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 (4)

ON THE WAY TO A NEW BOOK OF ACCUSATION (1978-1983)

 by Brother Bruno of Jesus

From the first day of the Second Vatican Council, from the opening discourse made by John XXIII, but written by Cardinal Montini, the future Paul VI, our Father has, for the salvation of souls, for the indefectible holiness of the Church, and even more so for the Truth of God, and even if it were solely for the honour and credit of human and Christian intelligence, made a point of criticising the texts of the Council and demanding that they be revised, corrected and, for most of them, he even dares saying… retracted in their entirety by the same Fathers who promulgated them, or by their successors, and to declare loudly how tremendously humanly aberrant and dogmatically heretical they are.

I. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

THE FOCAL POINT OF OUR CATHOLIC COUNTER-REFORMATION’S OPPOSITION

This is not only an example chosen from among one hundred others: it is the focal point on which is based the appeal to the solemn and infallible Magisterium of the Pope, in the three Books of Accusation of 1973, 1983 and 1993.

The Council declares: « The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in religious matters no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, nor prevented from acting, within due limits, according to his conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others. (Dignitatis humanæ, 1, 2)

This text is so contrary to the Church’s doctrine that seventy opponents voted “non placet” to the very end, even after Pope Paul VI had made its anticipated promulgation at the rostrum of the UN on 4 October 1965, and so forced the Council’s hand.

This is why, secure in the strength of his Catholic faith, the Abbé de Nantes committed his life, and consequently his eternity, in a flawless opposition to this new dogma. The Popes of the nineteenth century described it as « delirium » in virtue of Catholic doctrine, which teaches: « our Almighty God and Father, Sovereign Master of all creatures, entrusted the government of the world to His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. From Him proceed all truth and all justice. He is the origin of all human rights and the founder of our freedom. Therefore, all men and all communities have the duty and the right to obey His gentle Law, deep down in the privacy of their hearts as well as in their public life, in their capacities as individuals and in all that relates to their authority over others. The Church, Christ’s Spouse, shares all His rights. She is sovereign, free from all human authority and, what is more, all human authority must serve her. » CRC n^o 56, May 1972, p. 11)

That « no one be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience », is one thing. Always accepted by the Church, « acting as the interpreter of God’s justice and forbearance », interior freedom or the fundamental right of every man to follow even an erroneous conscience results from the fact that the conscience is the immediate judge of every personal decision. The domain of the conscience is inviolable by nature; and no authority can compel it to believe, since believing is essentially a free and personal act.

This totally interior freedom, however, does not create any objective and social right to act according to one’s conscience, in private or in public, at the expense of the Church and Catholic states. For example, by constructing mosques in Paris, in Madrid, in Grenada or in Rome!

Therein lies the cause of the ruin of the Church, which was shown in advance, on 13 July 1917, to three innocent children as a « large city half in ruins », which everyone can see for himself today. One only has to open his eyes.

Yet no one sees it because of a general blindness from which only one man has escaped through a grace, an extraordinary vocation. How is it possible that all those of his generation participated in this wind of folly? Even Albino Luciani, the future John Paul I!

FROM FR. CALLON TO FR. CONGAR

From June 1972 to October 1973 the Mystical Pages were devoted to commenting on the baptismal rites. There is unveiled the entire mystery of this “setting apart”, as it were right from his mother’s womb, of Georges Marie Camille de Nantes, who was baptised on 5 April 1924: « I was barely two days old. » Faith, « which since then has never abandoned me », is transfused into the soul of the reader: « Jesus is as true as I am, I am as true as Jesus! Joy. » All the errors of our times were going to come into conflict with this faith, as pure as crystal and as hard as adamant.

Starting in 1979, the Mémoires et Récits replaced the Mystical Pages. They are themselves mystical pages because of the « clearness of the style which penetrates the humblest of things with spirituality », in the opinion of a connoisseur, a professor of literature, who obliged us to publish them as a book, describing them as a masterpiece of modern literature. Even though he was a Christian democrat!

