The Abbé de Nantes, before the door of the Holy Office, clasps under his arm the Liber Accusationis Secundus. « “A tree does not stop the wind that blows in the plain”, it is true. But it is a beautiful spectacle and perhaps this tree shelters a whole divine plantation of young cedars of Lebanon under its boughs. » (Our Father, February 1983)

On Easter Day, 3 April 1983, our Father undertook writing the Liber Accusationis Secundus, which he wanted to place in the hands of the supreme Judge of the Faith, at Rome, on the following 13 May.

After one month of intense work, the book was finished on 11 May and entitled:

Struck by the extraordinary importance of this book, let us open it, since, as we shall see, it bears witness to both the indefectible attachment of the Church to the infallible Truth and her fidelity to her only Bridegroom and Lord, Jesus Christ.

This hundred and thirty page book is divided into four parts entitled Accusation, Innovator, Corruptor and The Judgement.

ACCUSATION

The first part begins harshly with a capital charge that proves that Karol Wojtyla is no longer Catholic, nor even Christian even though he remains in name and in fact the Sovereign Pontiff.

« Have I one deed or one text on which to rest such accusations? I have five hundred, Most Holy Father! But to begin with I shall give only one on which I am prepared to stake my entire faith and life. One on which the whole case could be judged; it is one of your recurring themes. That of the Kingship of Jesus Christ, a kingship which for you is not that of God made man, but that of Man whom you proclaim to be god. »

OF MAN’S TRANSCENDENCE AND KINGSHIP YOUR BLASPHEMY.

« I shall follow you closely here and quote in full from your Dialogue with André Frossard – from his book N’ayez pas peur, “Be not afraid” (Laffont, 1982), in which the part attributed to you was, in fact, written, revised and carefully amended by you before being published in 1982. »

We shall only quote the most characteristic passages from this analysis.

On pages 222 to 227, the Pope deals with the evangelical pericope wherein Pilate asks Jesus:

« Then you are a king?

– You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Whoever is of the truth hears My voice. »

Here is the traditional interpretation of the Church: Jesus is a king because He is descends from King David, because He died on the Cross, which earned Him the title of Lord of lords, and above all because He is the Son of God. He is a king such as no one has ever been before Him and never will be after Him. The « truth » to which He bears witness and for which He was crucified is that alone; He proved it by His miracles and His Resurrection.

John Paul II gives a totally different interpretation to this text and attempts to make us accept it by means of an aberrant line of reasoning.

« I think the path from those words (Christ’s words: “I am a king. I came into the world to bear witness to the Truth”) to these of Gaudium et Spes is transparent: “The role and competence of the Church being what it is, she must in no way be confused with the political community, nor bound to any political system. For she is at once a sign and safeguard of the transcendence of the human person.” »

First, his intention to deny any concert between the Church and the State, religion and politics, runs counter to the traditional Catholic doctrine. The link between the Church and politics has always existed and must exist. Our Father’s total political science, which we shall study in a future article, will convince us of this necessity.

Let us apply ourselves to understanding the connection – which the Pope terms « transparent » – between Jesus’ words, « Yes, I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the Truth », and the Council’s words, « the Church … is at once a sign and safeguard of the transcendence of the human person ».

Jesus’ words in no way evoke this Kantian concept ofevery person’s transcendent characterwhereby man is made a being who is « beyond everything and that there is no proportion or relationship between him and the other beings of this world other than one of sovereignty ».

The only man who is invested with unique, sacred, inviolable and inaccessible Holiness, in other words, with a veritable “transcendence” is Jesus Christ, a Divine Person. By concealing this truth, John Paul II effaces the obvious meaning of the text.

« The field of application for these two declarations, the one by Christ and the other by the Church in 1965, is not exactly the same », the Pope recognises.

« What an understatement! It is not the same at all. There is no logical connection, no ontological relationship between the Divine Word of Christ and the Council’s confused declaration. »

This reserve, however, is only a trick of eloquence that the Pope used to make us accept his reasoning. For, after an aside on the necessary separation between Church and State, still speaking to Frossard, he returns « to our parallel » between Jesus’ words to Pilate and the Council’s declaration. « The second part of the answer given to Pilate (“I came to bear witness to the Truth.”) and the Council’s declaration seem even more closely in agreement: to bear witness to the truthand to safeguard the transcendent character of the human person, it is all one. »

With one blow, the Pope shows his cards. He begins by suggesting a possible connection between Jesus’ words and the Council’s declaration: « they seem », and he ends by imposing his proposition as self-evident: « it is all one ».

« Thus you lead your docile readers, in a state of complete mental alienation, from the truth witnessed to by the Son of God, and for which He is going to die – His Gospel of salvation –, to an absurd and infernal error, borrowed by this ill-fated Council from the rhetoric of God’s worst enemies, from the antichrists of our day, who make of man a god. Between the one and the other, “between Christ and Belial” what connection is there? None whatsoever.

« Yet you present the identity of divine Revelation and this revelation of Satan’s as though it were a fact. »

That is how John Paul II snatches « from the head, shoulders and right hand of Jesus Christ His crown, mantle and sceptre, His hand of justice, which are all attributes and insignia of His Kingship, with which he proceeds to clothe Man ».

According to John Paul II, « this transcendence of the human person manifests his “kingship” (man’s kingship). We are dealing here with a universal truth concerning every single man and therefore all men. »

« But is this kingship one of birth or of conquest? Does one acquire it before realising one’s transcendence or only afterwards? A kingship over whom and over what? Is it political, ethical, metaphysical, or religious? If every man is king, are all men kings? Being transcendent, each man is a god and therefore a king – certainly a very flattering gospel! Perhaps every man is a Pope also? The whole thing is absolutely absurd and suddenly turns out to be monstrous. »

In fact, if every man is transcendent, that is, capable of sanctifying himself by himself, what is the use of Jesus’ Passion and Death on the Cross? John Paul II’s answer is an insult to God because it divests His Son of His sovereignty:

« Christ is king in the sense that in Him, in the testimony He rendered to the truth, is made manifest the “kingship” of every human being, the expression of every person’s transcendent character. Such is the Church’s proper inheritance. »

The intention of Our Lord would have been to symbolise Man and, in particular, every man who is despised and oppressed as He was before the Roman governor. His purpose would have been to remind us that every man is king by virtue of his transcendence.

« This blasphemy is the culminating point of all that you have to say. It is sacrilegious. It dispossesses God of His Kingship in order to confer it on Man [...].

« What is more, you make Our Lord the prophet of this idolatrous humanism and the martyr to this most impious of causes: man’s dignity, kingship and transcendence. »

How? « By effecting the strangest “communication of idioms” ever made, so as to make the attributes of Christ’s divine nature become those of His purely human nature, and thence to persuade us that they are proper to His purely human nature and therefore also proper to every man! It is an odious theft, like that of Satan’s proposal to the first man [...]!

« This is the mission you say the Church has inherited! You make the Church preach the kingship of Man; you make her practise the cult and service of Man, the transcendent King, in place of and instead of God, and God alone, until it kills her! »

His mother longed to have a son be a priest; her wish was fulfilled, but after her death, which occurred when Karol was eight years old. His father, a non-commissioned officer, wanted to hand down his Polish, traditional and supernatural Catholicism to his son. What has Wojtyla done with this inheritance? © Catholic Press Photo.

