He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

SIXTY YEARS OF CATHOLIC COUNTER-REFORMATION
AND FRENCH COUNTER-REVOLUTION

A SON OF THE CHURCH (2)

 by Brother Bruno of Jesus

	« I do not have the confidence of the saints, I only have their abandonment to Jesus through Mary. »

« Cæsarem appellasti ? Ad Cæsarem ibis. » (Ac 25.12) You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you shall go!

When Joseph Cardinal Lefebvre, Archbishop of Bourges, an assessor of the Holy Office and President of the Assembly of Bishops of France, quoted the words of the Roman procurator Festus to St. Paul, he was truly inspired. For, as it turned out, he played the role of Festus, and the Abbé de Nantes that of St. Paul. Had not the Apostle warned the Galatians: « But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed! » (Ga 1.8) Now, the gospel that Paul VI announced forty years ago is indeed « contrary » to the one preached to us:

« At the present time, he said in his 1964 Christmas Message, brotherhood imposes itself; friendship is the basis of all modern human society [the Pope did not say “Catholic” but “modern”!]…. Democracy, to which the human family appeals so much in our times, must open up to thinking in universal terms, in such a manner as to transcend the barriers that oppose a real brotherhood. These ideas find a resounding echo in mankind today. Young people, especially, We believe, notice that they are the truth of the future and are based on the irreversible progress of civilisation… We support these young people who seek to change the world into a house open to everyone and not a network of trenches [dug] for interminable conflict and continual struggle. »

To point out the difference with the Gospel that was preached to us, it suffices to quote St. Pius X:

« We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government. This error and this danger are all the greater when Religion is associated with a kind of Democracy whose doctrines are false. But this is what the Sillon is doing. For the sake of a particular political form, it compromises the Church, it sows division among Catholics, snatches away young people and even priests and seminarists from purely Catholic action, and is wasting away as a dead loss part of the living forces of the nation. » (Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910, n^o 31)

You want to be judged by Rome? You will be! replied the Cardinal.

Forty years later, it must be noted that the promised judgement has not yet been handed down, for the simple reason that we untiringly repeat without fear of being contradicted: it is impossible to condemn the Abbé de Nantes because he is right. The scandal is not to be found in his writings, but in the authentic pontifical acts that he denounces.

SCANDAL

In September 1966, Paul VI granted communion to Barbarina Olson, a Presbyterian, at her Nuptial Mass celebrated at … Assisi! At first, our Father could not believe it: « If it is true, then one must conclude that Rome has lost the faith. »

In November of that same year, on the fourth centenary of the Roman Catechism, the fruit of the Council of Trent, work was begun on a new catechism simultaneously by the Bishops of France, and published in Holland. Fruits of the Second Vatican Council, they were Masdu catechisms, Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy, « in the political sphere, an absurd and criminal dream, and in the religious sphere, an apostasy, a denial of Jesus Christ. » They replaced the Catholic act of faith with free “dialogue” between religions, and the Creed with faith in man.

This new faith can be illustrated by a hundred of Paul VI’s speeches, for example, this praise of Communist China and its Red Guards :

« We wish to tell the youth of China with what emotion and affection We look upon its present striving towards the ideals of a new life of hard work, prosperity, and harmony. We should like to speak about peace also with those who are today in charge of the life of mainland China. We know to what an extent that human and Christian ideal is shared also by the people of China […].

« We send our good wishes to China – so far from Us geographically, but so close spiritually. »

After having read this speech, our Father did not hesitate to write: « What a revelation of feelings! This harmony between Paul VI and Mao, between the innovators in the Church and the Red Guards, the mad dogs of Asia, shows up and intensifies the discord between civilised people, between Catholics. Why attempt to deny any longer that there exists between this Pope and this Council, this New Church on the one hand and ourselves on the other, a sort of permanent excommunication? » (Letter to my Friends n^o 240, of 6 January 1967)

On the following 7 March, the Permanent Council of the Bishops of France hastened to publish a warning that was immediately picked up by the press: « He himself states “that there exists between this Pope and this Council, this New Church and ourselves (him and his adepts) a sort of permanent excommunication.” There is therefore no reason to take into account what is affirmed and developed in these letters, and they are not to be passed around. »

But our bishops were very careful not to quote the context, that is, the speech of Paul VI, who addressed Communist China in order to praise the Red Guards. This omission is in itself an admission…

So as to completely disorient minds, Paul VI decreed that this same year 1967 was a “year of the faith”.