Well, in the second volume of Mémoires et Récits, our Father relates in detail an altercation concerning grace that he had with Fr. Callon, his professor of theology in 1946 at the Issy-les-Moulineaux seminary. He was then twenty-two years old.

« Grace, we wrote at his dictation, without astonishment nor murmur, is God within us. »

Objection: « If grace is God who gives Himself to man, just like that, mysteriously, marvellously, if it is the Holy Spirit, Love, who alights in us and sanctifies us by His mere Presence,… then this grace has no name, it is indiscernible, indefinable, without nature, limits, or conditions. It supposes nothing in man; it finds no obstacle that impedes it; it requires no particular disposition or effort. Thus, the question of “the salvation of infidels” is settled in the twinkling of an eye. The Holy Spirit would fly over all our borders without making any distinction of race, class, religion or sex, giving himself to everyone gratuitously. What about original sin? What about baptism? What about the state of grace, venial or mortal sin and confession? There remained but one criterion: the intimate experience of the fire of Love, of the peace and the joy that the Spirit distributes to whomever he wishes, with a generosity that it is not for any man to monitor or submit to his own strictures. The Divine Presence, an exhilaration of the heart – this is what could summarise Monsieur Callon’s theology of grace, supposedly taken from the Greek Fathers. » (pp. 292-293)

This episode proves that Georges de Nantes was singled out by Providence to wage a fight against the intruders who were devouring the Church and who led it into all possible apostasies. The proof lies in this: in those days shortly after the “Liberation”, even though he was still a very young seminarian, he set up a preliminary inquiry against Fr. Callon concerning the theological problem that would dominate the Council twenty years later, and the post-Conciliar period, and which can now be found codified in a heretical manner in the New Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 1992).

In Issy-les-Moulineaux seminary’s amphitheatre of theology, he was like an athlete paying attention so as not to let himself be smothered by his adversary. From 1946 to 1996, he never ceased to sustain this exhausting struggle.

It is true that he was alone. We were told this often enough in an attempt to convince us that he was therefore certainly mistaken! Yet, he is not crazy, nor are we who have received the grace of understanding him and following him. St. Paul’s teaching, the basis of our Christian life, outside of which there is no salvation, is clear: outside of the supernatural order of grace, of baptism, of God’s predestination to which we must remain faithful through our faith, there is nothing but perdition. The teachings of the Council and John Paul II abolish this truth that Fr. Callon already contradicted; then it was Fr. Congar whom the Abbé de Nantes denounced to Rome as early as 1950 and pursued until 1990. It was then that he sent me to the Invalides, a military hospice, where this Dominican was ending his days in the care of the Army on account of the years he spent in captivity. It is appropriate to relate this interview here as evidence of the voluntary blindness of those whom our Father confronted alone. I was thus charged with reminding Fr. Congar that he would have to answer for all his lies before God’s tribunal, and with inviting him to repent while he still had time to do so!

This is what I did out of obedience… calling him straight away the one who has shipwrecked the Church... « Me? But I have always sought the truth. God gives and God takes away again... », he replied to me.

This was tantamount to considering himself nothing less than both St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the holy Job! I who had received the mission of calling him a liar, I dared not contradict him. Especially since he was rather pitiful when he said to me: « Look ! I have nothing left. They have taken my books and my files away from me.

Then suddenly, he declared with a certain solemnity: « I marched in order that the Church might advance.

– Advance where ? I asked him.

– Towards the world. »

This is precisely the matter for which our Father reproaches him, this father of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council: a modernism and a humanism that results in the Church kowtowing to the modern world! I took advantage to state that this « advance » was not only “pastoral”, as is always claimed, but “doctrinal”. He acquiesced : « Yes, two Constitutions are dogmatic, and to reject them on the pretext that this Council is pastoral, no, that is not possible !"