OF JESUS CHRIST’S DIVINITY AND KINGSHIP. YOUR APOSTASY.

For the Pope to commit the blasphemy of reducing the Son of God and Saviour « to the role of witness, prophet, priest and martyr to Man’s transcendence and kingship, whether by lowering Him to the level of every man or by raising every man to His level – for the Pope to contest the proper and peculiar total transcendence and Kingship of Jesus, as though He had made no such claim before Caïphas and Pilate, is so enormous, so incomprehensible, so scandalous, so impious and so blasphemous, so suicidal and subversive of all order both human and Christian, in a word, so antichrist, that in most cases, one reads and re-reads what is written, in an effort to persuade oneself that there is a misunderstanding, that the words must have another meaning, that it just cannot be [...].

« That man is in any way declared by Jesus in the Gospel to be a king or transcendent, that is to say holy, is something that no one would dare to maintain and, certainly, that no true Christian would ever accept [...].

« One must never have read the Gospel, or else deliberately want to falsify it, not to be mindful that God the Father is always the Holy One, the Lord and the Master of all things, the King and Father of the family… That His Son is the Messiah, the Son of David, and by virtue of this twofold filiation, the King of Israel, to whom moreover was promised dominion over every nation... That the prophets before Him, and the Apostles whom He chose to be His successors, are those servants to whom is promised a share in the power and the glory of His Kingdom to come… And that, in the end, the only ones who are “saints” and have a share in His very priesthood, prophetic power, and kingship, are His faithful ones – those who, through faith in His divinity, are made sons of God by adoption and members of His Mystical Body, whose Head He is. »

It is thus that the Church has always interpreted, understood, commented on, and taught about the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

« It was precisely to bar the way to any contestation of this kingship that your predecessor, Pope Pius XI, wrote – as though he saw your contestation coming, Most Holy Father – that admirable encyclical Quas Primas on 11 December 1925. » In fact, this encyclical deals with Christ the King and evokes precisely the appearance of Christ before Pilate by saying the opposite of John Paul II: one man is king, Christ.

« Anyone would err shamefully, Pius XI wrote, who would take away from Christ as man the rule over civil affairs – of whatever sort they may be – since He has been given by the Father such complete power over created things that everything is subject to His Will... Our Redeemer’s Kingship, therefore, embraces all men. »

Every line of this encyclical clashes « head-on with your supposedly evangelical and undoubtedly conciliar secularism! »

LEGITIMATE SUSPICION AND WITHDRAWAL OF OBEDIENCE
TOWARDS A PERFIDIOUS PONTIFF.

Through these pages, our Father displayed extraordinary strength by exclusively basing himself on the teaching of the Church, which he only repeated. Since there is an absolute contradiction between John Paul II’s teaching and the Church’s, the Abbé de Nantes declared his intention to maintain « a watchful and resolute withdrawal of obedience » towards the Pope.

This withdrawal of obedience is « a public, solemn rupture of communion by virtue of any complaint of heresy, schism, or breach of duty against a hierarchical superior or superiors, who are thereby legitimately considered suspect. When they have received warning of this rupture, the superiors find themselves obliged to resolve the doctrinal conflict before pronouncing any sanction, and if necessary they must invoke their infallible authority, which alone is truly decisive. » (CCR n° 98, May 1978, p. 18)

Thus it is not a question of leaving the Church, as integrists did. The aim is to express our opposition publicly, to motivate it, and to await that the supreme Judge promulgate the infallible definitions and anathemas that alone can wash the Roman See and the Catholic episcopate clean of all heresy and ignominy, with which they are now sullied.

« As for us, Most Holy Father, we shall not desert our churches nor abandon our parishes; we shall never separate ourselves from the Great Church, so much abused by her lying pastors, but who herself remains ever faithful.

« On the contrary, we summon You, before your face, to tell us whether you are the Vicar of Christ, the Son of God, only Saviour, King of kings and Lord of lords, or whether you are the prince of antichrists, the Servant of man who makes himself god, an abomination of Satan. » (Liber II, p. 23)

INNOVATOR

After this accusation, our Father unmasked John Paul II’s true personality in a second part entitled, innovator, you are betraying Christ. He clearly and precisely showed where the heresy, schism, and scandal lie in the personal life of Karol Wojtyla, who is guilty of three breaks.

THE BREAK IN POLAND.

In the hardships that Poland underwent in the course of its contemporary history, the vast majority of the Polish people remained behind the bishops and priests and were faithful to Catholic, counter-revolutionary, royalist, and social doctrine. This Poland, which is dear to the Sovereign Pontiffs, had the exceptional grace, under the reign of St. Pius X, of being guided by a great nationalist thinker, Roman Dmowski (1864-1939) and by a wonderful pastor of the Church, Adam Cardinal Sapieha (1867-1951), a friend of Pius X.

Karol Wojtyla was born an heir to this rich patrimony. In 1938, during a pastoral visit to the Collegium Majus at Wadowice, Cardinal Sapieha singled him out and wanted to make a disciple of him. Once he became seminarian at Cracow, he received many marks of predilection from the cardinal: he welcomed the young man when he entered the seminary, followed his ecclesiastical training, gave him the best parishes, had him follow an excellent course of studies at Rome, and offered him trips to France and Belgium in order to discover new methods of apostolate.

« In your friend Malinski’s writings, our Father wrote, one senses that both you and he had no familiarity, no intellectual, spiritual, or human affinity with this cardinal. Was it because he was too much the grand seigneur? You hinted as much one day, in a truly distasteful reflection. But the really profound reasons lie elsewhere. Sapieha was faithful to his Catholic nationalist convictions and to the men of old popular Catholic and nationalist Poland, whilst you were not. There is where the break lies and nowhere else. »

Karol Wojtyla was in fact the plaything « of two occult forces » that led him to break with Catholic, traditional Poland.

The first of these forces was that when he was very young, even before becoming acquainted with the cardinal, he had a passion for the theatre of Professor Kotlarczyk. This very odd, “rhapsodic” theatre was underlain by the esoteric and pseudo-Christian philosophy of the anthroposophe Rudolf Steiner whose disciples, our Father recalled, are « Luciferian ».

According to this gnosis, which was explained in an article written by one Christian Leclercq, who himself was a Steinerian, an end must be put to all ideas of the past and to all « ancient cultural values ». It urges us to« overcome our dualist vision, which consists in opposing good and evil, God and the Devil, in an exterior way, as though man were no more than an onlooker, owing his salvation to being granted the Lord’s good graces ».

On the contrary, for Steiner, « it is up to man to emancipate himself, to free himself ». To be on the stage must allow adepts to be able to master the power of language and of the word, to « develop the interior strength to enable them to find the balance between the two tendencies inclining him to error: Lucifer and Ahrimane. » These ideas are totally alien to the Catholic Church!