All the same, the Abbé de Nantes persisted in accusing the Pope of destroying the Catholic faith. He denounced a « Marxist analysis of the international situation » that is found in the encyclical Populorum progressio, which was promulgated on 26 March, Easter Sunday, 1967.

So, the « errors of Russia » announced on 13 July 1917 by Our Lady of Fatima were spreading even in the Church, in the very year of the fiftieth anniversary of the apparitions, under the cover of pontifical teaching!

« Paul VI’s vision fans the flames of this same fire that is consuming our world. Lammenais, with his wild-eyed visions, sits on the Chair of Peter. » (Letter n^o 245, p. 10, published in CCR n^o 81, December 1976). This is the very precise warning of the Third Secret, which at the time was unknown to our Father, but which the world situation, as it were, placed before his eyes.

FATIMA PROFANED

As it happened, 1967, the « year of the faith », was also the fiftieth anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima. On 13 May 1967, the Pope went there, not as a pilgrim, but as an « expert in humanity », refusing to let himself be photographed with Salazar, turning away Sister Lucy who asked to speak to him in private, not even going to the places where the apparitions had taken place! What had he gone there to do? To recite before a million persons what our Father called his « Incantatory litanies to Man:

« Men, it is you We address at this supreme moment; make yourselves worthy of the divine gift of Peace.

« Men, be men. Men, be good, be wise, be open to the interests of the general well-being of the world. Men be generous.

« Men, learn how to see your prestige and your interest, not as being in opposition to, but as being in solidarity with the prestige and interest of others.

« Men, think not on projects of destruction and death, of revolution and subversion; think on projects for the common good involving sincere collaboration. »

In this extraordinary homily, the Abbé de Nantes observed, the Pope did not ask God or the Blessed Virgin but men for the miracle of peace and cosmic renewal that they await, as though they were a marvellous grace that they would grant to themselves. This grace would come not through “Prayer and Penance”, but through a new revelation, in virtue of which Heaven had encouraged the Pope to appeal not only to Catholics but to all men, in order to foster peace.

So, on the very evening of his return to Rome, Paul VI declared:

« At Fatima we questioned the Madonna about the paths to be followed that lead to peace, and we received the answer that peace was a realisable end. »

WAR

Two days later, 15 May 1967 was Pentecost Monday for Christians. A state of emergency was declared in Cairo; Egyptian armoured units were headed for the borders. UN Secretary-General U’Thant withdrew the UN peacekeeping force, and Egyptian President Nasser closed the Gulf of Akaba. The Jewish State, caught in a stranglehold and threatened with annihilation by the Jihad, went on the offensive. On the morning of 5 June, the Israeli army made an all-out attack and conducted a blitzkrieg that, in six days, brought its vanguard to the Suez Canal, to the southernmost point of the Sinai peninsula, to Jericho and the banks of the Jordan, and in the north right up to the suburbs of Damascus. The city of Jerusalem, ancient Sion, was reconquered. The Jewish Pentecost, 15 June dawned on a Land totally recovered by a people whose messianic exaltation was at a climax after the anguish of peril, the heat of combat, and the incredible victory. The chief rabbi Goren hoisted the Israeli flag in the heart of the Sinai, at the very place where Moses gave the Chosen People the Tables of the Law.

The Abbé de Nantes wrote: « The day after this 13 May, when Paul VI thought that he had received from Heaven the assurance that “peace was an achievable goal”, it ceased to be so. » Since then, the Middle East has not ceased to be a powder keg, according to the forecasts that our Father announced:

« Israel will now bear its easy victory like a heavy millstone. » He explained: « Henceforth time is on the side of the Arab camp. International authorities do not have the power, it is obvious, required for imposing a fair and reasonable solution. For that matter, no “fair and reasonable solution” exists. As usual, they will be no more than keepers of the disorder. We are therefore involved in an affair that resembles that of the “Polish corridor” that provoked World War II. World War III is in sight now, within rifle range. I know, no one believes this. That is because no one has reflected on the essential difference between this confrontation and the conflicts of the last twenty years when the West remained the master of its allies. And it was always able to negotiate and withdraw in order to avoid a general conflagration. Here, it is something different, Israel will not hesitate, as aggressor or attacked, to drag the world into its war. » (Letter to my Friends n^o 249, p. 2)

But nothing seemed able to heal Paul VI of an incurable blindness.