This is not our reason for refusing them, but because this Council is heretical. He did not leave me enough time to say this, immediately taking as an example the question of the sacramentality of the episcopate, which had been debated at the Council, according to which a priest receives the plenitude of the priesthood when he is consacrated bishop. Congar cited as proof a certain archdeacon who had been consecrated bishop directly, without first becoming a simple priest. I remarked to the the Reverend Father that the Abbe de Nantes’ objections did not turn on this point.

« On what do they turn then ?

As though he did not know, the hypocrite!

– Principally on Religious Liberty, as you know very well !

He has surely not forgotten the altercation at Annecy! It was there that our Father voiced his dissent during a public conference in 1977…

– You have failed to understand. The Church has always said that no one may be forced to believe. That is all there is to it.

– Excuse me ! The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that no one may be prevented from practising whatever religion or irreligion he likes. That is quite different ! And it is that which is heretical, according to us. We were very disappointed that you did not intervene in order that the Abbe de Nantes might be given a hearing by the highest authorities.

Our Father had asked him to do this in an open letter in 1977…

– But any member of the Church may raise an objection with the Pope !

– Yes. However, to us, he does not reply. What have you done to encourage him ?

– I have not done anything. For I am nothing. I have no influence!...

– Liar ! The Abbe de Nantes says that you are a liar. And you will have to answer for it before God.

– I have always sought the truth.

– The Abbe de Nantes affirms the same thing. One of you is a liar... I will not hide the fact that we do not think it is him. In conscience, we cannot accept your innovation on the matter of Religious Liberty.

– One must follow one’s conscience, even though it is erroneous, he said to me gently. But one may be at fault for not having informed one’s conscience.

– Certainly, Reverend Father. Are you ready to apply this principle to yourself ?

– Yes !

– Then, who will decide between you and the Abbe de Nantes ? The tribunal of God, since no one down here wishes to know about it. »

Father Congar agreed. The remainder of the conversation turned on the Holy Shroud, Medjugorje, Paul VI, « a saint ! He received me in a very informal way. I spoke to him just as I am speaking to you. » He had just told me that he had no influence! « On the last occasion, he said to me : “I would like us to end this conversation with a prayer.” We shall do likewise shortly, if this is agreeable to you. » I indicated my approval.

He continued : « At the end of his life, Paul VI confided to me : “I am afraid that I may have been too generous and have dispensed too many priests from their vow of celibacy”. »

The “prayer” at the end was... silent ! Before taking my leave, I asked him for his blessing: « I am like Joan of Arc. I refuse to give out blessings. » A polite way of refusing me his priestly benediction, very indicative of his interior exasperation.

Fr. Congar died in 1995, showered with honours, after having been made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II. He clung stubbornly to this religion of man that he had invented, a purely earthly religion that transforms the Church into a movement for the spiritual animation of universal democracy (Masdu). Masdu is the reason that a multitude of priests and consecrated souls have committed apostasy; Masdu is the reason that the number of converts has dried up. Masdu is the reason that doubt and indifference reign everywhere, just as our Father had forecast in July 1964, exactly forty years ago! He said then that doubt and indifference are « the certain fruits of his [Paul VI’s] idealistic zeal » (Letters to my Friends n^os 175-177). The following month, in August 1964, the encyclical Ecclesiam suam revealed to the world that Pope Paul VI had been won over to Congarian reformism and, from that moment on, the sect of the new Pharisees, the reformist party irresistibly prevailed at the Council. It has never ceased since then, to dominate; it leaves no right to speak, even less to govern, to the « small remnant » (Is 4.3) whom they persecute, as in the last times of the Old Testament, when the Pharisees and Sadducees oppressed « Yahweh’s poor ».

Yet, Heaven gave a sign to this « little flock » so that in conformity with Our Lord’s recommendation it « fear not » and “stand fast”.