The other circle to which Karol Wojtyla linked his destiny was the combination of relationships that he formed within the only Catholic newspaper to be authorised in Poland, Tygodnik Powszerchny. This publication that claimed to be the only one to oppose the Communist government was actually brought about by the Communists in order to disguise their monopoly of the press by giving the appearance of pluralism. In reality this Masonic, liberal, modernist, Teilhardist, and one-worldist newspaper did not miss any opportunities to discredit Polish Catholic nationalists and their leader, Roman Dmowski.

Karol Wojtyla never denied these two movements. Once he became Cardinal of Cracow, he wrote the preface to Professor Kotlarczyk’s book entitled The Art of the Living Word, instead of placing it on the Index as it deserved. As for the relationships he had formed at the paper, he not only remained faithful to them but he also dispensed with the need for it to obtain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur from the bishop’s office, requirements that Cardinal Sapieha had imposed.

When Wojtyla succeeded to two venerable Prince-Bishops of the old school, Cardinal Sapieha († 1951) and Mgr Baziak († 1962), he became the youngest diocesan administrator in the whole of Poland.

Then « your biographers all agree that you made changes, without being able to define them precisely », the Abbé de Nantes wrote. A close reading of the documents reveals that Mgr Wojtyla did not carry out « a superficial reformism but a profound change ». Until then, the Metropolitan Archbishops of Cracow shared exactly the same faith as their people. Everyone knew that « this life is a difficult passage, a time of trial, and a “valley of tears”, where one must pray much, as people had always prayed, do penance, suffer, carry one’s cross, conquer sin, fear Hell and die fortified by the Sacraments of the Church, so that finally one might go to Heaven, the unique object of all our works. »

Instead of this, Mgr Wojtyla wanted « to teach people to live on this earth for its own sake, now, in this present time, loving each man for his own humanity ».

He preferred to teach « that people can live just as well, better in fact, through respecting each man’s individual rights and fulfilment as the will of God! »

Little by little, the young prelate substituted « a humanist pastoral approach for a strictly religious one, an ethic of freedom, happiness and solidarity for one of submission, renunciation and sacrifice ».

Fr. Malinski related how Mgr Wojtyla once visited his parish of Rabka and how he proceeded to examine confirmation candidates. The priest experienced some anguish at that moment: « If he questions them as certain bishops do (yet it is the rule), it will be a total failure, a disaster... (Phew, he did nothing of the sort!) I approached the group that surrounded him. I saw his eyes and theirs; I heard the tone of his voice and that of their voices. I could breathe again! He was talking, not giving an examination; he was speaking with a smile, with a hint of humour and much seriousness and sincere friendship. I knew that he was like that, but I did not know that he kept this attitude in very liturgical and official occasions… »

Why did Wojtyla not question? By virtue of « putting into operation, the praxis of a new anthropology ». In place of “theocentrism”, Mgr Wojtyla substituted a conscious and deliberate “anthropocentrism”, even though it did not as yet show officially. Authority became liberal, fraternal and even appears to be human. We were passing from a Church of divine institution to a Church of human inspiration.

THE BREAK AT ROME.

In Rome, in the years around 1950, two camps were formed in the Vatican: that of the Church whose head was Pius XII, a defender of the true religion, and that of the counter-Church. This second camp was supported by Giovanni Battista Montini, substitute at the Secretariat of State, who gathered all sorts of left wing intellectuals, Modernist theologians, and finally Soviet agents who had infiltrated the Church, one of whom, the Jesuit Tondi, worked in his very office.

When at last he was convinced of Montini’s multiple betrayals by unimpeachable witnesses, « Pius XII dismissed him by appointing him Archbishop of Milan and swore never to make such a felon a cardinal, lest he be elected as his successor at the next conclave! » And yet, who knows by what frightful blackmail Montini dodged his deserved downfall, used this base, from which he made his ultimate ascent and was elected Pope after John XXIII had made him a cardinal.

Paul VI devoted the whole of his pontificate to launching the Church « into this enormous confusion » that aimed at promoting « the utopia of a religion entirely at the service of humanity », which our Father called masdu, “Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy”. We know its fruits. It produced no profit, save only destruction upon destruction and ruins.

Now, after Paul VI’s death in 1978, suddenly, everything re-blossoms. « Cardinals, bishops, and the faithful felt themselves to be on the brink of an abyss. There had to be a swing, quickly, firmly and without transition, to the right. » And the Conclave chose, as though in a single bound, Albino Cardinal Luciani. The Church had been seriously shaken; he was the Pope she needed. Cardinal Wojtyla himself seemed to have thought this:

« I think he is the ideal man for this dignity. Thanks to his piety and his humility, he is fitted to welcome the action of the Holy Spirit. At the present time, the Church is in need of such a Pope. »

Alas, John Paul I died thirty three days later and « the cardinals came to themselves again and thwarted the designs of God by electing – half misled and half decided, in opposition to the traditional tide that had momentarily returned – Your Holiness, to continue the work of Paul VI, to bring it to life, and to consolidate the gains of the revolution. »

John Paul II agreed. On the day of his enthronement, he called himself Paul VI’s spiritual son; he officially took a stand in favour of the conciliar revolt and betrayed Pius XII and John Paul I at the same time.

A PHILOSOPHICAL BREAK.

John Paul II and Fidel Castro at Cuba, in 1998.
« He has always discouraged the most militant forms of anticommunism. » (Blazynski, John Paul II. A man of Cracow) © Catholic Press Photo.

Paul VI did not make a god of man; his philosophy did not reach such speculative heights. He dreamed of reconciling modern atheism and the Christian religion, but without daring to proclaim it and to make a theory of it.

John Paul II made a profession of « meeting “man who makes himself god”, not as Paul VI did out of goodness or flattery, but through an intimate identity of philosophical concepts with those of modern atheist thinkers ». He thought that he was the first to have reached the « synthesis » that must dialectically result from the « contradictions » between the thesis, atheism, and the antithesis, religion; Karol Wojtyla was convinced that his mission as Sovereign Pontiff was to promote his philosophy, which actually is indistinguishable from modern humanist philosophy.

Our Father explained his thinking in three phases.

A SPECULATIVE GOOD FRIDAY.

As Catholics, we believe that God exists, that He is transcendent, real, objective, the Creator and Master of all things; we believe that He has intervened in history and that He revealed Himself to man; that He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, who saw and heard Him. We believe that He took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary two thousand years ago. There were innumerable witnesses; the proofs are objective, historical, scientific, and independent of the existence and will of anyone else.

God, to whom every creature owes its being, is the centre of the universe. To believe that the world exists without God is diabolical.

From the eighteenth century on, several German philosophers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, nay Feuerbach and Marx embarked on a titanic combat against the transcendent God, whom they sought to reduce to immanence, namely to human interiority. The Abbé de Nantes explained that their aim was to transmute Christianity itself into a speculative system where the human being would constitute the conscious and driving centre. These thinkers are unwilling to submit to God or to His revealed mysteries; rather, they try to equal God, to recreate the world and to affirm themselves as the source of all being and value. In order to attain this goal, they work to liquidate transcendence as such altogether.