HERESY

On 1 January 1968, Pope Paul VI established “World Peace Day”, in lieu of the traditional feast of Christ’s Circumcision, the figure of Christian baptism. By shedding the Precious Blood of the Child Jesus as a sign of His redeeming Passion by which He would hand over His flesh as a sacrifice for the salvation of the world, and firstly for the salvation of the Jews, this Jewish ceremony reveals its true meaning. At the cost of His shed Blood, Jesus brings us peace with God His Father and between ourselves.

Paul VI replaced this Catholic feast of Christ’s Circumcision by a “World Peace Day” and proclaimed this message: « Peace is possible because men are essentially good… » Our Father read this in the newspaper La Croix on 3 January. On 5 January 1968, he telegraphed his indignation to Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect of the Holy Office:

« Distressed at text, speech attributed to Holy Father. – La Croix 3 January. – Entitled: Peace is possible because men are essentially good. – Astonished by practical negation Devil, original sin, redemption, need of faith and grace to save human order, – terrified by naturalism, temporal messianism and religious indifference attributed to Supreme Magisterium, – scandalised by silence about persecuting Communism aggression, dirty trick played on free world, and worsening conditions of defence of Christendom, South Vietnam, – beg Your Eminence deny or intervene for honour of Holy Church and infallibility of Apostolic See. »

What do you think happened? Forty-eight hours later, we learned that Cardinal Ottaviani had resigned.

You might say: it is a coincidence. A telegram from the Abbé de Nantes, an unknown, suspended priest, did not force the Cardinal to resign. You are quite mistaken: Cardinal Ottaviani knew the Abbé de Nantes perfectly well and listened to him.

Our Father travelled to Rome exactly ten times in his life. The first time, in June 1951, three years after his ordination. He was there to attend Pius XII’s beatification of Pius X and to denounce Fr. Congar’s book: “True and False Reform in the Church”, which had been published in 1950. Cardinal Ottaviani received the young Abbé de Nantes – he was twenty-seven years of age! – listened to him to such an extent that Congar was henceforth forbidden to teach, at least as long as Pius XII lived,… and the book was withdrawn from sale.

Therefore, when Ottaviani read our Father’s telegram, he must have recognised that he was right. However, instead of intervening with the Pope, he handed in his resignation: « It is obviously a way out... », our Father wrote in the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XX ^th Century, the monthly periodical which followed the Letters to my Friends starting in October 1967. « But henceforth this leaves a free field for the enemy. And the Roman Church is in danger of falling into ruins if she abandons the faithful care of her Catholic faith. » (CRC n^o 4, January 1968, p. 12)

Once again, the very words of the Secret of Our Lady of Fatima, whose contents Pope Paul VI knew but the Abbé de Nantes did not, came out in the writings of the latter, in a spontaneous way, as was demanded by the situation.

Paying no heed to Our Lady’s warnings, and not even acknowledging receipt of the letter that the Abbé de Nantes sent to him (CRC n^os 1 and 2, October and November 1967) the Pope was bringing about the « ruin » of the Church, and with her and through her the ruin of the world. Talking and acting contrary to every analysis of political reality, of any denunciation of the aggressor, the Pope came to the point of becoming a party to the crime, with complete immorality: on 1 July 1970, on the Feast of the Precious Blood of Our Lord! he received three terrorists from Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, and gave them a copy of the encyclical Populorum progressio.

Finally and above all, this affirmation of the essential goodness of man was contrary to the faith. It implied a double negation. On the one hand, it implied denying the Devil’s power over the sons of Adam since the original sin that broke the unity of mankind. On the other, it implied denying the Mystery of Redemption that redeems mankind and rebuilds the unity of the family of Adam and Eve’s children, certainly! but through grace and by converting intelligences and hearts to the law of Jesus Christ.