II. JOHN PAUL I’S HOLY CATHOLIC FAITH

« It is astonishing and wonderful, wrote the Abbé de Nantes shortly after the election of Cardinal Luciani, God, Christ, the Church have come back to the foreground thanks to the new pontificate. This miracle has been wrought by the unshakeable faith and extreme charity of Albino Luciani, by the smiling and calm joy of his hope. The Church has preferred a Pope who is intransigent in faith but liberal towards people to one who is liberal in ideas with people from outside but hard and curt towards the people of his own household. The Figaro writes: “He does not accept that it is possible to compromise with the faith or the moral exigencies of the Gospel.”

« His predecessors would then? As for the Osservatore Romano it describes the Conclave’s choice in these words: “His absolute fidelity to the Pope and his rigorous Catholicism.” Today there remains the fidelity of the Pope to himself and to his rigorous Catholicism in a humble and gentle heart. » (CCR n^o 102, September 1978)

When studying the life of the new Pope, the Abbé de Nantes discovered a secret that testifies to the drama of conscience experienced by Mgr Luciani, during the Council, concerning religious freedom:

« Between John Paul I and us, our Father wrote in his editorial of October 1978, between the heritage of John and Paul, which he declared he had assumed, and our League of the Counter-Reformation there remained one irreducible contradiction on precise and important points of faith. We could not and we never shall be able to accept as a new dogma the so-called social right of man to Religious Freedom, not any more than we could accept the Cult of Man proclaimed by Paul VI before the whole Church at the close of the Council on 7 December 1965. For refusing these things we had been told in France and in Rome for the last fifteen years that we had committed ourselves to a path with no outcome.

« Now, by a simple word of honesty and humility John Paul I has opened the way to an outcome. His words alone are the undoing of heresy and the clearing of the conciliar impasse and by themselves they justify the all too brief reign of this Pontiff on the throne of Saint Peter in the unanimity of the Church recognising herself in him. Admitting his interior struggle at the time of the Council and the difficulty he had in rallying the theses of the innovators, in particular to the theory of religious liberty, he had the honesty to say:

« “The most difficult thesis for me to accept was that on religious freedom. For years I had taught the thesis that I had learned in the course on public law given by Cardinal Ottaviani according to which error has no rights. I studied the problem in depth and in the end persuaded myself that we had been wrong.” (ibid.)

« The phrase is an admission of disarray – the disarray that we still feel. » commented the Abbé de Nantes.

« In one go, the Pope’s honesty restored everyone’s right to be heard, even after Vatican II and without fear of a fraudulent excommunication, and he restored the present drama to its true proportions. It is this: some ended by allowing themselves to be convinced or else they managed to convince themselves that the Church had hitherto been wrong; others remained convinced, or in the end understood, that the innovators had been wrong and had misled us –the Council that is, and not the Church of all time. To admit that it is possible to make an error, whether it be in one direction of the other, is to restore peace to the Church by relegating these difficult questions to the realm of free opinions whilst awaiting a dogmatic Vatican III or the Pope’s infallible definitions. » (CCR no 103, October 1978, p. 5)

In the meantime, « by means of his beautiful and simple words John Paul I had already warmed, lit up and liberated the hearts and minds of the faithful. In his mild manner, he gave, as did Jesus in Galilee, a very sure evangelical teaching, a treasury of doctrine. His enemies, who did not appreciate him, were already making fun of his old-fashioned style and his countrified naivety. » (CCR n^o 103, October 1978, p. 3).

The parable of Aladin’s lamp, for example, is a thinly veiled allegory of the Conciliar deception:

« The magician [the Devil], at a certain moment, wants to take his revenge. He goes through the streets shouting: “I trade new lamps for old ones.” That seems to be an excellent bargain. It is in reality a swindle. Aladin’s wife is credulous and let herself be taken in. During the absence of her husband, she goes up into the attic, takes the lamp whose supernatural powers she is unaware of, and gives it to the magician. The scoundrel snatches it and abandons in exchange for it all his worthless sparkling brass lamps.

« This recurs: from time to time: a magician, a mystic, a philosopher [theologian] or a politician passes and offers to exchange merchandise. Take care! The ideas offered by certain magicians, even though they may sparkle, are nothing but brass and will not last. Those that they call obsolete and old-fashioned are often God’s ideas, of which it is written that they will not pass.  (CCR n^o 107, p. 18)

John Paul I’s main preoccupation was to restore unity within the Church: « We must work together… Let us try to give the world the sight of unity, even at the cost of a few sacrifices at times. We would have everything to lose by showing ourselves disunited to the world. » (Discourse to the Cardinals, 31 August 1978; quoted in CRC n^o 102, October 1978, p. 6)

The Abbé de Nantes corresponded all the better to this concern, since he had founded the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation with that sole aim. He advocated « a truce among Catholics, a truce which by its very nature could, by being prolonged, re-establish peace within the Church. » (cf. our insert, below)

The time had come: with the accession of John Paul I, things looked hopeful: « We are ready for union, and for reconciliation at the cost of great sacrifice, saving faith, hope and charity. » (CRC n^o 102, p. 6)

God, however, had decided otherwise:

« The Father given us by the Church amid universal joy on the evening of 26 August was suddenly called back to God Himself thirty-three days later on 28 September, for our sadness and consternation. “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.” (Jb 1.21) Yet on learning of this news on the morning of 29 September, we all felt that we had been orphaned, the like of which had not occurred for twenty years. » (CCR n^o 103) That is, since the death of Pius XII.

The mortal struggle then resumed. With this specific touch: « Between 1978 and 2000, a secret struggle took place between the Immaculate Virgin and the ministers of Her Son in revolt against Him… a shameful exclusion. » (He is Risen n^o 1, August-September 2002)

We understood this in retrospect, on 26 June 2000, when we learned the contents of the Third Secret. On this point, Brother Francis’ last chapters are eloquent. Their titles suffice: « “They have delayed the execution of my request.” » (Ch. 10) « Sister Lucy’s testimony is falsified. » (Ch. 11)

Well, parallel to the exclusion of Fatima, a succession of evasions and abuses of power were going to exclude as well the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

III. A SHAMEFUL EXCLUSION

The Abbé de Nantes attempted to follow up on an approach undertaken through the good offices of Cardinal Marty and Mgr Etchegaray by writing to Cardinal Seper on 8 March 1979:

« In order to return to both internal and external obedience to the Pope and to our bishops, I would like to see their dogmatic and disciplinary demands specified and calmly distinguished from particular opinions and options which are not binding in the same way, according to the adage: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in everything charity.

« I think that such a clarifying effort would procure great benefit for a multitude of souls who hesitate between a blind submission contrary to their convictions and an even more unacceptable revolt, and who can no longer find within the Church, their beloved Mother, that “space of freedom” so characteristic of former times. »

Our Father once again joined to his letter the “tract n^o 2” “Peace within the Church” (supra, pp. 25-26).

The entire work of the Abbé de Nantes is a “showcase” of this programme of pacification and renaissance:

1 ^o a defence of tradition by a detailed study, in all spheres;

2 ^o a relentless attack on the revolutionary innovations introduced by the Second Vatican Council;

3 ^o a fresh study of all these « new things » that, « in the spirit of the best tradition », will contribute tomorrow « energies and new lights of the Holy Spirit for our times ».

This is what makes his work colossal. To criticise innovations in the name of tradition is, in the end, something easy to do. On the other hand, to prepare Vatican III, to restore the catechism, to develop a new apologetics, bolstered by all the achievements of modern science… to create a theology of the sacraments, in particular to propose a “new Mass” capable of consigning Paul VI’s pernicious Mass to oblivion…

At the present time, everyone is talking about “ethics”. Mr. Chirac is searching for an “ethic”, to face up to the questions raised by the collapse of National Education, and the increase in delinquency. Our Father has elaborated a “morality” – to call it by its name – « a complete morality ». This means a Catholic morality and not a “secular” one.

All of this was done in the light of a thorough understanding of the Great Crises of the Church (Volumes 1975 and 1976 of the CCR), which places the Abbé de Nantes in medio Ecclesiæ, at the centre of the Church, not at the “golden mean”, but at the centre with the Doctors of the Church. Thus, he will be considered the Doctor of the Church of the twentieth century, particularly for his opposition to Pope John Paul II.

FROM PAUL VI TO JOHN-PAUL II

It became very quickly apparent that no appeasement could be hoped for from Pope John Paul II. The procedure proposed by our Father was, however, clear, too clear for people who had been navigating in darkness since 1965. On 8 March 1979, in his letter to Cardinal Seper, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he wrote:

« I am prepared for everything : let the Sacred Congregation inform me of all the dogmatic propositions and disciplinary decisions I should subscribe to in order to be relieved of the canonical sanctions imposed on me; or let the Sacred Congregation ask me for a list of the postconciliar doctrinal propositions and disciplinary decisions which I find difficult to reconcile with the faith or opposed to divine law, so that misunderstandings be unmasked or so that I can be freed from doubtful novelties and debatable opinions, which the Holy See does not hold to be obligatory.

« If I am lacking in the necessities of Catholic faith and unity, I wish to retract in public and to repent of my aberrations, so as to make reparation for the scandal.

« If I am partly wrong and partly right, I desire that everything be enlightened and judged by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to re-enter fully into the communion and life of today’s Church, and thus save my soul and work for the salvation of my neighbour.

« If, however, I have been right during these years of spiritual ruin and apostasy, a thought I can only entertain by virtue of the many holy souls who have accompanied or followed me in this Catholic Counter-Reformation, I implore that I no longer be unjustly sanctioned by the divine Authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

« Placing no confidence in myself but all in the Holy Church, in her visible Head and in her invisible Head, in the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen so greatly implored by the present pontificate, in Saint Joseph, our father and protector, I kneel at the feet of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, entrusting him with the care of my cause and imploring his blessing as the humblest and not the least steadfast of his sons,

« Georges de Nantes. »

The signer of this touching petition did not receive the slightest reply. The chain of transactions was broken and all attempts made to repair it, failed. The Abbé de Nantes informed his readers of this in June 1980:

« There was a renewal of contact, following my initiative, in 1978 but then nothing more. Rome no longer answers. Hello, Rome? No, the line is cut. I no longer exist for Rome. You can mention the CRC to the Nuncio but he will look at you with a glacial eye and pass on. Such is the situation and the position from where I speak. » (CCR n^o 123, June 1980)

In May 1981, however – on May 13! – the Secretariat of State replied most officially to a private correspondent:

« Concerning the Abbé de Nantes, the Secretariat of State reminds you that his present situation is not due to a simple misunderstanding with his bishop, as you seem to think, but to serious theological errors.

« for the Assessor, Mgr A. Lanzoni. »

Since I had to go to Bologna to attend a Congress on the Holy Shroud, I stopped over at Rome to obtain – with much difficulty! – an interview, not with Mgr Lanzoni, “who was not to be seen,” but with Mgr Re, his superior, the third highest person of the Secretariat of State. I asked him what the Abbé de Nantes’ « serious theological errors » were. I received this reply:

« This expression only appeared in a single, unique letter addressed by our dicastery to a private person, under the signature of Mgr Lanzoni. It was only a circumstantial reply… »

Although he assumed responsibility for the aforementioned letter, Mgr Re clearly stated to me that he was unaware of « any dogmatic, doctrinal, or even simply theological error. » in the writings and teachings of the Abbé de Nantes. « Nevertheless the Abbé de Nantes could be reproached, in a more general manner with an erroneous ecclesial situation.

– What do you mean? The Abbé de Nantes scrupulously observes the “suspens a divinis”. As for the “disqualification” of August 1969, it has no canonical value.

– That is true, However, your refusal of the Council places you in an erroneous ecclesial position.

– This is precisely the question! The Abbé de Nantes asserts that it is the Council which places the Pope, and at the same time, you yourself, Monseigneur, in a heretical, schismatic and scandalous ecclesial position. »

As for me, I left this interview rather discouraged. Our Father, however, hastened to publish and comment on the Roman prelate’s admissions:

« The main thing, what was sufficient, was done. Our brother returned from Rome, mission accomplished. An ecclesiastical person of the highest rank retracted the words attributed to him by a secretary. The defamer, having written that I was reproached with grave theological errors, has been disavowed and it has been recognised that we were not in error, neither dogmatically nor morally. The only thing wrong with us is that we are opponents, which is not well thought of at the Vatican, as in any court or party.

« But now the proposition I quietly enunciated above hereby finds itself tragically reversed! If it is recognised that I am not in error, then He whom I contradict and oppose, in matters of faith and morals, is therefore in error, and up to the neck! If that were not so, now that I have obtained a retraction of the defamation which overwhelmed me, reconciliation would be easy and immediate. [the suspens a divinis would be lifted!].

A FURTHER ADMONITION

« Alas, whitened by the Assessor of the Secretariat of State, I cannot, in exchange for this justice, retract any of my disagreements nor relax my opposition. On the contrary! He, they who commit error upon error in grave matters of dogma and morals, must come out of their error. And let them not count on any flatterer or partisan to ask that of them, but again on us, and always on us for that – a terrible responsibility but a glorious task! For “we cannot not speak” » (CCR no 142, January 1982, p. 1) These are St. Peter’s words to the Sanhedrin (Ac 4.20)!

Thus, he elaborated a further admonition that took as its basis the three conditions for peace within the Church, which had become more crucial than ever.

The first condition is to love and make loved the eternal faith of the People of God. Our Father did just this by developing “A mysticism for our times” with an exceptional fulsomeness in 1978, the year of Paul VI’s death, the year of the brief and luminous pontificate of John Paul I and of John Paul II’s accession. « We are searching for a way to God that is open and practicable, for a union with God that is possible, sure and that speaks to us, for this is what we cruelly lack even though we might have all the rest, faith virtues and works. The mystical life is truly that pearl of great price of which the Gospel speaks and for which we should exchange all our goods.

« Now, the path we have chosen is that of beauty. »

« We pass from grace to grace, that is to say, from the gracious beauty of created beings to the all gracious and gratuitous goodness of God, of which created beauty is the sign, the proof and the image. That is our way and on this way we shall encounter Christ, the Word of God in human flesh, the beauty and splendour of the Father, the bodily face of the Godhead. » (CCR n^o 105, December 1978, p. 2)

The smile of John Paul I replied marvellously to this quest for “grace”.

The second condition for peace within the Church is to rise up against the heresies, schisms and scandals exacerbated by John Paul II, the successor of Paul VI and not of John Paul I, because, as it happens, he bars access to grace. This was the subject matter of the second Book of Accusation taken to Rome on 13 May 1983:

	In Rome, on 13 May 1983.

« It must be said to your face, Most Holy Father, that your religion is no longer that of the Roman Catholic Church, Christ’s unique Church, whose Head you are. Your religion is the religion of man who makes himself god and not the religion of God, the Son of God, Who made Himself man. For the one excludes the other. Someone must rise up in the Church and make bold to tell you these things openly, publicly, bluntly and without hesitation, because it is the revealed truth on which our supreme good depends: our ultimate end, the honour of the Church and the future credibility of her infallible Magisterium, the salvation of our souls and the tranquillity of our consciences in rebellion against your teaching. And finally, Most Holy Father, your own salvation depends upon it, if your soul will deign to profit from this remonstrance. For none of the Church’s children, especially of her pastors, of her supreme Pastors, can be saved unless he hold the most pure, sound and entire Catholic faith. »

For the second time the Abbé de Nantes made the accusation. From one Liber to the next, however, what a difference there was!

« Paul VI, as you know, was a man of culture rather than intellect, more emotional than intellectual. He was not really a leader but a solitary, morose, ambitious man who, in order to tolerate the pagan tedium of his life, needed to be loved, flattered and applauded. From the day of his elevation, there was a multiplicity of loudly publicised initiatives and announcements of great reforms to come, some useless, some simply insupportable. The passing of time has exposed the utter and often ruinous futility of it all. Convinced that he would give great pleasure, he hastened to Jerusalem to meet the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, to Geneva and to Manhattan. He invented new secretariats in order to dialogue with the non-Catholic Christian brothers, with the non-Christian brothers and with the non-believing brothers. He forgave the whole world for its aggression and for its crimes against God and His Christ, even before the world had shown the least repentance. He humbly beat his breast for the faults of his predecessors – not for his! – with regard to the active and living enemies of the eternal Church. What did it all lead to? To nothing except dishonour, ruin and decay. The world was said to be fascinated at the sight of all this, but the world could not care less! »

The description is vitriolic!

« The speeches of Paul VI are enough to make one laugh. “Ah! said he, how powerful the modern world is! How grandiose! Man has even walked on the Moon! This is an allusion to an incredible speech, a hymn to the glory of man, « king of the earth, and today prince of the heavens » made during the midday Angelus upon learning of a voyage from the earth to the moon in 1971.

« Yet he lacked the breadth of an heresiarch… I think he was just a demagogue.

« Paul VI was the convinced disciple of those lightweight and vain French thinkers, the Maritains, Mouniers, Congars, de Lubacs and the inevitable Teilhard, whose glorious works are no longer read by anyone and whose names are forgotten even before their deaths. Little progressivist minds, not to be compared with the masters of German Modernism! Fortunately, those German heavyweights were beyond the understanding of Paul VI. He was a Latin and his culture made him allergic to their profound nonsense. »

But John Paul II, he was really something else!

« For you are no longer Catholic, you are no longer Christian for it is all one, even though you remain in name and in fact the Sovereign Pontiff of this Church whose faith and unity you reject from the depths of your will and intellect. Of course, you are the idol of the masses. That is partly due to the power of the opinion formers, held for the most part by the Church’s worst enemies and by perfidious modernists, whose protector and accomplice you are. You are spared by these people because they dominate you and hold you at their mercy. In part, you reign over the Catholic and believing masses because you mix much apparent Christian discourse and great manifestations of piety with your bland humanism, thus misleading them. It is also certain that our bishops and many priests who have come up through the ranks of Catholic Action have been poisoned by modernism and progressivism for a quarter, even for a half-century, in many a country including yours and mine. As for the rest, the credulity of Catholics when hearing the Pope is infinite, not that they can be too much blamed for that.

« 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. You invoke Christ, you mangle the Gospels in order to strip God of His divine and royal attributes, with which you then adorn man, Man become your idol, the object of your worship and service, of your love and striving.

« I take to witness what remains of the Catholic faith in your soul and in the souls of the cardinals and the ministers of the competent dicasteries who will have to learn of my complaint. I summon the Authority of the Church, her sacred hierarchy, her faithful people, each and everyone, in so far as my powerlessness permits, but in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to say openly and clearly whether such humanism in place of orthodox and Catholic Christianity is worthy of their unfeigned assent and adherence, or whether it merits anathema. Thence will this extraordinary trial be decided, from which one of the two parties will emerge acquitted and the other condemned, from which one will emerge sanctified by the trial and the other, failing recognition of error, public retraction and due reparation, will be doomed to the flames of Hell and to eternal damnation.

« May the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary come to our aid! » (Liber accusationis secundus, 13 May 1983, p. 4)

In a book entitled “A Dialogue with André Frossard, Fear Not”, in reply to one of Frossard’s questions on what political doctrine can be derived from the Gospel, the Pope explained the dialogue between Christ and Pilate:

« “Accused of wanting to make Himself king, Jesus of Nazareth first of all answered His judge negatively: My Kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would strive that I should not be delivered to those who pursue Me (the sacred text says: to the Jews), but My kingdom is not from hence.”

« