Our Father answered them in his June 1973 issue (CCR n° 40) and summed them up in one single question: Can proceedings be instituted against the Pope?
We will extensively quote this masterly text, not without encouraging our readers to re-read it in full, if only to remark its extraordinary topicality under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, Paul VI’s replica.
CAN A POPE FALL INTO HERESY?
Our Father first wonders whether it is sometimes lawful and holy to oppose the Pope. « The answer that comes spontaneously to the lips of good Christians, the easy answer is: No, never! No one can oppose the Pope in a lawful, holy manner: Ubi Papa, ibi Ecclesia. To oppose the Pope amounts to opposing the Church. To oppose the Church amounts to combating Christ. »
This answer is easily proven by Holy Scripture: « You are Peter, and upon this Rock I shall build My Church. » (Mt 16:18) Catholics love the Pope and always obey him. St. Pius X recalled this to certain ecclesiastical rebels: « One does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. »
« Nevertheless, the alternative and more difficult response is actually more correct: Yes, sometimesit is a lawful and a saintly thing to oppose the Pope. Obedience is the rule, but this very virtue could lead to dissidence on account of fidelity, although this is rare… » In this same chapter 16 of St. Matthew, we see Peter opposed to the plan of redemption of Christ, and Our Lord answers him: « Get behind Me, Satan: you are a scandal to Me. » (Mt 16:23)
Thus, Peter is fallible.
Nevertheless, even fallible, he remains Peter. Jesus did not depose him from his office. « The indefectibility of the Pope is a continual miracle, but conditional and limited, a miracle of grace that proves stronger than weak human nature. »
It is in no way a question of contesting the Sovereign Pontiff’s authority. If we oppose the Pope, it will always be in a very limited manner, opposition to one Pope or another whom we consider « in rupture and opposition with the sacred duty and power of Peter, the Pope in Rome “who can never die”. » Never will we challenge the Head of the Church. That would be tantamount to decapitating the Church and making it a democracy. Absit!
IS THE POPE INFALLIBLE?
The mission of the Pope and the bishops does not consist in “reforming” but in « preserving the Church ». To do this, they hold certain powers that are infallible, which Christ is committed to support in an absolute manner, and others that are not, and which are therefore… fallible.
Three powers can be distinguished: the power of order, of teaching and of governance.
The power of teaching is infallible, but only partially. Let us see in what circumstance.
The Church in her unanimous belief is infallible in « what the Church has always and everywhere held to be certain as divinely revealed ». For example, the Church has always believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary. Thus, it is an infallible truth of Revelation, in virtue of the Church’s « Ordinary Magisterium ».
The Ordinary Magisterium, i.e., the teaching given by the Pope, a bishop, a parish priest, or a lady catechist has only a conditional infallibility, insofar as it is the faithful echo of the Church’s constant and unanimous Tradition.
The Extraordinary or solemn Magisterium is infallible. If it so happens that some dispute arises on a particular point of doctrine, such as that of the Immaculate Conception, about which St. Bernard and others who followed him entertained doubts, « then those who possess all power for preserving and defending the deposit of the Revelation will be led to resolve the question once and for all by means of a proclamation in the indisputable form of the Truth. The assistance of the Holy Spirit has been promised to them for such decisions. The term solemn or ex cathedra is applied to this infallibility of the Pope and the Council. This infallibility itself was solemnly proclaimed as… infallible dogma by the First Vatican Council.
The fallible teaching of the private man. Nevertheless, individuals have marginal liberty to teach personal theories and opinions in the capacity of “private theologians”. These are worth no more than the intrinsic demonstrative strength. « Such teachings are in no way guaranteed by their Magisterium and it is unfortunate that there could be the appearance of confusion between the two. The faithful, in their confident naivety, will believe that they are dealing with the infallible Magisterium when it is only a matter of the free opinions of private individuals, as fallible as the others. »
Thus, the Church is infallible in her constant and universal teaching. When a Pope expresses novelties, « it is good and prudent to believe those whom the Holy Spirit assists. Nonetheless, there remains a certain possibility for the pastors to betray their functions and to be mistaken out of ignorance, or to deceive and mislead us out of malice. » In that case, we can and must remain very reserved until the Pope solemnly pronounces, from his papal throne, ex cathedra, that such a teaching is infallible.
DE PAPA HÆRETICO.
« The main thing is to know how far the Pope can plunge, outside of his infallibility into the way of error and crime. »
We have just seen that theoretically a Pope who expresses himself as a private theologian can fall into heresy. « This possibility has always been known and professed by the Church. » An explicit reference to it is found in a canon of the Decretum of Gratian… if its last words are not truncated:
« Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anyone, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the Faith. »
« If the terminal clause is omitted, we who have brought an accusation against Paul VI have merited excommunication, but if you include the critical clause, the matter is quite different: in that case our action becomes reputable and deserving of the attention of an ecclesiastical Tribunal. »
« The theoretical possibility of error and crime in the case of a Pope having thus been established, we are left with the practical question whether there have in fact ever been any such cases. What do theologians, and firstly historians, say about it? »
The answer leaves no doubt: in history we in fact have examples of Popes who were for a time heretical. « No one can contest the reality of these facts, in their full gravity. Several Popes strayed into errors in matters of faith and persisted in them to the point of condemning the adherents of orthodoxy, sometimes with a certain solemnity. »
In December 359, Pope Liberius, followed by 400 Western bishops and 160 Eastern bishops, gave in to the threats of the Arian Emperor Constantius. They all denied the Faith, all of them except Hilary, Athanasius, and a tiny handful of others, whom Liberius went so far as to condemn. Soon this Pope repented and was thereafter firm in his support of orthodoxy right up to the time of his death.
In 553, Pope Vigilius, on the question of the two Wills in Christ, which by the way is extremely obscure, took a heretical stand. The Roman deacon Pelagius attacked Vigilius on this account and declared him heretical. Vigilius excommunicated him. It was Pelagius, however, who succeeded him on the See of Peter.
In 612, Boniface IV adopted a similarly ambiguous attitude on the same question. St. Columba very solemnly reproached him for it. This Pope retracted and in the end was canonised.
In 634, Pope Honorius, in order « not to rekindle ancient quarrels » allowed Monophysite heretics to preach their error. St. Sophronius of Jerusalem stood up to him, and formally accused him of heresy. The Pope died shortly afterwards after having repented but without having repaired the immense damage caused to the Church. Forty-two years later, Pope St. Agatho cast his anathema upon him, and all the great Ecumenical Councils confirmed this condemnation until modern times. Honorius’ case is the most serious.
Finally, John XXII said at Avignon, on the Feast of All Saints, 1331, that the soul does not enter the Beatific Vision until the resurrection of the body, at the last day! A rebuke followed from the University of Paris. John XXII died three years later, but not before he admitted his error and recanted.
We can remark the minor character of these events: five Popes failed to keep the purity and the integrity of the Faith for a certain length of time, on one particular point. This is not much at all! « It irresistibly produces admiration at the sight of the uninterrupted succession of Roman Pontiffs and their general wisdom.