We can understand why Ottaviani resigned. It is not given to everyone to be able to remonstrate with the Pope. Our Father had this courage. On 24 April 1968, he was summoned to Rome to answer for his accusations of heresy against the Council and the Pope. He stayed there for twelve days, explaining his reasons before the tribunal of the Holy Office. In his hand he was holding the “Common Fund” of the new catechisms approved by the bishops of France, in order to warn these gentlemen, the consultors and assessors of the Holy Office about what was being prepared. He received this reply: « For now, Father, we are examining you. Do not worry, Rome will never let an heretical catechism be published! » What followed showed how much confidence could be placed in Roman vigilance... since the Council!

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

« I thus wrote the record of my own trial. I was a good plaintiff. I avoided showing myself in too good a light, and I omitted some of my damning rejoinders, when their task of defending the Council and Paul VI’s heresy threw them into the most awkward of positions. On the appointed day, the judges read, approved and countersigned the minutes written by the plaintiff. This document was the only one by which the tribunal of the cardinals and the Pope himself learned of the matter later on. I believe that this fact is unique in the annals of Holy Office! »

Back home, he did not tell us anything since he had promised to keep the secret until the tribunal returned its verdict. He only commanded us to confirm an order for seven tons of paper. So we understood that the Catholic Counter-Reformation, which at that time had a circulation of twenty thousand, would continue.

AGONY

On 30 June 1968, for the end of the Year of the Faith, the Pope solemnly pronounced his Profession of Catholic Faith. Paul VI’s Credo replied point by point to all the heresies of the Dutch catechism. The Pope was very careful not to take any action. He imposed no sanctions on anyone. Was this just another attempt to disarm the opposition of the Abbé de Nantes? It is possible. The proof of this came on 1 July 1968. The Abbé de Nantes was summoned once again to Rome and invited purely and simply to retract his criticisms against the Pope, the Second Vatican Council and the French bishops, and to swear a complete, unconditional and unlimited obedience to all of them, according to a formula approved by the Pope himself, and even emended by him.

Everything was perfectly organised so as to plunge the plaintiff into the depth of perplexity:

« Could not the Acts of the Council and of the present Pope, in their accepted form, or more precisely in the form that was almost unconsciously filtered, rectified and purified by the Curia’s theologians and staff be accepted by me in the same way? They accept the new state of the Church without retaining almost any of it. Could I not submit likewise? Should I not abide by the common law ? Then came into my mind the resolution to retract and thereby return to discipline. Yes, but! The Acts of this Reform, as they are understood and exploited without moderation everywhere in the world and even in Rome, these new ideas in their obvious meaning, their logic and their dynamic, remained unacceptable in themselves without my employing any deceptive, strained interpretation. From my place as a plaintiff, in the persecution that the traditionalists were undergoing, I could not submit to this Reform from above without at least appearing to have retracted and abandoned my brothers. So, in this contradiction between obedience and faith, in this opposition of discipline to charity, I once again decided to refuse the signature that they were expecting from my weakness. I do not regret it, and I now bless this exhausting soliloquy.

« However, even on the eve of my decision, I was determined to submit, blindly, entirely and definitively. I saw therein God’s will expressed through His Vicar on earth. It seemed supernatural to me to give up the fight, to renounce limitlessly, in an act of obedience that would go against even my most fully-justified certainties, leaving to other people and to God concern for doctrine and the care of the flock. This great act seemed pleasant and liberating to me, it attracted me by its very grandeur.

« But on that same day, I obtained an audience [ from Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Superior General of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit ] from whom I expected the surest of instructions. I informed my august interlocutor of my very firm resolution to sign. He interrupted me firmly: « You cannot do this. You do not have the right to do so. » It was clear and formal, and it was immediately justified by most invincible reasons backed up by the authority and example of the person I was listening to: « We ourselves wrote to the Sovereign Pontiff in due course that the cause of all of the evil is in the Acts of the Council. Be firm in the truth. »

« Upon leaving, while crossing St. Peter’s Square, I had the feeling that the burden I had rejected for one moment weighed once again on my shoulder, and also that I had rediscovered the people I was about to abandon in my glorious submission... » (CRC n^o 24, p. 6)

For a long while, we wondered why Mgr Lefebvre had not taken his cane and hat and accompanied the Abbé de Nantes to the Holy Office during the dramatic session of 5 July 1968 (below). We wondered up until the day that we learned that Mgr Lefebvre had been prevented from doing so, since he himself had signed the Acts of the Council! Nevertheless, our Father took his advice, preferring, in all occasions, to rely on others, following the example of saints.