« Such is “the human independence” to which all modern philosophy must lead, according to Hegel. “It is time, he wrote, to reabsorb this strange entity, God, into humanity, which, at the dawn of Judeo-Christian history, humanity had projected into the skies.” »

In other words, according to Hegel, Old Testament Jews and Christians have invented this story about Yahweh living in Heaven and about Jesus coming from there to become incarnate. The time has come to demolish, « to reabsorb » these inventions that oppress minds. Hegel invented a blasphemous expression: the speculative Good Friday, to signify that it is necessary, in thought this time, to renew speculatively the crucifixion that the Jews carried out on Good Friday. Today it is necessary to proceed philosophically to the death of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ.

In this “speculative” system, given that man alone exists, it is enough for man to will, i.e., that he apply his will power, to abolish the supra-sensible order – and not just God – and to raise the world to a higher degree. Such is trans-ascendance, whereby man takes full responsibility for himself, auto-creates himself, auto-exalts himself, auto-divinises himself, takes interior experience for self-sufficiency and himself becomes God.

It is pointless to specify that the Church has always condemned this immanentist philosophy. « It is false, it is anti-religious, and, what is more, it is inhuman; it leads infallibly to the Marxist Gulag, for it persecutes all that is not itself and all that is opposed to its reign, as though it had no right to exist. »

In spite of this, several theologians and philosophers such as Rahner, Teilhard, Scheler, Steiner (... Wojtyla?) have made this philosophy of “the immanentisation of the divine” their own and have tried to achieve the impossible feat of Christianising it.

From then on, two religions were distinguished beneath the Christian label: the old, traditional one, the one that Rome taught, the one attached to the revealed truth and its dogmas, and the religion of the promise, which does not stop at myths, precepts and dogma, and which is beginning to blossom under the liberating effect of the modern world.

Then, the Abbé de Nantes posed the following questions to the Holy Father: « Do you accept or do you reject this religion that is no longer a religion, this post-religious faith? In this speculative Good Friday, are you the victim or the executioner? Are you the servant of God judged and condemned to be crucified, or are you Pilate? Or maybe Caiaphas, the high priest of these times? »

DIALECTICAL HOLY SATURDAY.

Well! John Paul II, the Roman Pontiff, professed to reconcile himself to and come to terms with this atheistic modern thought; he was resolved to lead the Church, who is placed under his leadership, down this path of perdition. « On the day following this deicidal Good Friday, the Abbé de Nantes wrote him, you have decided to meet the “assassins of the faith” and to go down into Hell there to dialogue with them. »

From the dialogue between Christians and atheists, between the thesis and the antithesis, John Paul II caused his new synthesis of a Christian atheism, or of a post-religious Christianity, to burst forth.

Here is an irrefutable proof of it.

In the course of a retreat that Cardinal Wojtyla preached before Paul VI at the Vatican in 1976, he developed an astounding dialectic on the subject of the Book of Genesis:

« It may sound a trifle strange, but I think it is true, that one cannot understand either Sartre or Marx without having first read and pondered the first three chapters of Genesis. These are the key to understanding the world of today... »

We know that there is only one Catholic interpretation of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis: God forbade Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit (Gn 2:16-17) but, tempted by Satan, they disobeyed the divine commandment and, struck with original sin, they were expelled from the Garden of Eden (Gn 3).

This interpretation provides the explanation of the modern irreligion that is advocated by atheists: in their pride they show themselves Adam’s true sons, Satan’s slaves, by claiming to be equal to God.

On the contrary, Wojtyla justifies modern man’s rebellion by giving a new interpretation of the biblical account and by claiming that the Devil raised between man and God « misunderstandings », which the Abbé de Nantes summarised this way:

First, Satan persuaded man that God wanted of him a blind, prompt, and disinterested obedience to His precepts, a demand that, according to Wojtyla, could only make man revolt against God. So, Wojtyla rectifies this; God is love, and so He cannot forbid anything.

On the other hand, God cannot command anything to man that his own conscience has not itself first commanded. God merely wants man to follow his own personal law in order to achieve good in full freedom.

Then, Satan provokes a second misunderstanding by affirming that God does not tolerate man’s pretension to make himself ruler and king of the world. This jealousy of God can only irritate and arouse man’s resentment. In reality, Wojtyla explains, God told man to dominate the world and gave it to him as his sovereign property and kingdom.

Thus, between God and Man, there can be no competition, no rivalry, concerning the world. Out of an innate sense of justice and out of a free act of gratitude, man has only to give thanks to the Creator for this kingship that He has given him, abdicating His own entirely for his exclusive advantage.

Finally, in our day, Satan has invented the story that God never tolerates man’s making himself God, which has naturally led man, Wojtyla explains, to wanting to kill God and to make himself the only object of his cult and adoration.

But Karol Wojtyla reveals that this auto-divinisation of man is nothing evil, since man has the capacity and irrepressible desire for this. Better still, man who becomes transcendent will restore God’s « image and likeness » in himself. All that is required is not to be sectarian, to accept the possibility for man « of not being alone » and to admit the familiar and benevolent presence of a new God, of a « Self above and within me », immanent and transcendent.

Thus Wojtyla maintains that if man denies God and rejects religion, it is not that Satan lured him into his rebellion but that he deceived him, deluded him, raising between God and him several appalling and unjust misunderstandings. The hatred of our modern thinkers for the true God is only the result of a confusion that Satan has cunningly introduced between God and them.

The claims of atheists who refuse to obey God’s commandments, who want to dominate the earth and to auto-divinise themselves are thus legitimate. It is even necessary, our Father wrote as he expressed the Pope’s thought, « to understand, love and encourage man who makes himself God, and not condemn him. For God’s true opportunity in the modern world is that man, in admiring himself, and in absolutely and infinitely loving himself, should see himself as God, the Image and Likeness of Another. Of another and benevolent God. »

This is how John Paul II runs along the road of atheistic humanism and descends alive into Hell, there to renew the Gospel: the dialectical Holy Saturday.

« Obviously, for this liberation, triumph and exaltation of man to be accomplished, the atheists must do their part. The antithesis must historically devour the thesis, feed on it, and so engender the synthesis. What we are witnessing in both East and West is the wasting away of an over-literal dogmatic belief, of a certain narrow-minded ecclesial community [...].

« That is your audacious path, a path that your Catholic colleagues at the Catholic University of Lublin refused to accept. That did not shake you. You are certain that in the end you will demonstrate that in every atheistic, humanist system, including Marxism, there subsists the possibility of another God, of a transcendent Other, in the “extra-empirical” sphere. »

IDEALIST PASCH.

When Christians take a step towards atheists, that is, when they understand that the new religion merely consists in developing themselves and in becoming aware of their inner power to divine...

When atheists accept the idea that God exists but that this God does not impose anything on them; on the contrary, that He wishes men to attain their full flowering and to make themselves God...

Then it will be Easter Morning, the Pasch, the hour of the resurrection of the faith, the moment when everyone will believe that man’s development allows him to attain godhood. Through humanism, atheism and materialism, accepted in all their rigour, the Church will save her faith and rediscover her God. It will be a new resurrection, the resurrection of God in the heart of man, whom he has freely rediscovered in himself and starting from himself, according to what his conscience inspires in him, and without anyone teaching him or imposing anything on him.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that in his intention to proceed to this miraculous resurrection of God through the philosophical elaboration of a modern humanism, John Paul II has not attracted atheists to Christianity; rather, it is he who has « joined the ranks of atheistic rationalists ».

