MGR SIMON REPLIES TO US

          Dear Brother,

Your certified letter of Thursday, 5 February 2009, has reached me. Since then, Mgr Marc Stenger, your bishop, sent to me the “open letter” that you intended for me, and in which you essentially repeat what you had already written to me on 5 February. Please forgive me for having delayed in replying. I was, however, completely snowed under by the mail that followed the publication of my open letter, relative to the lifting of the excommunications of the bishops whom Mgr Lefebvre had ordained. I also let the feast of Easter go by before writing to you. I am sure that you understand.

I must very honestly tell you that I will not undertake going to Rome with you to ask for an audience with our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. You tell me that if we received this audience you would apply St. Augustine’s well-known adage: “Roma locuta est, causa finita…”. I am ready to believe so. I wonder, however, why you do not already apply this same adage to the date of 8 December 1965. At the end of a Council that lasted four years, and which was perfectly legitimate in all respects, since it was convened, presided, and promulgated by the Pope, every Catholic can apply this classical adage. If you do not apply it to this date of 8 December 1965, why would you apply it in other, subsequent circumstances?

You will forgive me for not further developing my commentary. I must truly say to you that I no longer manage to read your publications. Thirty years ago, I always used to read the Abbé de Nantes’ writings with interest. But although I was in disagreement with his conclusions, I always found that there was something to reflect on in his writings. This is why I always read them with profit. But unfortunately, since his health no longer allows him to hold a pen, I see that you usually insist on repeating what he had already expressed on numerous occasions. We are no longer advancing, and I have the feeling that you do not realise that the world continues to turn. In these conditions, I do not think that further argumentation is necessary.

Thus, for example, the comparison that you repeat once again in your letter: “three milligrams of arsenic in a well-sweetened cup of tea” is undoubtedly very suggestive, but you also know that comparison does not prove you right. It would be necessary to establish that there is indeed arsenic in the Council… But I do not want to enter into this discussion, which has already gone on for more than forty years.

Since we are still in the sweet light of Easter, I wish you to find joy and peace in the contemplation of the Resurrection of Our Lord.

Yours sincerely,

P.S. I am sending a copy of my reply to Mgr Stenger.

REPLY TO MGR SIMON

          Your Excellency,

I thank you for your letter. I am touched by its benevolent tone, and it encourages me to reply to you on a point that is dear to my heart, despite your desire not to continue the controversy. You read the Abbé de Nantes with profit thirty years ago. If, however, you had read his Letters to My Friends during the Council, you would be unable to believe that Rome has spoken, that the Cause has been judged since 8 December 1965.

Of course, our Father did not call into question the validity of the convening of the Council, nor did he, at least in the initial stages, question its unfolding « Juridically – Does the Second Vatican Council enjoy supreme power over the Universal Church? – Yes, undoubtedly. The canonical regularity of the present Council is absolutely certain and indubitable. » he wrote in the Letter to My Friends n° 212 of 15 September 1965, at the opening of the last session.

After having demonstrated this in a masterly page, our Father posed a second question: « 2. Historically – Did the Second Vatican Council intend to exercise Supreme and infallible authority in matters of dogma and morals? The answer was no less firm and well-argued: « no » Quoting Pope John XXIII’s Opening Address, according to which « the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the deposit of the Faith is one thing, but the formulation in which it is clothed is another thing », the Abbé de Nantes observed that « freed by John XXIII from all scrupulous docility to the actual expression of the Faith », the Council« thereby voluntarily deprived itself of any infallible exercise of its Magisterium. From that day on no one has been able to say for sure the exact degree of authority with which its decrees and debates are marked. »

Thus, the third question: « 3. Theologically – Are the Acts of the Second Vatican Council the infallible and sovereign expression of Catholic Faith and Law? – Yes and No. »

« No, because contrary to its right and, it would seem, to its duty, the Council as such has not willed and therefore could not exercise its power of jurisdiction in that “solemn and extraordinary” form proper to a Supreme Court of this nature. Its Acts, therefore, are not guaranteed by the absolute infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit.

« Yes, however, because the Council, as an effective gathering of the Catholic Magisterium, could actually neither renounce nor withdraw itself from the exercise of its indelible and inalienable power in its “ordinary” form. As works of the “Ordinary Magisterium” (cf. Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, Vol. I, p. 533), they must undergo interpretation by theologians and pastors in order to sift what is infallible in them from the confused ideas and projects associated with them. (Letter to My Friends n° 212, p. 7).