Moreover, he had but one concern at that dramatic hour: that of safeguarding the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Considering that his excommunication « would have the inevitable effect of canonising with a kind of subsequent infallibility and irrevocable necessity this accursed Council, as well as all words crossing the lips of the present Pope », he was wondering how, after this ruin, theologians and historians would be able to excuse and justify this failure of the infallible Roman Magisterium. This question was quite a harrowing and haunting one.

But since the Church is divine, no excommunication came about.

THE ULTIMATUM

The fight could resume. In February 1969, he began a national Crusade against the New French Catechism, and before full house audiences in Paris and in provincial France, winning the traditionalists over unanimously to his opinion. The faithful had not always understood the discussion pertaining to religious freedom, but the catechism issue affected children and collided with their parents’ concern. So the French bishops became alarmed and intervened for Rome to do something to put an end to this. But what could be done? Condemn the Abbé de Nantes? They still had to explain why!

In May 1969, he was summoned to the bishopric of Troyes by Joseph Cardinal Lefebvre. He went there with Brother Gérard. In the presence of Mgr Fauchet, the Bishop of Troyes, and his chancellor, the cardinal enjoined the Abbé de Nantes to sign the formula of retraction and unconditional submission to the Pope and the bishops that he had refused to sign the previous year in Rome. Before answering, our Father asked the cardinal if he condemned the heresy of the New French Catechism, as well as the Pastoral Note of the Episcopate Regarding Contraception, which took a view opposite to that of the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ.

The cardinal answered with a vehement defence of the texts in question. Accordingly, the Abbé de Nantes objected to his being his judge, and refused to carry on with the conversation and to discuss anything else.

The decision was then put once again into the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff. On the following 11 July, the Abbé de Nantes received an ultimatum from Cardinal Seper, Cardinal Ottaviani’s successor, ordering him to retract his accusations of heresy, schism and scandal.

His answer was crystal-clear:

« I cannot in conscience retract the grave accusations made, in full lucidity and prudence, against the reigning Pope and the Second Vatican Council on account of their so-called pastoral and reforming acts. This is because these acts appear to me, after careful study, to be contrary to the Catholic faith and because they are manifestly in our experience the cause of the general disorder and present ruin of the Church. No solid arguments have been opposed to my analyses and demonstrations. To regard them a priori and without further examination or evidence as rash imputations is a facile way of proceeding, both disagreeable and unconvincing.

« I cannot in conscience repudiate the charge of heresy which I have formulated on several specific and public occasions against Pope Paul VI, nor, therefore, can I take back the conclusion which I drew from it, concerning the advisability of his deposition by the clergy of Rome should he persist in this heresy after due warning, because no serious argument has been opposed to me either with respect to the fact of heresy or to the steps which should be taken in such a case. I shall withdraw my accusations and make due amends if the strange ideas and expressed aims of the reigning Pope can be proved to me to be truthful and honest and in keeping with the sacred deposit of the Faith, something which no one has ventured to attempt. Or if they were one day to form the subject of infallible definitions by the solemn Magisterium, something which is clearly impossible! »

For example, it would be impossible for the Pope to define ex cathedra that we more than anyone else, have the cult of man or that peace is possible, because men are essentially good.

So, each side had put its case. Some people were going to draw false conclusions, and a new battle began on a new front.