Our Father analysed page after page of biographies of Karol Wojtyla, testimonies about him, his conversations with André Frossard, quotations drawn from his sermons and speeches; they prove that there is no trace of God in Karol Wojtyla’s personalist philosophy, no need for any anterior or superior existence as man’s cause, condition or last end. They prove that Man is everything; he is his own beginning and end, his own law, and the law of everything else.

Here is one example in support of this observation. In May 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla made these remarks in a sermon:

« Man must discover himself, he must completely reconstruct himself, and he must completely redeem himself (“stupidity”!our Father commented). Because man is not just matter, like a lump of coal or a block of stone, any more than he can be compared to the most beautiful statue.

« Man is an image of his God – God made him in His own image! Man redeems himself and discovers himself when he identifies himself with this image, when he discovers his likeness to God. »

But, our Father remarked, « if man in no way depends on the One of whom he is the copy, if man projects himself into an ideal image above and beyond, as an auto-realisation, then we have a purely gratuitous movement involving no rational adherence. »

On the other hand, if « it is entirely by virtue of this “image” of himself as future, as free and transcendent being, that man discovers “the transcendent Other”: God », there remains a difficulty that Wojtyla never explains, here it is:

« If the image comes first, depicted in man’s consciousness through his “faith” in himself, and if this image be projected into a supreme transcendence, then the God who will appear to him will not be “Being”, but Image of the image of man. »

The Pope will not have constituted man as “image of God”, but he will have given to the human ideal a usurped divine status. The hypostasised “image of Man” projected into the skies will never be the “true and living God”, but an idol without being or life!

Then, our Father continued, Wojtyla does not say anything either about this force, this virtue, this grace whereby man will supposedly redeem (?) himself and discover himself to be the image of God, a latent image that apparently would already be written in everyone’s conscience. Wojtyla affirms that he had discovered this image in his phenomenological studies, in his researches on the experience lived by man, and in particular on the lived experience of love, but « nothing could be less convincing or less communicable. What is more suspect or more easily reducible to religious sublimation than erotic or revolutionary emotions? »

In the end, Wojtyla does not talk about Christ, nor does he base Christianity on history, on past facts, on an existing reality that – whatever « man » may think – cannot be reduced to pure mysticism or to a faith without an object.

Altogether, « although you are very strong against materialism and strong in your desire to destroy the old religion in the name of the absolute of Man, you are powerless to effect the reappearance of God after having killed Him in souls and buried Him in the tomb of your secular and worldly humanism – the reappearance on the third day of the old God, risen as the brand new Beautiful God in the image of the perfect man. Despite all your efforts, He remains a will-o’-the-wisp, without being, without life, without face. »

It is, the Abbé de Nantes explained, Immanuel Kant’s « noumenon » and nothing else! « This “noumenon” which all his disciples allowed to die out and be annihilated in the infinite void of the starry beyond! »

Our Father demolished the Pope’s philosophy with this incisive expression: « A noumenal God for a phenomenal Pope. »

« The great advantage of this God is that He does not exist, or if He does exist, it is as though He were non-existent for us – the pure guarantor of our freedom. Man, Man, Man! For a “phenomenal” Pope, there is only Man, guaranteed by a fictitious God who is “noumenal”. »

YOU ARE A MODERNIST MAKING ROME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST.

John Paul II believed that he « was doing a great work, doubtless for the greater glory of God and for the good of the Church ». He worked with determination to reconcile age-old Christianity and modern atheistic humanism, « rather than to combat and anathematise » the latter.

« For this reason, you had to accept their criticism of religion and so work firstly to purify religion and consequently to reform it. You could then bring the adversary – who had thus been pacified by means of a closely argued dialectic – to listen to and even share your faith. It would be necessary to accept the humiliation of God, the “death of God”, but it would be justified by the promise of His triumphant return and of His “resurrection” in the midst of the modern world.

« Now, this theory and practice happen to have been denounced, rejected, condemned, and outlawed in the Church for three quarters of a century by the major Encyclical of the holiest of popes of modern times as « the synthesis of all the heresies », inevitably leading to the radical destruction of religion, of the Church, and of human civilisation itself, leaving nothing, absolutely nothing, standing.

« Most Holy Father, read Saint Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis [below]; on page after page you will hear the Pope of all time penetrating the thoughts and the works of the Pope of a day, of the Pope of today, denouncing them and commanding the whole Church to fly from such a doctrine and from such works, to separate herself from such an heresiarch in order to remain faithful to Jesus Christ, judge of the living and of the dead. »

CORRUPTER

Faith in man, the Abbé de Nantes accused, has « pervaded your being like a cancer and has been transformed – do you not think? – into a faith, trust, love, and cult of You Yourself, making you the centre of the world, as you already were of the Church and, as you believed, of her religion.

« Are not You Yourself the man most often in the public eye, the one most elevated and visibly closest to divinisation? There can be nothing more corrupting and nothing more illusory than such pride and egoism at the summit of the Church – the Church that has to be the guide and the model for all nations! »

Since John Paul II had put his faith in man, our Father found himself obliged to pursue this accusation by addressing him with this brutal exclamation: Corrupter, you are putting Christ’s Church to death! In a general and indefinite way, everything is coming undone and is falling to pieces. If things continue thus, « and even now we are in a state of ruin », it will be the end of religion, the end of the Church, and the end of Christian civilisation.

1. YOU ARE STIFLING RELIGION.

True religion, our religion, teaches that we work out our salvation by obeying God’s law like slaves, the law that the Church teaches us. St. Paul states clearly that we have become Christ’s slaves. It is up to us to trust Christ and the Church. God is ready to bestow His grace on man provided that he himself does not claim to be God.

The Pope wants to get rid of this religion.

Of course, in ten, even a hundred, of his speeches to parish priests or nuns, he pretends to adhere to this religion. But « you adjust the infiltration of your errors to suit your audience’s capacity to assimilate or react to them… To the Christian masses, a Christian speech! To mixed audiences, to an ecumenical or frankly Masonic audience, Christian language will be used to convey pagan thoughts, always the same ones. »

As soon as the Pope was able to do so, he levelled down religion and moved it over from the old religious order to the modern humanist order, yet all the while preserving a Christian language.

It suffices to re-read certain speeches, like the one the Pope delivered at Unesco in 1980, to wonder what remains of divine religion after this:

« The fundamental dimension capable of revolutionising the systems that provide the structure for all mankind and of freeing human existence, both individual and collective, from the threats hanging over it, is man, man in his wholeness, man whose life partakes of both material and spiritual values. Respect for man’s inalienable rights is at the basis of everything.

« This man is unique, complete and indivisible. In the cultural domain, man is always the primary factor: man is the primordial and fundamental factor in culture… In thinking of all cultures, I wish to say here in Paris, at the seat of Unesco, with respect and admiration, behold the man! (what blasphemy! cf. John 19:5) »

« It is clear, the Abbé de Nantes commented, that in this speech, delivered before an international audience of Freemasons of Unesco, who would be most pleased to hear you say it, culture for you is the religion of Man, and it is the exact replica of the religion of our God [...].