« Can a Pope in fact be accused of heresy? Such a situation is supremely improbable. Thus it is the last hypothesis, the one to be imagined when all the others prove themselves insufficient. Anything else is to be entertained rather than rashly accusing the Pope of heresy.
« Yet, when no other solution remains, when all the proofs have been gathered and converge, neither is faith shaken, nor does hope die, nor does charity find itself wounded to say: our Pope is a heretic. » But what is to be done?
ABOUT THE ACTION THE CHURCH TAKES AGAINST A HERETICAL POPE.
A radical answer consists in saying: « Papa hæreticus depositus est... A heretical Pope is deposed. » This means that on the day that the Pope becomes heretical, he is ipso facto cut off from the Church. He is, by this very fact, deposed. He no longer occupies the Apostolic See. He is no longer Pope.
To admit this idea would entail two possible pastoral consequences, the one unfortunate and the other absurd. « The unfortunate reaction will never happen, even in the days of the Antichrist. The masses would continue to follow the reigning Pontiff. The absurd reaction would allow any discontented person to declare whenever he wanted, for any reason whatever, that the Pope is a heretic and, therefore, no longer Pope. »
The other solution, which had been already advocated before Vatican I, consists in saying: « Papa hæreticus deponendus est... A heretical Pope must be deposed. » Consequently, « the person who accuses the Pope of heresy must not leave it at that, but must ask for the legal process for his deposition to be undertaken, since he cannot make an executive decision on his personal judgement.
« Immediately, numerous questions arise concerning the ways and means to accomplish this deposition. Who will depose the Pope? The Church obviously. But does the Church have the competence required to judge the Pope? »
The Church can only summon the reigning Pope to appear and indict him before an ecclesiastical court in order to institute legal proceedings against him. Who will pass sentence? It cannot be the priests, the bishops, or the Council, who are all inferior to the Pope. Who?
Here, the problem is crucial, and only our Father has answered it with a “modern solution” that draws all its consequences from pontifical infallibility, such as the First Vatican Council defined it. Only one man can judge the Pope: « The Pope himself in his infallible doctrinal Magisterium! Thus the Church must appeal from the Pope to the Pope. »
Who will bring forward the accusation? According to Canon Law, any member of Holy Church enjoys the right to accuse the Pope of being in contradiction with the traditional teaching of the Church:
« Because of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any of the faithful may either refer their case to, or introduce it before, the Holy See, whether the case be contentious or penal. They may do this at any grade of trial or at any stage of the suit. » (Canon 1417)
Also, « According to their knowledge, competence and prestige, they [the faithful] enjoy the right and sometimes the duty to tell the sacred Pastors their opinion on matters concerning the good of the Church and to make it known to the faithful, saving the integrity of the Faith and morals and the reverence due to pastors, and with regard for the common utility and for the dignity of persons. » (Canon 212 § 3.)
Before what court? Before the entire Church, represented either by the members of the hierarchy or by a committee of theologians merely charged with establishing whether or not the teaching of the Pontiff is compatible with the Catholic Faith, « subject to an infallible sentence that is not within their competence ».
Who will pronounce this sentence? « The Church, of course, but necessarily in one man alone who decides personally » : the Pope. « Thus, the Pope will be called upon to pass judgement on himself », for when he speaks from his Throne, ex cathedra, « he enjoys the absolute assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects him against any error from ignorance or malice. The infallible Pope will thus pass judgement on the fallible Pope. »
What if the Pope refuses to listen to the accuser? What if he closes his door to him? « Then, the Church of Rome would have to draw up an official notice of refusal, of dereliction of duty: the Pope does not want to exercise his supreme Magistracy! His very own Church, the Church of Rome is qualified to exercise this role. » It is up to the Church of Rome to state officially that the Pope has resigned, and to declare the Apostolic See vacant. It will then convoke a conclave to elect a successor.
Until such time, the reigning Pope remains the Pope!
CONCERNING POPE PAUL VI
Did Pope Paul VI fall into this rare category of heretical Pope?
Our Father answered this question in the affirmative in a 102-page « Book of Accusation » that he wrote in 1973. It collected more than two hundred cases of grievously erroneous pontifical teachings and deeds, under the title:
To our Holy Father Pope Paul VI
by the grace of God and the law of the Church
sovereign judge of all Christ’s faithful
we present a complaint against our brother in the Faith,
Pope Paul VI,
on account of heresy, schism, and scandal.
Before introducing the « capital charge », the Abbé de Nantes recapitulated the events that led him to formulate such an accusation.
Since 1960, two religions have been fighting within the Church; the one is the religion of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the other the religion of man and his liberty:
« The older of these two religions is that of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; it is Catholic. The new one is that which Kant, in the realm of thought, and Rousseau, in the realm of society and morality, introduced and popularised. It reflects subjectivism of thought, which dates from the eighteenth century, but goes back to Luther; it reflects the social or socialist humanism dear to Rousseau. These two evils devastated the Church in the nineteenth century. For 130 years, from Lammenais, from shortly after the French Revolution until the death of Pius XII, the papacy was engaged in a constant struggle, apart from certain weaknesses, against this danger. She denounced its monstrous character and saw in it a heralding, as it were, of the Antichrist. The list of encyclicals and other pontifical documents attest this battle against liberalism (Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius IX), against Modernism and the Sillon (St. Pius X), against ecumenism (Pius XI), against reformism (Pius XII). »
The Second Vatican Council, however, showed itself favourable to what had been considered heresy until the eve of its opening on 11 October 1962. In 1963, when Paul VI acceded to the sovereign pontificate, he decided to continue along the same line. After having remained very reserved in an absolute impartiality for one year, he published on 6 August 1964 the encyclical Ecclesiam suam, the charter for his pontificate. In it he affirmed his will to open up for the Church new ways of religious subjectivism, reform of institutions, and dialogue with all religions.
From that time on, the Abbé de Nantes did not cease publicly denouncing Paul VI’s manoeuvre as he took the leadership of the reformist movement with a will of iron. In the Council’s closing address in 1965, it became apparent that in his soul the Pope had perpetrated heresy. The years to come would confirm this analysis. For ten years, the Abbé de Nantes tirelessly worked, studied, and denounced the Holy Father’s speeches and acts. In 1973, when he wrote his Liber Accusationis, the fruits of the pontifical reformism were plain to all: the universal, indisputable decadence of the Church.
THE CHURCH AND MASDU.
In reality, the Pope followed a utopia that our Father called the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy (Masdu). In a conference given in 1975, entitled “The Great Apostasy. Paul VI and his Masdu”, the Abbé de Nantes explained that this utopia was composed of two inseparable parts, one political, the other religious.