AGAINST DISSIDENCE

While our Father was yet feeling the impact of Cardinal Seper’s ultimatum, on 21 July 1969 some integrist priests, whose names are completely forgotten today, met at Maison Saint-Joseph in order to try to convince him that the Pope was deposed on account of the promulgation of a new Ordo Missae due to come into force in the autumn. The temptation to dodge the wrath of Rome by following these “sedevacantist” schismatics in their act of dissidence did not even cross the mind of the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. He had given his reply in advance in the Profession of Faith sent to Cardinal Seper on 16 July, while justifying his refusal to sign the retraction demanded:

« The formula that has been imposed on me forbids me – in violation of Catholic teaching – to entertain the possibility, even a theoretical one, that the Pope, either as a public or private person, may fall into heresy. Moreover, it describes as perverse the normal, necessary and prudent conclusion taught by the best theologians of the Church: Papa haereticus deponendus est, a heretical Pope should be deposed. It also assumes, against all truth and justice, that opposition to the Pope on the grounds of heresy is in itself sacrilegious and unlawful, even though it is recognised by the Church as legitimate and in certain cases mandatory. »

When our Father learned the following month – through the press ! – that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had declared « disqualified » « the totality of his writings and his activities by which he claims to serve the Church », this « notification » devoid of canonical significance showed the ecclesiastical authorities’ inability to refute the very content of his accusations through the authority of Holy Scripture and the teachings of the infallible Magisterium.

By refusing to the same extent an unconditional submission to the Pope and an act of dissidence, considering both as abusive and profoundly immoral, the Abbé de Nantes entered onto a « crest line », in between two abysses. To the left lay the abyss of heresy into which the conciliar Church had sunk, and to the right, that of schism into which the “integrists” were plunging.

Only a small number agreed to follow him along this narrow way. For the big traditionalist movement that had assembled against the New Catechism had split over the issue of the New Mass: the integrists held it to be invalid and concluded that there was no longer a Pope. Our Father tried to show them that even if the Pope has fallen from office from the very fact of having promulgated a heretical and invalid Mass, it was still necessary that the whole Church should recognise and acknowledge this “deposition” through a judgement of the competent authority in Rome. The Abbé Coache had listened without saying a word. Suddenly he burst out laughing. « Are you still harping on about that! To expect Rome to pass a judgement deposing the Pope is quite ridiculous. It could never happen! The whole Church has foundered. How could she possibly give such a judgement? » Our Father’s repeated objections that, in such a case, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed, contrary to Our Lord’s promises were to no avail. His interlocutors were not only schismatics but also heretics, since they had lost faith in the Church.

The Abbé de Nantes then founded the League to keep the “traditionalists” on the narrow Catholic Counter-Reformation « crest line » In April 1970, he published a magnificent editorial entitled “Supernatural Wisdom”:

« I do not wish to see a Tridentine Mass party claiming to be the true Church, the Church of the good priests, the Church of the just, anymore than I want to see the other party - that of the Reform. A party cannot be the Church »

In the Great Hall of the Mutualité in Paris, the first annual meeting, whose theme was “Preparing Vatican III”, a « project for a complete doctrinal, pastoral, liturgical, social, and political counter-revolution. »

On 13 May 1971, he undertook the preparation of a Third Vatican Council which he had been requesting since 1964:

« We wish that soon there will take place a true and great Third Vatican Council that will enthusiastically rid us of the putrefied corpse of Vatican II. »

The word « corpse » is once again an extraordinary premonition of the Third Secret. Now being in Paris on 11 May, « I went that morning to pray at rue du Bac, he related. By grace, I arrived right at the moment when the pilgrim statue of Our Lady of Fatima was entering, before going to Pontmain the following day. What an indescribable sadness to see the clandestine manner in which she was received in Paris, without flowers without candles, without hymns and with no crowd. All ceremony was forbidden by the local authorities, it was said. How pathetic! Paris was closed to her Queen!

« And that was our 13 May. »

In the same « clandestine » manner as the Blessed Virgin, the year 1971-1972 was entirely dedicated to the study of the Acts of the Second Vatican Council. This year began with the big public meeting at the Mutualité on 14 October 1971, and came to a close on 11 October 1972, for the tenth anniversary of the Council’s opening.

« Never did our dear Mutualités, which were dear in every sense of the word, take place without a good-sized audience. »

« The putrefied corpse of Vatican II » is buried, and has been buried for a long time! Furthermore, Cardinal Danneels recently made a quite staggering declaration, asking for the « Reform of the Church ». So it would be the Reform of the Reform, thus the Counter-Reform...