« “Man does not live by bread alone”, you ventured to say in imitation of the words of Jesus in the wilderness (Mt 4:4), “but also by culture”. It is the spirit of blasphemy within you that makes you replace the words, “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, with the word “culture”. In your integral humanism, it is evident that “religion” is reduced to its sole function as an ancillary to culture! »

SO MANY INSULTS TO GOD THE FATHER!

Over and over again, the Pope affirms that man is made in « the image and likeness of God » and that all men are « sons of God », given that God is « Father of all men, making them all brothers ».

« In the image and likeness of God. » This was true before original sin when the relationships that united God the Father, Adam, and Eve were in the likeness of those existing between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. These relationships, however, were destroyed by original sin. Only grace can restore these relationships of love and enable us to be in the likeness of God.

Rather than recalling this truth, John Paul II prefers to exalt « human pride in a world that is collapsing under the weight of sin, tirelessly repeating this single verse (Gn 1:27) – I should say these single words! – from the Book of Genesis, giving it a universal and absolute meaning, which is belied by the very next chapter that tells of the Fall, let alone by the rest of the entire Bible! »

On the other hand, how can the Pope say that all men are « sons of God »? « All men? Even those who, in the words of Our Lord, have Satan for their father and not Abraham, or Moses, or God? (Jn 8:39-47), those who will not be recognised on the Last Day by the Son of Man, who will say, “I do not know where you are from. Depart from Me, all you evildoers” (Lk 13:27) ? »

The truth is that no man can pride himself on the title of « son of God », if he has not first received the Baptism that effaces original sin and if he does not work to keep this grace by means of prayer and the Sacraments dispensed by the Church.

SUCH GREAT CONTEMPT FOR JESUS CHRIST.

Under these conditions, « if God is the servant of Man, kneeling before Man who has no further need of grace, and to whom God is a hindrance rather than a source of interest », then what use was it for the Son of God to have come down to earth? There is no point!

John Paul II does not deny Jesus’ existence, but he disfigures Him in order to make of Him « a remarkable and exemplary representative of humanity – a humanity in every respect identical to our own. As such, He honours the whole of humanity, He reveals humanity to itself, and He saves it from doubt and anguish. »

Jesus is « the Revealer of the mystery of man, of all that constitutes his essential and inviolable dignity », Cardinal Wojtyla preached in 1976 before Paul VI and his cardinals. Christ’s dignity surely? No, man’s! Wojtyla takes delight in « this unspeakable confusion of Christ’s divine attributes with those human attributes that belong not to His incomparable being, no!, but to the whole community of mankind! »

Until then, the Church taught us that Jesus came to remind us that we are sinners and that we must recognise ourselves as such if we want to obtain the salvation won by His cross. Now, however, John Paul II affirms that Jesus reveals to us the « essential and inviolable dignity » of every man!

Even the dogma of the Redemption exalts the pride of man:

« In the mystery of the Redemption, Christ has revealed the worth of every man and how he must fight (? !) – and to what lengths – to preserve the dignity that is peculiarly his. » (retreat preached in 1976)

« How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he “merited to have so great a Redeemer”! » (Redemptor hominis, n° 10)

These incredible comments mean that man is endowed with such worth, his dignity is so great, that God had to shed His Blood in order to show his value. « It is too gross an error not to be conscious and deliberate ... And what is precious, what is of great price, is Christ’s Blood. But in this you see merely the currency, the fiduciary value of the object! Learn, o Man, your infinite worth! You have singularly upped the ante! »

YOU INSULT THE VIRGIN MARY, THE MOTHER OF GOD,
YOU EXTINGUISH THE HOLY SPIRIT, YOU DEVALUE THE CHURCH!

John Paul II acts likewise with the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Spirit, and the saints. He disfigures them in their pure supernatural mysteries and transfigures them into human and diabolical carnal realities while preserving the religious myth.

The grandeur of the Blessed Virgin no longer lies in Her title of Mother of God but in that of mother of Man, of the perfect man, Jesus Christ, an eminent representative of the human race.

Prayer is disfigured. A man who prays proves that, in hardships, he continues to believe in himself and in his transcendence.

Martyrdom. If Maria Goretti died a martyr, it is not out of Christian chastity alone but also in order to bear witness to « her personal dignity on the purely human plane, which prohibits all vexation and violence ». St. Maximilian Kolbe delivered himself up to death in order to « demand the right to life of an innocent man » and « out of love for man ».

« It would be the end of religion on earth, our Father concluded, if the Church did not fight with all the might of her institutions and of her holy living traditions against this end times apostasy. But how much longer can the Church still endure your blows? »

2. YOU ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH.

« The path of salvation has, from the earliest times, been that of religion. From the time of Abraham and Moses, it was the path of Jewish Law. And now, for all time and for all peoples, it is, through Jesus Christ, the way of the Church in which the faithful are led and outside of which there is no salvation. »

Now our Father inveighed against John Paul II when one fine day he announced a new way. He wants the Church to « be converted to man » and proclaimed categorically and magisterially, as he did before a gathering of three thousand Italian teachers on 3 November 1979, that « man is and will remain the way of the Church ».

It is an impious thing to say, because in so saying, man, concrete or philosophical, substitutes himself for the Son of God made man. It is also a foolish thing to say because one can only wonder what sort of way can man possibly be: what are his dogmas, sacraments, and commandments? Finally it is a revolution in the Church, for it pits the party of Man against the party of Jesus Christ!

YOU WANT SOCIAL ATHEISM AS A STARTING POINT FOR A NEW CHRISTIANITY.

« Your deepest concept is of a world that always has been – well before its encounter with the Church – “inwardly allied to eternal wisdom”, and which will continue to be so allied long after the Church’s disappearance:

« “I would like to pay homage, you said at le Bourget in 1980, to the living God who is acting in and through peoples, who writes the history of salvation in men’s hearts. This history is as old as man himself. It goes back to his “pre-history”. It goes back to the beginning.” »

But, our Father retorted, if man or society have from the beginning and always been inhabited by the eternal Wisdom, then « Christ and the Church are merely supernatural, superfluous realities in a world that is already saved ».

In 1789, when revolutionaries sent our priests to the scaffold and desecrated our churches, were they led by eternal Wisdom?

Here is the Pope’s answer to the French:

« What have the sons and daughters of your nation not done to further the knowledge of man and to express man by formulating his inalienable rights! The place held by the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity in your culture and history is well known. Fundamentally, they are Christian ideas. I say this fully aware that those who first formulated these ideals did so without reference to man’s covenant with the eternal Wisdom. Nevertheless, they wanted to act on behalf of man. »

According to Wojtyla, the revolutionaries did not act out of hatred of the Faith, but to promote man and his inalienable rights. By that very fact, they showed themselves allies of eternal Wisdom, even if they were unaware of it, and they were on the way of salvation!

THE OPENING TO THE WORLD OF VATICAN II.

Seen from that point of view, there is nothing in fact that prevents the Church from espousing the world and from entering into partnerships with her enemies.

On 19 November 1980 before an audience of thousands of German artists and intellectuals, the Pope made the following declaration respecting the relationships between the Church and art:

In the past, « the Church [...] lacked confidence with regard to the modern mentality and its manifold expressions. This spirit was considered (sic) as hostile to the faith and to the Church, and critical of both religion and revelation. The Church countered with a defensive attitude, distanced herself and answered back in the name of the Christian Faith.

« The Second Vatican Council created and established the basis for new relationships between the Church and the world, between the Church and art. These new relationships can be characterised by an attitude of interest, openness, and dialogue [...].

« The world is a reality in its own right; it has its own identity, whence also its autonomy of culture and of art. This autonomy, properly understood, is not a protest against God, nor is it a statement against the Christian Faith. It is rather a demonstration of the fact that God’s world is a freely given creation, handed over and entrusted to man for the purpose of a responsible culture [...].

« If your vocation (?) follows the direction of a responsible freedom, the Church can and must always be your partner (sic) – a partner in the concern for human dignity in a world shaken to its foundations. »

From reading what the Pope writes, we ought to conclude that the Church had changed and that « through a profound fidelity to the Ancients we end in contradicting them – an infidelity that is only apparent! There is evolution even in the midst of contradiction. In order to justify such a volte-face, the entire Church and God Himself would need to be Hegelian! Another pompous prediction that is as stupid as it is inept!

« Regrettably, Most Holy Father, this is precisely the pastoral teaching that was condemned in the Syllabus of the holy Pope Pius IX. It is that supposed “reconciliation of the Church with the modern world”, with a humanity said to be autonomous, free, but responsible! This pastoral teaching is unwilling to recognise that, in reality, this humanity is apostate, anti-Christian, and atheistic. If the Church is the partner of such a world, it can only be an act of prostitution. »

In 1989, John Paul II met some Lutheran “bishops”, before the Cathedral of Rossilke, in Denmark. « For you, everyone finds in his own sect, church or religion – even his atheism – the necessary and sufficient “means of salvation”! And so, you greet the Lutherans as brethren. » (our Father, Liber II, p. 135) © CPP.

A DISTORTED CHURCH.

« We have now arrived at the final and most striking act of your combat against the Church. It is the distortion, self-deposition, and depersonalisation of the Church, so that she become a thing of no name or identity, of no form or proper finality, manipulated by the power of Man (you know him well) in the service of Humanity. »

In fact, according to John Paul II, the Church « has now broken with the celebrated formula “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, which was not so terrible after all, since no-one knew the exact limits of the Church (N’ayez pas peur p. 111) ». The effect of this theory is « a more perfect and even religious liberalism, an ecumenism that is open to believers and to atheists, and a one-worldism ready for any sacrifice in the interests of the advent of a truly human civilisation. »

On 11 November 1980, at Madrid, the Pope reflected on the necessity to promote religious freedom in these words:

« On the theme of human rights, and in particular on the liberty of conscience and of religion, the Catholic Church » desires to « present some particular considerations to help facilitate a serious examination of the current situation of this liberty, so that liberty may everywhere be effectively guaranteed ».

Our father has always maintained that this social liberty in matters of religion – which was the object of a vague conciliar “Declaration” – is heretical. « I maintain and persist in declaring that you yourself are heretical if only for this one reason, which I regard as capital and decisive. »

The Abbé de Nantes did not claim to cast an anathema, but he was simply repeating, like a magnetic tape, the lesson he had learned from Apostolic Tradition and that Pius XII recalled on 6 December 1953:

« The Church must unconditionally deny all that is religiously false and morally evil. On this point, the Church has neither in theory nor in practice ever had any hesitation, any collusion. »

According to John Paul II, the Church must also engage in ecumenism and in opening to all denominations, for all men can be saved through them:

« It is extremely important to give a correct and honest presentation of other churches and ecclesial communities, which the Spirit of Christ does not refuse to use as means of salvation. »

This last affirmation is blasphemy, for, our Father explained, even if there are good materials in a dissident Church, they are put into operation by the Devil, who must be absolutely rejected.

This does not prevent hosts of human beings who were born in these sects or false religions from being saved, but it will be through the grace they will invisibly receive from the visible Church.

This well-conducted ecumenism should, according to the Pope, end in a one-worldism, that is to say in « a truly human civilisation ».

During his trip to the United States in 1979, John Paul II declared:

« I greet all Americans without distinction; I desire to meet you and to say to you all – men and women – of whatever religious faith or ethnic origin [...] – that God loves you and that He has conferred on you, as human beings, an incomparable dignity. I wish to say to each one of you that the Pope is your friend and the servant of your humanity. »

« What can be the meaning of an “incomparable” dignity bestowed on each and every one of those two hundred million American citizens? Their demagogues tell them the same… and even more! Outside the Catholic Faith, they are just empty words. And what are this friendship and this service that are directed to the “humanity” within men, rather than to their hearts and souls? »

John Paul II seeks to open himself to all men and strives in particular to win the good graces of the Catholic Church’s worst enemy: the Synagogue.

« Christians, the Pope said to Jews at Mainz in 1980, should feel themselves to be the brothers of all men and behave as such. But this sacred obligation is all the greater when Christians find themselves faced with those who are of the Jewish people! [...] “Whoever encounters Jesus Christ encounters Judaism”. »

What blasphemy! How can the Pope want to reconcile two enemy religions: the one has conquered Heaven, and the other intends to dominate the Earth. The former wants the conversion of the other, and the latter wants the annihilation of the former. « You, Most Holy Father, are the supreme head of the One Holy Church, which you propose to deliver into the hands of the other, the Synagogue, to share out world domination between them... Everything else is pure literature. »

3. YOU WILL RUIN THE WORLD.

John Paul II was persuaded that he had in himself the human wisdom capable of entirely renewing the world, of bringing it happiness on earth and thence, in addition, of leading it to God.

« Immediately, the world understood that you were not going to condemn it, that you were inviting no one to go back on himself, that you were sparing the world the effort of conversion, penance, and sacrifice, the habitual arsenal of Christian preaching. Nor would you speak to the world of chastisements. You yourself were too modern, too much a part of this same world to address it in this manner, in a language it would not understand and did not want to hear. »

The pontifical humanism, which was already destroying religion and the Church, would ineluctably ravage society. Brother Pierre-Julien of the Divine Mary’s article, John Paul II, the Pope of the rights of man, (He is Risen, n° 85), demonstrates that such was the result of his action, action entirely bent on the struggle for the Rights of man.

When the Pope incited men to reject all religious and political authority for the sake of exalting the human person, he contributed to the moral breakdown of society, to Revolution and to war.

In a Message the Holy Father addressed to young people in 1980, he uttered these scandalous words:

« Young people of France, bodily union has always been the strongest language with which two beings can speak to each other. »

« It is impious, the Abbé de Nantes protested, it is antichrist, it is anti-Marian, and anti-religious. Does the Holy Being of the Three Divine Persons experience bodily union? Did the Blessed Virgin Mary have any experience of it…? Did St. Joseph regret not experiencing it? And all the saints? Ah, how odious you are, how hateful in your corruptive teaching! »

Not content with « debauching the whole world », John Paul II incites everyone to have more and to be more. « At your call, they all vibrate, agitate, and prepare to rise for a struggle, they know not which. But it is the Revolution, whose prophet and legendary athlete you are. »

A speech that he delivered in 1980 at the Vatican and that touched on a recent trip that the Pope had made in Africa exalted Revolution and the independence of peoples:

« A few days ago… I expressed my joy at being able to visit the peoples of Africa in their own countries, in their own sovereign states, where they are “the true proprietors of their own land and the helmsmen of their own destiny”. In Africa, most nations in the past have experienced colonial administration. Without denying the various achievements of that administration, the world rejoices in the fact that that era has reached its end [...]. I particularly salute the recent independence of Zimbabwe. »

« You were addressing the “diplomatic corps” of all those new African States, and you, the Pope, insulted the white colonisers. Since I have vowed to declare my mind fully, I must say: You sicken me! You Insulter of all our sailors and missionaries, of all our soldiers and colonisers, doctors and planters, without whom there would have been no future for Africa. You spit on the graves of our forbears, of all our tortured, violated, impaled and eaten brothers, who met their end because emissaries from Moscow, New York… and from Rome had come to stir up the negroes against their benefactors. I must stop before I become ill-tempered and sarcastic. As I wrote to Paul VI who stretched out his arms to the Red Guards of the Chinese Cultural Revolution:

« Henceforth there is a river of blood separating us, the blood of our martyrs shed by those dogs, by those demons at your call! »

The keystone of the Pope’s optimism and of his humanism is pacifism. Just as, in John Paul II’s mind, there is no peril of damnation in the next world, there is no legitimate necessity either to wage war in this world. His calls for disarmament and peace are politically absurd and supernaturally impious and atheistic:

« Let us solemnly commit ourselves, here and now, never again to allow (still less to seek) war as a means of resolving conflicts. Let us promise the brothers of our humanity to work untiringly for disarmament and for the banning of all atomic weapons. Let us replace domination and hatred with mutual trust and solidarity. »

What support the Pope gives to all the terrorists, ideologues and enemies of Christianity! What a valuable collaboration and encouragement it is for all those revolutionary, Communist, Islamic, and Masonic heads of state who, with pen or kalatchnikov in hand, work to annihilate the last Catholic nations! « You weaken all that is on God’s side, on the side of good, and on the side of civilisation, which, after all, is the true side of “man”. In the meantime, the forces of Evil are arming, in contempt of Your Holiness. »

THE JUDGEMENT

In conclusion, as our Father suspected that he would be turned away, he warned the Holy Father that even if he did not want to do his duty by judging his doctrine in the light of Tradition and Holy Scripture, the Most Blessed Virgin had already settled the question, since John Paul II only showed contempt, horror and hatred for all that She had demanded at Fatima.

« Most Holy Father, through my negligible person, the Church, the Holy Church, our Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church of all time, accuses your novelty and its corrupting influence on the Faith, on morality, and on the world’s order. But there is one Person who judges you. Yes, who judges you on behalf of God, in whose glory She is enthroned, and who will do justice to Her people. And that Person is the Most Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. »

In 1917, the Blessed Virgin spoke about Heaven and showed the vision of Hell « where the souls of poor sinners go »; the Pope did not awaken fear of Hell nor desire for Heaven in souls. Or else, in order to prove the contrary, « the Sovereign Pontiff should place on the Index, for its grave danger to the eternal salvation of millions of souls, The Sign of Contradiction by Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, where the teaching on Hell in its twentieth chapter, The Glory of God is the Living Man, is most misleading.

« Similarly, he should place on the Index the book, dialogue with André Frossard, N’ayez pas peur, for its practical negation of the danger of Hell and its errors on the Judgement in pages 100 to 108 of the chapter entitled “Faith”.

« Similarly, the Constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, quoted in support of the heretical theses of the above-mentioned book, should also be placed on the Index for its paragraph 48. »

The Blessed Virgin has asked the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion of the five First Saturdays of the month in order to save souls and to achieve peace. The Pope gave it no heed.

On 13 May 1982, at Coimbra, he addressed the “Portuguese intellectuals and men of culture” in these words:

« The situation may seem desperate, as though presaging a new apocalypse. But in reality, it is nothing of the kind [sic]. For the humanity of the year 2000, there certainly exists an outcome and many reasons for hope. It is sufficient [sic] that all men of good will, especially those who profess faith in Christ, commit themselves to a profound renewal of culture, in the light of a sound anthropology and the principles of the Gospel. »

Our Lady of Fatima demanded that the consecration of Russia, and of Russia alone, be carried out by the Holy Father and the bishops of the whole world; the Pope has refused to do so. He had no intention or desire to comply with the wishes of Heaven. His « act of offering » of 13 May 1982 did not respond to the demands of the Blessed Virgin, who wanted the « consecration of Russia ». But it was a subterfuge that the Abbé de Nantes unmasked: « So, hypocritically, you gave the appearance of satisfying Heaven’s requests to mislead the Fatima devotees. It is a horrible accusation to make, but one which I immediately made in order to undeceive the faithful abused by you, and one that I proved. »

The Blessed Virgin finally wanted the Third Secret to be revealed; the Pope made as if he obeyed by mocking and saying in his speech of 12 May 1982:

« Do you want me to tell you a secret…? It is quite simple and it is no longer a secret: Pray much, say the rosary every day. »

It sounds like the Devil’s sniggering!

Our Father concluded:

« For my part, I do not think I would ever have had the light and strength necessary for my present fight against the powers of apostasy at work in the Church for a long time now, if the religion, the message and the secret of Fatima had not been my help and my consolation. It is strange that you passed over in silence the end of the Secret that is already known during your discourse for the 13 May, or rather that you substituted grandiloquent words about the descent of the Heavenly Jerusalem from Heaven to earth, a pastiche of the Apocalypse, for those words that sustain the current hope of the entire Church:

« “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me. She will be converted, and a time of peace will be given to the world.”

« Despair haunts so many of our people! But this solemn promise, confirmed by the Dance of the sun, and one that cannot fail, coming, as it does, from the Mother of God, gives us a sure hope for our temporal future. As for our spiritual future and the salvation of our souls, we would surely need to know this Secret to prevent our despairing of the Church or to enable us to resist the tide of general apostasy. For how is it possible, the best Catholics ask me – including those who are submitted to you and those who find that they are not able to be – how is it possible for the Church, now so heavily engaged and compromised in heresy and revolution over the reigns of three or four Popes since this accursed Council, ever to get back on the right lines again? It has become part of the tradition now, and we have to resign ourselves to it! We must either abandon the Church as an adulterous and treacherous mother, for the sake of honour but with regret, or, along with the modern world, we must become moronic and rally to her in order to remain faithful. And in the end God will be our judge!

« That is the appalling state of soul in which our best priests and members of the faithful find themselves. Ah well! This formidable objection has been put to us ever since we began our League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and it is through Fatima that we are able to discern the narrow, heroic and holy path leading to the sudden restoration of the Church. All will be done by the grace of the Immaculate. A few humble words from Her will suffice to clear the Church, and then the world, of the smoke of Satan. The darkness of Hell will then be vanquished. »

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