The first part consists in the fact that for Paul VI, democracy means peace: « Democracy, he declared, which is so widely acclaimed by human societies today, must take on a wider, universal form, in order that the barriers that still stand in the way of an effective human brotherhood shall be broken down. » (Christmas Message 1964, Liber Accusationis I, p. 15)
According to Paul VI, a great movement of solidarity was arising among men regardless of their ideology. Men were becoming more and more conscious of the fact that if peace was desired, it was necessary to work together, Communists, Socialists, Christian Democrats, hand in hand.
Based on what? Jacques Maritain, a twentieth-century philosopher, Paul VI’s intellectual guide, affirmed that humanity can unite on the basis of the Rights of Man. The Declaration that the UN had adopted in 1948 drew its inspiration from Maritain himself while he had taken refuge in New York during the war.
The second, religious part of Masdu is a necessity because men are unable to implement a grand political vision without basing it on a mystical vision. According to Maritain, strong convictions, whatever they may be, entail great energies. This world modelled on the Rights of Man must therefore receive the extra contribution of religions and ideologies. This is why Paul VI, Maritain’s disciple, wants Catholics to be a hundred percent Catholic, Communists to be a hundred percent Communist, and Protestants likewise. All the same, he knows that on the one hand he will have to oppose all traditional reaction and, on the other, moderate the excessively grand enthusiasm of reformism in order to keep everything under control.
Thus the Pope thought that all religions must live their distinct dogma, discipline, and morality to the full in order for their faithful to be complete men and to be on the construction site of the world, animated by what he called “supreme values”. The more you are Catholic, Communist, or Muslim, the more courage you will have for building human society shoulder to shoulder with the others. Your Catholic charity will give you love of liberty, equality, fraternity. The theory of class struggle will lead to the same result: to make the Communist a pioneer of liberty. Thus it is that when all religions and irreligions present themselves with the strongest vitality, Maritain and Paul VI affirm to us that they will make men into defenders of democratic society. This is “the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy.”
THE CAPITAL CHARGE.
How is this dream of the Pope contrary to Catholic doctrine? At the beginning of his Liber Accusationis, our Father explained that Masdu is based on two grave errors that justify the capital charge: religious freedom and the cult of man.
Religious freedom is initially a heteropraxy, i.e., an erroneous line of conduct, contrary to the Church’s traditional practice. Paul VI gave a definition of it in his 1964 Christmas radio message and in his speech on 26 June 1965: « This important doctrine can be summed up in these two propositions: that in matters of faith no one must be hindered, and no one must be forced. »
« No one must be forced » expresses tolerance, a constant tradition in the Church, who has never forced anyone to become Catholic. What this Holy Mother wants is to win hearts; but to the same extent she has the duty of preventing false religions and their public manifestations.
If a Jew or Muslim judges in conscience that Jesus is not the Son of God, he is free to think so, but he must not preach so in public because his religion leads to damnation. The Church and the state have the duty, out of charity towards the weak who might be taken in by their arguments, of compelling them to be silent.
A Catholic head of state can, however, tolerate them and accept that they gather in a place of cult, but it is not a right, it is merely a tolerance that is revocable at any time.
Furthermore, « the Powers of Satan are not satisfied with exerting an influence that is wholly invisible and immaterial, and remains confined to individuals. They become embodied also in certain institutions, carrying out their oppressive, aggressive functions in a visible manner through individuals and organisations whose distinguishing mark is that they are occult. » (p. 62) They want to destroy the Church out of hatred for Jesus Christ. Therefore, in conscience we cannot leave them a clear field as though they were neutral, in an innocent search for the truth. The Church and the state have the duty of combating these men.
From this heteropraxy, from this religious freedom, which leaves the field clear to false religions, flows a false doctrine, a heterodoxy, which is an idolatry of Man. What was an erroneous practice at the outset « provoked a change in doctrinal thinking in the Church; it is expressed in Pope Paul VI’s remarks as a novelty, an alteration of the Faith, an alteration of how the Faith is understood. »
In fact, if it is a question of serving Man, of rendering him a cult, all religions can participate.
Finally, the Catholic Faith is repressed and its one-time intransigence becomes indifferentism.
What is important is no longer rendering a cult to the true God, but the cult rendered to Man, who is substituted for God.
It is pure and simple « delirium » Gregory XVI and Pius IX used to say, yet that is what is expressed in this aberration that Paul VI and Vatican II repeated. In accord with it man is free, and his freedom is sacred:
« It is your task here,Paul VI declared at the UN in 1965, to proclaim the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity and liberty, and above all his religious liberty. We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. »
Our Father points out that if we follow the Pope’s thought, then « no God can be imposed on man as a universal Master, no man has a superior authority over his fellow creatures that allows him to teach, govern, and judge them, even less to punish them in the name of God ». God fades into the background before the pride of man, « this monster who claims to be autonomous, this Christian who says that he is the master of his own destiny and that of his brothers, without any concern for anything other than his divine will or his royal whims. » (Letter to My Friends n° 121)
The cult that he devotes to Man naturally led the Pope to recognise as good all the humanist “values” that were propagated by the philosophy of the “Enlightenment” and by Freemasonry, which inspired it: they are man’s natural goodness, freedom of conscience, universal fraternity, equality, progress, etc. By dint of no longer speaking about original sin, Heaven, or Hell… the Pope ended up proving that he no longer believed in them. This is why he saw nothing inappropriate in his showing that he was the friend of Freemasons.
The closing address of the Council on 7 December 1965 straightforwardly expressed the Pope’s will to make peace with them:
« Secular, profane humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against a religion – for there is such a one – of man who makes himself God.
« And what happened? An impact, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth (sic) makes himself greater.
« Do you at least recognise this its merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism : we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man. »
« In your unfettered love, our Father wrote in his Liber Accusationis addressing himself to the Pope, you make friends with the Goliath of the Modern World, kneeling before the Enemy of God who only feels hatred and defiance for you.
« For you have allied yourself with Man-who-makes-himself-god! You vie with the pride-intoxicated atheistic humanists of our day in the cult of Man.
« The capital charge that we bring against you concerns your liberalism and your cult of man, which we maintain are blasphemous, heretical, schismatic and finally apostatic. The decision is for you to make, for you are still the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth. Pass judgement upon yourself and, if I have lied, cut me off from the Church. But you know that I am not lying. If I have told the truth, then cut yourself off from this Sacred Body which you have betrayed! »
After having expounded these two basic errors, our Father entered into more detail by explaining the three charges that follow from this accusation: formal heresy, manifest schism, and immense scandal.
HERESY.
The Pope’s heresy is Masdu, which can be dissected into three parts and an important corollary:
1° « Instead of the Church and Christendom, it is mankind as a whole that forms the “society of salvation”.
This is the first article of Paul VI’s humanist Creed. Men are all brothers because they have God for Father: « Man devotes himself to his fellow-man, Paul VI used to say, because he recognises him as his brother, as the son of one and the same Father. » (Discourse to World Food and Agriculture Organisation, 16 November 1970). »
Before original sin, all men were brothers, our Father retorted, but since original sin, the solidarity of all men is found in Satan. Christ said so to the Pharisees: « Your father is not Abraham; the Devil is your father! » A man only becomes a son of God if he receives baptism, at least baptism of desire or by martyrdom. Otherwise he is in danger of damnation.
« Your philosophy, Most Holy Father, takes no account of the distinction, or rather that irreconcilable opposition, the existence of which was affirmed authoritatively by your Predecessors, for instance by Leo XIII in Humanum Genus: “The human race is split into two hostile camps, both of which are engaged in a constant battle, the one for truth and virtue, and the other for all that which is opposed to these. The one is the true Church of Jesus Christ... and the other is the kingdom of Satan.” (20 April 1884) »
2° « The new Gospel of this community is the Declaration of the Rights of Man, with its trilogy of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”. »
« You compromise your Faith for the benefit of your “new humanism”, and look upon the Rights of Man as being simply a translation into modern and profane language of... the Message of the Gospel! »
« We are living, the Pope declared when he opened the second session of the Council, in the era which succeeded the French Revolution, an era that reflects all its disasters and its chaotic and confused ideas, but also its thrill and confidence... We became aware of something new: of living ideas (!), of parallels between the great principles of the Revolution, which had after all, only adopted certain Christian ideas – fraternity, equality, progress, the desire to raise up the humble classes. » (1 September 1963)
« That day, the Abbé de Nantes wrote, the Church was seized by trembling and amazement. You must have realised it and said no more. But those phrases had given an insight into the way your mind works, had shown us that it is the principles of 1789 which form your true gospel. »
3° « The building of a World Democracy is the analogy here on earth of the Kingdom of God, and it is to be attained through the coming of Justice and Peace, in Truth and Love…
« The Church cannot remain indifferent to the ideological, moral and spiritual animation of public life… Play your part with confidence therefore, yes with confidence, in those institutions that represent the norms of our society, and which in our day and age are democratic institutions. » (Discourse given on 30 January 1965, Liber I, p. 33) »
The Pope believes, our Father explained, that he is going to open the new era of universal peace by means of his speeches. He differentiates himself from Christ and announces « a Good News for the present time, here below. He announces it as a purely human work over which an unknown, powerless but favourably disposed God merely presides from on high » :
« Citizens of the World, Paul VI declared in his message for Peace Day, when you wake at the dawn of this New Year 1970, reflect for an instant: whither leads the path of mankind? We can cast a bird’s eye glance over it today, a prophetic glance. Mankind is on the march, moving towards a greater mastery of the universe... What purpose is served by this conquest? It enables men to live better, more intensively. Mankind, subject to the limitations of time, seeks its fullness of life, and finds it... It is moving towards unity, towards justice, towards a state of balance and perfection that we call Peace... »
« Must it be explained to you, the Abbé de Nantes asked Paul VI, that there can be no improvement of the temporal order except – so all your Predecessors taught – insofar as Christians are prepared to “seek first the Kingdom of God and His Justice”, that is to say, that life of grace and holiness which will help them to attain the beatitude of Heaven? »
4° The Corollary that automatically flows from the three preceding propositions is that « religion – by which is to be understood a union of all the existing religions – is to provide inspiration and spiritual animation for mankind thus regenerated. »
« The work of peace, the Pope wrote, is not limited to any particular religious belief: it is the task and the duty of every human being regardless of his religious convictions. Men are brothers, God is their Father, and their Father desires them to live at peace with one another, as brothers should. » (Populorum Progressio, n° 47) » The Abbé de Nantes’ commentary:
« So it is God who does not wish to be a source of dispute among men! It is God who desires such total religious toleration, indifferentism, liberalism in society! It is God Himself who desires men to be indifferent towards God! »
The Pope’s liberalism necessarily announced the end of our religion. Otherwise, how did the Pope hope to save it? By having that religion accepted as the servant of the world… even though the world recognises no religion at all: « To serve man, which means, every human being, whatever his condition, his wretchedness, his needs. The Church has, so to speak, proclaimed itself the servant of mankind. » (Closing Address to the Council given on 7 December 1965)
Thus it is that the Abbé de Nantes concluded that « whereas formerly religion was queen, with all other human things subordinated to it, religion in the New Democracy has no particular standing. »
This entails a serious “update”, a veritable “reconversion” to make the Catholic religion apt for this new “service” that the Pope does not despair of seeing realised: « We must assure to the life of the Church a new manner of feeling, desiring, behaving » : « Religion must be renewed. » With what goal? To make men pass over from the service of Jesus Christ to that of humanity.
St. Pius X had already given the scathing answer to this utopia when he condemned the Sillon:
« Strange indeed, and both sad and terrifying, are the audacity and rashness of spirit of men who call themselves Catholic and dream of founding society anew in such conditions and of establishing upon earth, independently of the Catholic Church, “the reign of justice and of love”, with the help of all who come, of whatever religion or none at all, with or without beliefs, provided only that they are prepared to forget that which divides them – their religious and philosophical beliefs, and to concentrate on what unites them – a generous idealism and certain moral forces “of whatever origin”.
« It is frightening... The result of such promiscuity of labour, the beneficiary of such cosmopolitan social action can only be a democracy which is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish: a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men thus finally become brothers and comrades in “the reign of God”. “To work no longer for the Church, but for mankind”…
« This is organised Apostasy. » (Letter on the Sillon § 38-40; Liber I, p. 36)
COMPLICITY WITH HERESY.
The Abbé de Nantes accused: « The worst heresy-mongers take advantage of your inertia to poison souls with impunity. You are guilty not only of negligence but, in many cases you have gone farther, showing some favour towards the teachers of error or pernicious novelties. »
This complicity, even if the Pope did not agree with all the heresies, is established by the fact of his liberalism, for his desire for “dialogue” makes him avoid recalling the old condemnations. It also originates in his evolutionism, according to which « openness to the world requires a fundamental revision of the language of our dogmas ». It flows finally from his modernism, by virtue of which his Masdu frees itself from dogmatic faith, and for good reason! Faith “divides”, and Paul VI was convinced that he could unite them in Masdu.
Practically, the Pope renounces condemning any theologian who has suffered shipwreck in the Faith, like Teilhard de Chardin the pantheist Jesuit who denied original sin; Jean Cardonnel, the Dominican who compared God the Father to Hitler, Stalin, and Satan; Fr. Xavier Léon-Dufour, who supposed that Jesus’ Body had disintegrated in the space of two days and had vanished into thin air, since it was not found in its tomb! Hans Küng, who in his book “Infallible?”, destroys the doctrine of Papal infallibility; and also Dom Besret, who affirms that Christ is God because He is perfectly man!
While he was the accomplice of the worst heresy-mongers, the Pope crushed the traditionalists who defended the Faith. Our Father held up as an example the case of Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. This prelate condemned certain progressivist and Modernist acts that the Spanish “bishop-priest” Assembly had promulgated. It has been held in September 1971 under the chairmanship of Cardinal Tarancon, the leader of Spanish progressivism. Paul VI and Cardinal Villot, his Secretary of State, personally intervened to assure Tarancon that they were totally unaware of this document. They assured him that the initiatives of the Assembly were in conformity with Vatican II. Then they replaced Cardinal Wright by a friend of Tarancon, Mgr Romero de Lima, a progressivist.
« The whole question, our Father wrote, is whether the Church of all time was acting rightly, with justice and charity, when she forbade all heresy and schism?
« You have turned order into a chaos where the Pope himself, and equally the lowest clerk in a newspaper office, are broadcasting their own new and wild theories. If this goes on, the Church will go to her ruin. »
Now, « you yourself are the Head of heresy, of all heresy today, by means of your sovereign Authority that propagates or protects them. »
We can indeed see that Paul VI’s Masdu not only destroys a single dogma but all of them, and it destroys not only dogmas, but also rites, pastoral activity, the governance of the Church. So much is this the case that our Father, for the first time in the history of the Church, finds grounds for accusing the Pope of schism and scandal.
SCHISM.
This would seem to be impossible because « a schismatic is by definition a Christian separated from Rome and rejecting the sovereign and universal authority of the Pope! Is the Pope against himself? » (CRC n° 69, p. 9)
Theologians, however, recognise that it is possible, and the theologian of the Catholic-Counter Reformation distinguishes three degrees:
Affective schism, « when the Pope becomes disgusted with his own children » and turns in preference towards the enemies of the Church. The Figaro of 1 March 1973 provided an example in two articles. The first, The Church of Spain, reported a declaration of the Pope to Franco’s ambassador according to which Spain, even though Catholic, was the country in the world that gave him the most worries… The article immediately below reported that the Pope had just named five new bishops in Czechoslovakia, in full agreement with the Communist government… « in order to replace, the Abbé de Nantes specified, bishops who had been sent to concentration camps! »
But the most scandalous proofs of this “affective” schism are certainly the Pope’s attitude towards the Abbé de Nantes and Sister Lucy.
Our Father came to Rome in 1963, and again in 1964. « Much later, in 1967, I was bold enough to write you a long Open Letter on the Subject of Reform. But I never received so much as a letter of thanks, an acknowledgement of receipt. »
In 1966, the Abbé de Nantes asked to be judged in Rome; the only answer he received was the order to sign an « exorbitant, immoral and inhuman formula of recantation and submission. I was treated by you like a slave. » In 1969, our Father proposed another formula: « To this final proposition, you did not even give a reply.
« It was with your consent that my name was dragged into the mud round the whole world as that of a rebel. Such injustice and slander prove that it is you who have rejected me. But I will not reject you and in thus writing to you I give you proof of my continuing filial affection. »
The other case is that of Sister Lucy, the seer of Fatima, whom Pius XII, John XXIII, then Paul VI reduced to silence: « I cannot receive visits, she wrote in 1973, except from the members of my family, and I cannot answer interrogations either without express permission from the Holy See », or else on the condition « of not speaking about the Apparitions ».
In 1967, during his only trip to Fatima, Paul VI answered Sister Lucy who had requested to speak to him: « Now is not the time. If you wish to communicate something to me, tell it to your bishop. » Five months later, Sister Lucy sent to the Pope a letter that remained unanswered. Several times she complained about being unable to fulfil her mission and, like our Father, she was never received (Fatima salut du monde, frère François de Marie des Anges, p. 316 sq.).
Effective schism is the second degree, « when the Pope manifests disinterest and even disgust for all the rites and traditional institutions of his Catholic Church ».
We have recalled how the Pope changed the catechism and the liturgy of the sacraments (He is Risen n° 75, December 2008; n° 76, January 2009; n° 77 February 2009).
We note also the schismatic character of his refusal to exercise his supreme Magisterium. Unlike his predecessors, Paul VI refused to endow his teaching with a compulsory character. In 1963, he dissuaded the Council from promulgating dogmatic definitions: « We do not wish to turn our Faith into a cause of polemics against our separated brethren »! In his encyclical Ecclesiam suam, he claimed to teach nothing, to impose nothing authoritatively: « Nor do we propose to make this encyclical a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or of moral or social principles. » In 1968, he delivered his Creed, but without endowing it with the mark of infallibility. The same year, he published the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ, which was very firm against immorality, but without obligation or sanctions attached.
The Pope also abolished interdicts and excommunications by suppressing the Index in 1966, namely, the list of books that are harmful to faith. As for the Holy Office, it underwent « a change of name and vocation: it would no longer condemn heretics but would devote itself to constructive research! » This was normal because, according to Paul VI, « it was not a question of removing any specific heresies from the Church, or... remedying any public disorders – for nothing of this sort has, thank God, raised its head in the Church. »
Absolute schism constitutes the third degree, « when the Pope breaks in practical terms the sacred bond of his function that attaches him to the service of the Church », when he turns away from Jesus Christ and the supernatural common good, and devotes himself instead entirely to other matters, such as his enrichment, his glory, or even worse, another religion… Paul VI was concerned with ecumenism, false religions.
Of course, the Pope said that he was « convinced that there is only one true religion, that is to say, Christianity », but it is an entirely theoretical conviction. « Your words and actions seem to deny this… conviction. » Following his trips to India in 1964 and to Indonesia in 1970, he brought back a Hindu idol, Vishnu, and a Buddha, thus letting it be believed that these human religions have some divine character.
In 1966 he presented a chalice to Pastor Schutz. « What did you intend him to use it for? To celebrate his “Holy Supper”? That is but a phantom. Or for the Mass, which he lacks the power to celebrate? »
The same year he received Dr. Ramsey « as a priest, or rather as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of England, and successor of the glorious martyr Thomas Becket, while he is only, in fact and by right, the heir and successor of the persecutors of our martyrs! You presented him with a pastoral ring, and we heard that you invited him to bless the crowd on the occasion of that strange gathering at St. Paul-outside-the-Walls. »
But the most serious were acts of inter-communion, i.e., permission given to heretics to receive Communion:
« On 21 September 1966, at Assisi, Miss Barbarina Olson, a Presbyterian, received Holy Communion at her Nuptial Mass, without abjuration or Confession, and through your authorisation. » The Holy Office explained that it was not the Pope but someone else who had given the authorisation. Then why did Paul VI not apply any sanctions? By not wanting to reprove the act, the Pope became accomplice to the crime and encouraged others to commit it.
« At a meeting of the wcc at Upsala in 1968, Catholic observers took it upon themselves to partake of “communion” at a Protestant service, and hardly any criticism was levelled against them. In September of the same year, at Medellín, Protestant observers received Holy Communion at the Mass that closed the Latin American Bishops’ Congress. Paul VI deplored this act, but « this fault must not be very serious in your eyes because you appointed this Cardinal Samoré, who was responsible for it, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, two months later! »
In July 1972 at Rome, Cardinal Willebrands permitted Protestants to receive Communion subject to the agreement of the local bishop. In 1973, Mgr Elchinger, the Bishop of Strasbourg authorised the converse, that Catholics receive communion at the Protestant Supper. « It is rumoured at Strasbourg that you congratulated him for this daring gesture. »
These are facts of public notoriety that our Father denounces. If he is in the wrong, let him be condemned! But « no-one in the world, Bishop or Cardinal, Angel or even the Pope himself, has any right whatever to give the Sacrament of the living to those who are spiritually dead, the Sacrament of the physical Body of Christ to those who do not belong to his visible Mystical Body. »
SCANDAL.
On this subject, the Abbé de Nantes explained, « there can be no question of criticising in any way the purely private life of the Sovereign Pontiff. Only God and his own conscience can examine and judge it.
« It is with an entirely different sort of scandal that we are concerned here – with public acts of the Pontiff that constitute a regrettable bad example, a trap, or an obstacle for the religion of the faithful ». They consist of unworthy acts committed in and through his pontifical function, « in such a way that they are no longer “acts of the Pope” but precisely “pontifical Acts”. »
« These unusual acts wittingly undertaken on your own initiative with the aim of “bringing turmoil” into a static situation – rather like breaking up the ice on large frozen rivers by a succession of carefully timed dynamite blasts. The objective of this incredible series of scandals is the creation of a new, humanistic, universal Christianity. But we cannot help seeing it as the ruin of the Church and of Christian civilisation and their replacement by a Utopia in whose shadow is advancing the kingdom of Satan. »
The Abbé de Nantes classes these scandals under three headings:
The scandal of the flesh. Paul VI was the first Pope to authorise the marriage of priests. On 2 February 1964, on the feast of the Presentation, he created an ad hoc Commission. Some time later a priest from Versailles obtained from Rome a dispensation from the vow of celibacy and was allowed to marry in the Church, while Pius XII and John XXIII had refused this to him. From 1965 to 1971, Pope Paul VI granted twenty thousand dispensations from the vow of celibacy. For 1971 alone, the Vatican acknowledged four thousand official dispensations, i.e., a rate of ten files a day, all signed by the Holy Father without counting six thousand defrocked priests. There were three times more priests who left than there were ordinations in that year!
« What else could you have done? Most Holy Father, there was only one thing to do and that was to say no, like your Predecessors! That would have caused distress; it would have involved refusals and reprimands, even punishment. It would have meant insisting on self-denial, forcing chastity upon them. That precisely is what Charity itself would have obliged you to do. »
« But the love that you have for others, Most Holy Father is a form of pride and egoism, of self-love rather than true charity. You are prepared to consent to evil because you want to be popular. »
The scandal of the world. The most serious accusation is that « the Pope is betraying the Christian world », this group of « countries that have numerous churches, where the people are Catholic, where the State openly professes the Catholic Faith ». The Pope decided to enter into an alliance with the enemies of the Christian world. Our Father gives nine full pages of examples in the Liber!
On 29 January 1965, the Pope gave the standard of Lepanto back to the Turks. Catholics had won this flag from an enemy felucca flagship after a brave fight on 7 October 1571. At that very same moment in Rome, St. Pius V had the vision of the miraculous victory that was due to Our Lady’s intercession. As for Paul VI, he gave it back while prophesying: « the wars of religion are finished for good », calling into question the legitimacy of the Crusade, scorning the Blessed Virgin, and giving up combating God’s enemies.
Another scandal is the pact with Communism that was sealed at the Council with the express order not to condemn it. Then, the list of great Communists that visit the Vatican speaks for itself: Tito, dictator of Yugoslavia; Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Podgorny, head of the Supreme Soviet.
Naturally, the photos of these meetings have gone round the world, thus becoming in the hands of the Communists a means of tremendous propaganda to destabilise and disarm persecuted Catholics in the Ukraine, Vietnam, China, etc.
The Pope’s appeal to Maoist China also took place in January 1967: « 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! the Abbé de Nantes wrote at that time. 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 deny 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? »
The scandal of Satan. « But, in order to find the ultimate reason of your hatred of the Christian West, we have to look more deeply. For behind the strangeness, there lies the enigma, and behind the enigma, the occult...
« The scandals are well-known, public, and their meaning clear enough to those who are aware of the occult Forces with which you sought to make contact – and also of that other invisible Power to which you would not listen. »
On 4 October 1965, « on the occasion of your visit to the UN, you recollected yourself in the Masonic sanctuary of the building – the “Meditation room”, in the middle of which stands “an altar to the faceless god”… The room represents the “chamber of reflection” of a Masonic Lodge, through which every candidate must pass in the course of his Initiation. Well, you passed through it; were you thus being initiated? And only after that were you able to speak – using correct Masonic terminology – before the General Assembly, sixty-five per cent of whose members belong to the “Brotherhood”. » The Lodge in question is that of the B’nai-B’rith, or the “Sons of the Covenant”. « It is the most powerful Masonic society in the world, composed solely of Jews, which society is the obscure master of the whole world. »
A while later, the Pope received the B’nai-B’rith at the Vatican during a public audience on 3 June 1971 and addressed to them a speech of unprecedented audacity:
« Dear friends, it affords us pleasure to receive in St. Peter’s (yes!) your distinguished group of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai-B’rith.
« We pray the Lord, Father of all to deign to bless your efforts to create this climate between Christians and Jews, and between all men, a climate in which love shall reign for the good of all mankind. »
« But is this lack of discrimination not fundamentally the same as Peter’s denial of his Master, for the sake of keeping his peace with the Jews? And does that “reconciliation and peace” for which you are working conjointly with the B’nai-B’rith not demand that Christ should be crucified anew and denied for all eternity?
« The most serious problem, in fact, is how to accept that the Pope can think, speak, and act as one versed in Freemasonry; for your expressions of loyalty to the United Nations and its Creed formed one of those scandals of which you make deliberate use to “unblock” the Church’s status quo and set her moving in the direction of the full revelation and achievement of your universal “fraternal”, that is, Masonic, designs. »
FATIMA PROFANED.
The Pope threw himself into the arms of the Freemasons and, in return, he rejected Fatima. Fatima is the Virgin Mary crushing all heresies with her virginal foot. She revealed to the world three messages, three “Secrets”, the last of which should have been published in 1960. John XXIII considered it too sad a message and placed it in a drawer. Paul VI never referred to it…
Then, « you did go to Fatima, it is true. It was on 13 May 1967, fifty years to the day after the Heavenly Apparition. Our eyes fixed on the screen, our hearts torn with anguish, the rosary between our fingers as we mingled our Aves with those of our brethren over there, we awaited what should have been the Event of the century...
« Alas, five hours later, there was no hope of peace left, and the final grace that we had hoped might follow mysteriously upon this meeting between the Vicar of Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother had been squandered ».
During his entire trip, the Pope did not say a single Hail Mary, not a single one at Fatima! He did not recommend any of the devotional practices demanded by Heaven! He did not speak about the consecration of Russia! He did not reveal the Blessed Virgin’s Secret! When Sister Lucy earnestly asked to speak to him, he replied that it was not the moment.
Even worse, he tarnished Fatima with his heresy by substituting his message for that of the Blessed Virgin Mary: « … The highlight of this trip was not a prayer to God, but a strange, scandalous incantation to mankind… »
« Men, make yourselves worthy of the divine gift of Peace. Men, be men (sic). Men, be good, be wise, be open to the interests of the general well-being of the world. Men, be generous...
« Men, begin to come closer to one another in your desire to build a new world. Yes, a world of true men which can never come about without the sun of God upon its horizon. » (p. 68)
« This is a discourse of Antichrist. You came to Fatima in order that She who is able to crush the head of the Serpent should be crushed in Her turn, and that Her Message – wherein lies mankind’s last hope of being saved – should be destroyed by another message contrary to it, in which you call upon men to build a new world upon a foundation of pride.
« If I am telling lies, prove it! Prove that you are not of Satan but of Christ by publishing the Third Secret of Fatima, by calling all Christians to prayer and penance, by asking that the recitation of the Rosary for peace should be intensified, and by pronouncing the Consecration of the Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary upon which depends peace – “because God has entrusted it to Her” so that in the end “Her Immaculate Heart may triumph”! »
OUR ROMAN ENTERPRISE
In 1972, while deploring the « new storms » that were sweeping through the Church, the Pope said that he was not the head of the Church to govern her, but that he was there to suffer and let the Lord lead her. « Here is something strange and contradictory », our Father wrote in his July editorial. There are two possibilities: either the Pope through the force of the Holy Spirit governs the Church; or it is Christ who governs her directly, and the Pope only has to stay out of the way. But these two claims must not be confused because that « leads to excusing Paul VI for not doing his work as Vicar of Christ ». When he sees evil, he declares that Christ is the sole Author who is going to repair everything, and when he works in favour of his utopia, which, nevertheless, is the cause of the evil, he governs with implacable obstinacy (Qui gouverne l’Église ? CRC n° 58).
No the evil had gone right « to the Head », and this is where we had to « strike ». This was the whole aim of our enterprise in Rome on 10 April 1973.
Letting himself be guided by Providence and events, our Father had acted prudently and faultlessly from the time of the Council in order to make the Pope carry out his function of infallible Judge.
From 1964 to 1969, he publicly denounced pontifical heresy by addressing himself to the highest authorities of the Church and by publishing his accusations, without any result other than to have himself « disqualified », which was not a canonical sentence but a slander suited for the media.
In January 1970, he publicly formulated this wish: « May God give us a good Catholic Pope within the next three years! » (CRC n° 28, p. 1) « It was a call for help to God, a call to his fidelity and to his mercy that He touch the heart of the Sovereign Pontiff or remove him from his See » (Mille catholiques, CRC n° 64, p. 1).
Three years later, however, Paul VI did not seem to have changed and still occupied the See of Peter. « We must therefore accept now to do with the help of God what God did not want to do without us… We must attempt the ultimate step… We have to go to Rome and remonstrate with the Pope. »
In January 1973, the Abbé de Nantes wrote a letter to Rome, which he published in the CCR, to solicit an audience with His Holiness. This letter was entrusted to Bishop’s office in Troyes, which forward it through official channels on 5 January. During two months, our Father and his thirty-eight thousand readers waited for a reply. It was in vain. Then in March, our Father sent a second letter addressed this time to Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, stating that if he did not receive a reply, he would present himself at the Portone di Bronzo, where audiences are registered, on Tuesday, 10 April, at 10 o’clock. He received no reply.
The Abbé de Nantes nevertheless put together his indictment, and prepared himself for going to Rome accompanied by his brothers and around fifty friends representing the people who desired to associate themselves with our initiative. These 4,060 signatories of a formula of commitment constituted “The Roman Legion”.
The delegation, which arrived on 9 April, planed to leave on the morning of the 12th, in order to take the time to combine the accusation against the Holy Father with a pilgrimage in the main churches of Rome to implore the intercession of the saints and to show that the CCR appealed to the Church of all time.
The main day, 10 April, began with a good surprise. Our Father, who presented himself with his friends at St. Peter’s at 8 o’clock, received permission to celebrate Mass, and the altar of St. Pius X, where the saint’s reliquary is located, was proposed to him. Our Father experienced an inner joy: « I had, we all had so much implored Heaven to obtain this sign of our public, recognised membership in the Holy Roman Church! » (Rome, CRC no 67) Then we descended to the Bronze Gate. « There, several serried rows of plain-clothes policemen and companies of armed carabinieri were waiting for us. » We were forbidden to advance. Our Father pushed; he was brusquely pushed back. « What are your orders? » They were to disperse us and turn us out of the square. Why? Because we were disturbing public order. I protested: « We are calm, unarmed. No one is joining our group, it is now surrounded by policemen who disperse and send people away. We have come to see the Pope, whom we have informed of our visit, and we demand to be let through…
« It is pointless, the Pope does not want to see you.
– He told you that?
– It’s orders.
– From whom?
– From our superiors.
– The Italian state?
– Yes, no, er…
« There was no way to know, until it was finally admitted: yes, it is an order from the Pope to tell you that and to prevent any initiative. The Vatican does not want any contact with you!
« We declare that we have no consideration here in the Vatican for orders of Italian plain-clothes policemen. If the Pope, who is our Father, refuses to receive and hear us, his sons, let him inform us through a priest, but not through the Italian police…
« We then recited one, then two Rosaries, imploring God to weaken the hardness of the Pope and his entourage. We were staggered by this refusal and its form. To think that they did not even know the contents of this Book of Accusation! No one knew it yet, except for our friends who were present. So, the Pope and his entourage imagined full well the substance of our accusation; they know how at variance they are with Catholic faith, morals, and discipline! This refusal to listen and judge is an admission of guilt, is it not? It is an abdication, a dereliction of duty on the part of the Judge. At this moment, this is how we feel about it. »
THE LESSON OF ROME.
The Pope thus gave a downright refusal to this attempt at being received at the Vatican. Despite everything, the Liber was twice placed in the hands of authorities during this trip.
The first time was on this same 10 April. Our Father, who was confronted by the policemen in front of the Bronze Gate, asked Jean-Loup Perret and Charles Convent to make it through the Gate incognito by skirting the barrier. The former was arrested and manhandled, but the latter managed to enter and make it into the presence of Mgr Martin, the Vatican Prefect of the Pontifical Household, to whom he revealed the aim of his visit and presented a copy of the Book of Accusation. Since the Vatican Prefect refused to take it, our friend left the document on his desk. When our Father returned to the hotel, he found that it had been brought back by a Vatican emissary in a sealed, anonymous envelope. « This would allow them to say that no copy of the excessively burdensome Book of Accusation had been given to them. »
The following day, 11 April, at 11 o’clock, the public audience took place. The Abbé de Nantes and all the members of the League who were recognised were refused entry. One of our friends, who had very properly obtained a seat in the diplomatic tribune, attended the audience there. At the end, he « stepped over the guardrail, dashed towards the Pope and handed him the Liber Accusationis: “Most Holy Father, I give you the Book of Accusation of the Catholic Counter-Reformation!” Taken by surprise, the Pope took it in his hands, but bodyguards immediately seized our friend and then took him to the Vatican police station. There, a guard brought back this book that burns holes in one’s hands and wanted to give it back… The document remained in the police file as evidence along with the declaration of the guards, who affirmed that the Book of Accusation had been received by the Pope, who refused it and had given it to them. »
Thus both Mgr Martin and the Holy Father received and refused it. « The fact that they parted with it changed nothing of the facts of the matter; on the contrary, it most certainly made things worse. » Why? Because this book did not contain « the Abbé de Nantes’ Memoirs, wild imaginings, prophecies, or theology… This book is, rather, an accusation.
« From the moment that the accusation is made, it exists independently of its author and it takes hold, it works on its own. It has its own life, its own strength, its internal power to detonate. It is a bomb. In this case, the bomb has absolute power: an accusation made against the living Pope Paul VI Montini, for heresy, schism and scandal…
« The tragedy is this: the Pope did not receive us, solely and absolutely because he did not want to receive the Book. Caught off guard, the Pope materially seized it with his two hands, but he voluntarily refused and relinquished it. From then on, the accusation is like a grenade whose pin has been pulled that a man takes and throws away; it explodes in the open: Pope Paul VI is a heretic, a schismatic, and scandalous. He knows it; he does not have to open the Book to know the reproaches. He did not even attempt to defuse the mechanism; he knows perfectly well that he would never be able to reduce the accusation to nothing. Can he disregard it? That is easier said than done. It is not that easy… » (The Lesson of Rome, CRC n° 68, p. 2)
Thus, the Church of Rome should have made an official certification of his desertion: the Pope was unwilling to perform his office. In order to appeal to the Roman clergy, our Father went a second time to Rome with Brother Gerard in November 1973. There, for ten days, they distributed 2,500 Italian-language copies of the Liber. They met many highly placed prelates, priests, and functionaries of the Curia, who accepted the Liber, but never officially. Everyone seemed to fear or be indifferent to this appeal to the Pope.
THE END OF PAUL VI’S PONTIFICATE
Had our Father made a mistake? Was he in the wrong to have found fault with a Pope who only seemed to want peace? Paul VI in fact decreed 1975 a « year of reconciliation ». Nevertheless, we had to know with whom people were to be « reconciled »! Would the Holy Father go so far as to give the Abbé de Nantes « the freedom to tell him fraternally where I stand? » (CRC no 88, p. 1) Unfortunately no, because that year Paul VI worsened his case by further undermining the foundations of the Church.
Here are a few brief examples:
On 7 January, he received some Jews. He had made a point of having the crucifixes removed from the room, and he partook of a kosher meal with them.
Two weeks later, he received in Rome the dalai-lama, the head of a branch of Buddhism who calls himself a living incarnation of God, while the Pope is only… His representative! He expressed to him his « admiration for Buddhism under all its forms ». Is this folklore to relieve his boredom? our Father asked. Not in the least; it is the implementation of his Masdu utopia.
In April, according to Documentation catholique, the Pope authorised in the Vatican itself « the first Eucharistic celebration (sic) of a Church born of the Reformation ». The group numbered seventy-five people, was lead by the dean of the Episcopalian Church of Washington, and accompanied by Mgr Wakefield Baum, the Archbishop of the same city. Afterwards, « the Pope warmly greeted » the Episcopalian dean.
This is how the Pope worked during the end of his pontificate to « reconcile all religions in order to become their sole spiritual and cultural animator ».
Right to the end, Paul VI did not retract any of his errors, regret any of his acts, or respond to any of the serious accusations made against him. It was in the night of 6 August 1978 that our Father was awakened to announce to him that the Pope had died. « I had been unaware that he was so close to the blow that would abruptly end his sojourn, so close to the hour when he would have to appear before the Sovereign Judge. »
The two press releases that announced the circumstances of the death were ambiguous and hard to harmonise, which cast doubt on certain of the reported facts. Our Father was led to think that Paul VI died in the evening of Sunday of the Transfiguration without having attended Mass, nor having received the Sacraments. « If he had attended Mass and received Communion in the morning, if he died reading his Imitation, that would have been beautiful. Instead, he died saying: “But is it night?” »
« As for John Paul I, he died even more tragically with the Imitation in his hands. One dies as he has lived. »
Four days later, our Father wrote in the CCR of August 1978 a funeral oration appropriate to the scale of the tragedy:
« …The only feeling that wrings my heart, which I cannot control and which I know in advance will spoil the future for me, is that of an immense pity for this poor soul. As you know, in exchange for his salvation I went so far to offer my earthly life – which is not so much – and even my eternal life.
« I shudder at the thought : to have shaken the Church to her very foundations, to have made a pact with the devil’s own children and to have given up Christian lands to barbarians, to have almost irreparably destroyed the ramparts of Christendom, to have profaned and devastated the Sanctuary, and without doubt to have caused the loss of thousands upon thousands of souls, for fifteen years of apparent glory... what does it all amount to? What does it mean in the perspective of the eternity where he has now entered?
« Then I am seized by a cold, spiritual, interior fury against those who surrounded this unhappy Prophet inebriated by his own extravagant eloquence and beguiling chimeras. How is it that not a single Cardinal, not one Roman theologian, not one of his private advisers spoke to him about the formidable responsibility he was incurring? Was no one equal to the task of putting a stop to the ruinous extravagance of this heretical, schismatic and scandalous pontificate? For fifteen years they have been the dumb witnesses, the collaborators and the accomplices of this auto-demolition of Rome by Rome. »
Then, our Father recalled the passage of the Bible that was read in all the churches on that day in accordance with the Novus Ordo. In it the prophet Jeremiah received from Yahweh the order to tell Hananias, a false prophet, that he was banished from the face of the earth and that he would die because he preached rebellion against Yahweh. Our Father continued:
« When they lower into the grave the heavy coffin of John Baptist Montini, the Pope between the years 1963 and 1978, they should also bury his other mortal remains: his many tiresome and vain chimeras, the heresies they drew on, the schisms they produced and the scandals they multiplied. Let all this stench of Satan be buried with him, I mean with his body. »
Throughout the entire pontificate of Paul VI, the theologian of the Catholic-Counter Reformation had never ceased to demand a judgement between the Pope and himself, or more exactly, between Paul VI and his 262 predecessors. The Pope refused; the Roman clergy did also. What can be done until the Church answers us? We must keep the Faith, certain that the Church has the promises of eternal life. But the Pope remains our Father, and he must do us justice.
« This great lesson from Church history, which I have given you, the Abbé de Nantes explained, shows us that these times have lasted long and that God, in the souls of His servants, is always the strongest. “Take courage, Jesus said on the evening of Holy Thursday; I have conquered the world.” » If Christ said so, He will keep His promises, but He will keep them through the triumphant Immaculate.