Previously, in August 1971, our Father presented, in CRC n^o 47, an antithetical synopsis. “The Catholic religion of saint Pius X and the political utopia of H. H. Paul VI”, which contradicts it word by word. The conclusion forces itself on one :

« Pius X was canonised primarily for the purity of his teaching and his strength of soul in defending the Catholic Faith. He is and remains the great Doctor of the Faith in the twentieth century. »

« It follows that Paul VI will one day be anathematised primarily on account of his Utopian MASDU which had been condemned in advance. He is and remains the great Corrupter of the Faith in the twentieth century. »

« It almost seems as though Pius X was referring to you », our Father wrote in his Book of Accusation against Paul VI. Indeed, Paul VI was full of the thought of Marc Sangnier. In contrast, the Abbé de Nantes speaks like St. Pius X.

The monthly meetings of the Catholic Counter-Reformation held at the “Mutualité” conference hall in Paris were inaugurated in November 1972, in the spirit of this holy pontiff, « the “beacon” of the twentieth century ». Our Father conducted these meetings for twenty-four years! Each month, he delivered a one-hour analysis of current political events and, in a second hour, a lecture on kerygmatic, dogmatic, positive or moral theology, on French history, on scientific apologetics, etc. Its material was everything that was required to rebuild « the large city half in ruins » that Christianity had become ten years after the Council. It was a monumental work, the positive side of the negative criticism contained in the first Book of Accusation taken to Rome on 10 April 1973 to appeal “from the Pope to the Pope”: « To our Holy Father Pope Paul VI by the grace of God and the law of the Church sovereign judge of all Christ’s faithful we present a complaint against our Brother in the faith, Pope Paul VI, on account of heresy, schism, and scandal. »

The capital charge concerns the proclamation of the cult of man on 7 December 1965 in the presence of all the bishops of the world, who were either « inattentive, or your accomplices, or fascinated by you, I do not know. But Holy Mother Church cannot, can never subscribe to such a philosophy. That day marked the point of no return along the road that leads away from the Church of Christ in order to proceed towards that other Church which is truly yours – the Antichurch or Synagogue of Satan, where man makes himself God. But in the meantime, through men’s indifference or cowardice, you are still on the Throne of Peter, in the capacity of Supreme Judge of the Church. The capital Charge we bring against you concerns your liberalism and your cult of man, which we maintain are blasphemous, heretical, schismatic and finally apostatic.

« The decision is for you to make, for you are still the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth. Pass judgement upon yourself and, if I have lied, cut me off from the Church. But you know that I am not lying. If I have told the truth, then cut yourself off from this Sacred Body which you have betrayed! » (p. 13)

The Abbé de Nantes, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century, did not obtain an answer from Paul VI; neither did he receive one from John Paul II for his second Book of Accusation taken to Rome in 1983. Nor was there one for the third one brought in 1993 against the author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In a future study, we will come back to this Via Crucis that our Father made with a certain number of men and women religious and lay people, from one Book of Accusation to the next...

But then to whom can we appeal? To the most unique, Sacred and Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary.

On 1 July 1973, on the feast of the Sacred Heart and the Precious Blood, our Father consecrated Maisons Saint-Joseph and Sainte-Marie to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, including in this consecration the devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the Just and Wise Heart of Saint Joseph. Then, on 18 October, in the great hall of the Mutualité the League was consecrated to the “Sacred-Heart of Jesus, Salvation of the world”. (CCR n^o 44, November 1973).

Our Father went back to Rome on 12 November 1973, accompanied by Brother Gérard, in order to distribute his Book of Accusation to the key members of the Roman clergy. They received the book, but they turned away from this Cross.

On 19 October 1974: thirty years ago the annual meeting was held in the great hall of the Mutualité in Paris under the aegis of Our Lady of Fatima, our ultimate and sole recourse: “For a new Christianity under the sign of Fatima”. At the end, in a telegram addressed to Paul VI, the Abbé de Nantes requested the publication of the third Secret of Fatima.

The Holy Father turned a deaf ear, but not Our Lady!

Brother Bruno de Jesus