Pope Paul VI himself specified at the general audience of 12 January 1966: « The Council avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas to which the mark of infallibility has been assigned. »

Therefore, a blind and absolute submission of Catholics to the conciliar texts cannot be demanded today. This is so true that during his trial in Rome before the Holy Office in 1968, no one set the infallible value of the Council’s decisions against the Abbé de Nantes to silence his opposition. That, however, would have been easy and would have spared his judges from committing a dereliction of duty.

Moreover, Fr. Congar himself recognised this in a public controversy in Annecy, which was arbitrated by Mgr Panafieu, today Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus of Marseille. An account of it was published in Documentation catholique, and in the Catholic Counter-Reformation in March 1977, a little over thirty years ago…

« Abbé de Nantes: Will you tell me now whether at the Second Vatican Council there is a single dogma that was defined with the same solemnity [in an infallible manner].

« Father Congar: No.

« Abbe de Nantes: I am very pleased to hear you say so. I hope that the tape recorder...

« Father Congar : I say it... I say it... The Holy Father has said it. And it is public knowledge. I say it quite openly. » (CCR no 84, p. 4)

We ask you, Monseigneur, to recognise with the same openness that the dogmatic question that the conciliar novelties pose has still not been infallibly settled. Thus, our Father has a perfect right to oppose them, and we along with him, following him.

ROBBERIES

In fact, it is by legitimately examining things thoroughly, that is to say, the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the doctrine, that he objected the firmest Non possumus to the declaration on Religious Freedom, even before the last session of the Council: « Such a sovereign human freedom, substituted for the authority of the law of God and for its social implications, is the old Satanic claim that has always been known [« Non serviam! » « I will not serve! » Jr 2:20 »]. (Letter to My Friends n° 209, 22 July 1965, p. 6)

On 16 September 1965 in the conciliar aula, Mgr Velasco, a bishop who had been expelled from China, affirmed without any circumlocution: « The amended schema on religious freedom is totally unacceptable, and a new schema must be substituted for it. In a matter of such great importance as the quest for truth, it is not on the basis of numbers, no, or on the authority of persons, but on the basis of the matter itself taken objectively, that it must be examined. »

For his part, Fr. Biot, from Témoignage chrétien, wrote on 4 November 1965: « The issue is grave. All the Fathers feel that this declaration will determine the history of the Church in her relations with men. » Our Father commented: « If that is so, it will be as a result of highway robbery! This matter is recognised as of vital importance for the life of the Church and yet it is still being discussed and remains uncertain. Nothing can settle this matter now except a dogmatic definition to which the Council would fully commit its infallible authority. A “declaration”, with no dogmatic bearing, cannot possibly be decisive in a matter of such gravity. If the Sovereign Pontiff ratifies and promulgates this declaration on religious liberty, his action will be partisan and his decision will be schismatic because he will have presented the opinion of a shifting majority as the teaching of the Church and he will have preferred a doubtful novelty to the recognised tradition. » (Letter to My Friends n° 216, 11 November 1965, p. 7)

Of course, Paul VI succeeded in imposing on the assembly the declaration on religious freedom, but he was very careful not to have recourse to the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Abbé de Nantes could, quite legitimately and in conformity with what he had been announcing for six months, publicly reject it on the very day of its proclamation by Pope Paul VI, that is, on 7 December 1965. Subsequently, he unceasingly renewed and justified his indignant refusal, for example, in 1992 when a more in-depth study of the Council’s very unfolding cast light on the “robbery”.

In fact, in order to cloak these Acts in an apparent authority, albeit illegal, Pope Paul VI had to substitute for the formula of promulgation provided for in the Council’s regulations, another novel, carefully studied formula, which radically vitiated, from the second session on, the promulgations of the Second Vatican Council:

Formula of the initial Regulation:

« The decrees and canons that have just been read have received the Fathers’ assent (without exception, or with the exception of so many votes). And we too, with the approval of the Council, We will them, establish them and promulgate them as they have been read. » (Article 49, § 1)

Paul VI’s new formula:

« The whole and each of the points decreed in this declaration have pleased the Council Fathers. And We, by virtue of the apostolic power we hold from Christ, in union with the venerable Fathers, We approve, rule and decree in the Holy Spirit, and We order that what has been thus established in Council be promulgated for the glory of God. »

In none of the promulgations of the sixteen Acts of Vatican II, did Paul VI deign to follow the Council Regulations that had imposed ne varietur the formula to be used by the Sovereign Pontiff in person to announce the results of the votes and, in view of these results – here is true collegiality! – proclaim his sovereign decision. This formula necessitated drawing attention to the unanimity of the votes or else mentioning the existence of opponents and their number! Previous councils had all been scrupulously faithful to this rule, which distinguishes a sacred Council from a vulgar “robber” council. It was done at the First Vatican Council, magnificently! When the dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed, Pius IX declared that “the decrees and canons are pleasing to all the Fathers, except for two of them”. In fact, at the final scrutiny of this last public session two opponents did show up. They moreover, moved as one can imagine, but honoured in their authority as Council judges, legislators and definers, immediately wanted to assure the Pope and the Council Fathers of their submission to and acceptance of the new dogma. That kind of honesty, which prevailed among the old Fathers and Doctors of the Church... was missing at Vatican II!

« Furthermore, in the invention of this novel formula, Paul VI took it upon himself to work a further abuse: he amplified the strictly sober formula laid down by the regulations, to give it an excessive and theologically unacceptable tenor. The superfluous period created by Paul VI falsely gives the sixteen Acts of Vatican II the character of an extraordinary and solemn teaching, therefore infallible and irreformable, when canonically and dogmatically they are not worthy of it. Carrying presumption and impertinence to the extreme, he abusively guarantees them as being of “the Holy Spirit” in an absolutely contestable illuminism.

« For a quarter of a century I have read that formula at the foot of the Acts of Vatican II and always with dread, so much does it affirm what I cannot believe and what I refuse to accept, even on pain of persecution, excommunication and death: that these Acts are inspired by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. The entire deception, however, has burst before my eyes, and the abuse of authority that is so plain has delivered me from a long and heavy anguish. Paul VI was making fools of us! » (CCR n° 247, April 1992, p. 5)

« SATAN ENTERED INTO HIM » (Jn 13:27)

Let us return to the day of 7 December 1965 during which the last four Acts of Vatican II were promulgated.

« That start of that day, the eve of the closing of the Council, was very ordinary. Nobody was disturbed to see once again that the votes on the four schemas were organised in such a way that they were immediately promulgated, before the Mass, in breach of the regulations. And that the scrutinies ended without the results being announced to the Holy Father and the assembly. It was another irregularity, like the one before, meant to cover up the effect that would be produced on the assembly if the Fathers heard that there was an important opposition to the schemas proposed... and apparently already imposed.

« Then the Mass can begin. Because in the directions for that day, as before on 28 October, it is during the Mass that the Fathers must be invited to sign these four Acts, whilst the results of the votes are still hidden from them. The conclusion to the Acts, however, followed by the Pope’s signature convinces them that these Acts will very soon be promulgated. More precisely, the sheets pass from hand to hand during the Pope’s long speech that takes the place of the homily. “Haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum” (cf. Lk 22:53) This is your hour and the power of darkness… The Pope blasphemes in his adoration of man, the cult of his dignity, the proclamation of his grandeur... And, while he speaks to them, his new slaves sign signifying their adherence to this satanic dogma of the liberty of religions and of all idolatries, and to this other dogma of a this-worldly one-worldism, the final triumph of which Paul VI wanted to see prevail at this Council over all clerical opposition. To adore Satan in the human idol and so receive from him world dominion! What he wanted in his shady Pact is what the whole Council wanted; he enchanted them with his stunning lyricism and they all went ahead and signed in order to serve him.

« In that instant, Satan entered into Saint Peter’s and installed himself on the very throne of the Apostle there to defy Jesus Christ, God! No one got up, no one shouted out, no one left. No one! It was during the Mass, as during the Last Supper, when Judas resisted the Master’s last gesture of mercy. Between the consecration and the gift of His Body to the Apostles, of which Judas was one, and the gift of His Blood for the remission of sins: “Et erat nox...” It is Judas himself who was darkness. And it is Paul VI who was the night fallen over the world at this third hour of Good Friday.

« Once the crime was consummated, everything went very quickly, amid the performance of insignificant rites and endless applause. The Pope was able to accomplish his transgression. He certainly had in his hands the results of the votes and also the result of the Fathers’ signatures given to the four Acts grouped together. He knew that 2367 Fathers present had put their own signature and that 110 procurators had added the names of those for whom they were authorised to act as proxy, ending in the enormous figure of 2477 signatures. Who would have been able to notice that 35 Fathers present, and still opposed, had refused to give their consent? Once again, and for the last time, Paul VI was going to show them his contempt, reject them from his communion and ignore them.

« He therefore returns to his throne. He hears the proclamation of the results, at last! of the four votes taken that same morning, and he does not bat an eyelid at this announcement of 70 opponents to the schema on Religious liberty and 75 opponents to the schema on the Church in the world. What does it matter to him! They all imagine that, since everyone has signed, everyone has been won over, faithful to the gold ring and to the conciliar Pact...

« Ignoring these enemies who did not bend the knee or fall down to adore Satan, he rises, as he has done five times before, and he again pronounces that magnificent and lying formula which he composed in his pride in order to impose on the Church the dogmas of the new Religion. He proclaims that with the full consent of the Fathers and in the Holy Spirit, the false dogmas of man’s divinisation, of his rights, of his liberty and of his cult are henceforth the Church’s true faith. And all endlessly applaud the Antichrist enthroned there instead of God in the holy place. » (ibid., pp. 8-9)

LET US GO TO ROME

Thus thirty-five Council Fathers did not subscribe the four decrees that were promulgated on 7 December 1965 because, in all conscience, in the name of their Catholic Faith, they persisted in their opposition to these texts against which they had just voted. These rebels, however, were not enjoined, under pain of being publicly and formally removed from the Church, to adhere to the Acts that had been promulgated. It is an incredible novelty in comparison with all past ecumenical Councils.

« The Pope and the Council, the Abbé de Nantes writes, admitted their incertitude, their scepticism, or their lie, by abstaining from reproving these opponents who reproved them, for not having the sense of their Magisterium and for prostituting it. » (Preparing Vatican III, CRC n° 59, août 1972, p. 10)

This is why the doctrinal trial whose opening our Father obtained in the court of Rome after the Council in order for his accusations of heresy against the Acts of Vatican II to be examined and judged was never concluded.

After the Roman notification of 9 August 1969 making an official statement of the Abbé de Nantes’ “self-disqualification”, he remarked: « What an admission to answer precise, repeated, public, and absolutely intolerable accusations against the Pope and the Council with a “disqualification notified” through the press, but not pronounced as a Magisterial sentence and that, moreover, leaves the one disqualified in possession of all his priestly faculties, even including his Celebret! What an avowal of weakness and what an admission of guilt! » (CCR n° 88, July 1977, p. 13)

I make no secret of the fact, Monseigneur, that the Abbé de Nantes, our Father, is in our opinion and until proved otherwise, by the very fact of his justified refusal of the Acts of Vatican II, the witness and the herald of the pure Catholic Faith. I readily admit that the comparison of the arsenic in a good cup of tea is a little dated. Today, after having re-read these Acts, in retrospect, with pen in hand, it is their entire corpus that it seems to us must be refused as poison. You write to me: « I have the feeling that you do not realise that the world continues to turn. » Undoubtedly you do not know the adage that my Patron Saint gave to the Carthusians: Stat Crux, dum volvitur orbis. “The Cross stands firm while the world revolves”. That is why I dare to recall to you the Abbé de Nantes’ severe warnings and the pathetic supplications exhorting the holy hierarchy to which you belong to carry out the duties of their office:

« The apparently unanimous popes and bishops of our post conciliar Church would need to gain our silence, for want of our impossible acceptance, to raise their still schismatic declaration to the heights of a dogmatic definition pronounced by their extraordinary and solemn Magisterium, which of itself is infallible and therefore incontestable. Twenty-five years ago [today: forty-five years ago] we asked, or rather challenged, them to do just that. They cannot however, and so they avenge their frustration by calumniating us and depriving us of our ecclesiastical ministry, adding denial of justice to abuse of authority. For they know two things. Firstly, that they are lying about the Catholic Faith. And secondly, that the Holy Spirit of God would prevent them, physically if need be, from going ahead with such a definition, which could not be from the Spirit of Truth but from the Devil. So they mock us, which is nothing, but they also mock Holy Church, subject to their mendacious Magisterium. Their salary will be the divine malediction. » (CCR n° 231, July 1990, p. 2)

But it is not too late; it will never be too late to escape from this malediction. May the Sovereign Pontiff deign only to have recourse to the insights and forces that he can obtain through the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit, and consent to accomplish an Act of his solemn Magisterium by expressing the revealed doctrine in the correct form, and the world will be saved.

This is why, your Excellence, I renew with insistence my request: let us go to Rome to implore the supreme Judge to resolve our controversy about Religious Freedom by means of a dogmatic definition, accompanied by anathemas against all opposing errors, and intrinsically possessing the formal character of infallibility.

In this expectation, I am your humble and devoted servant,

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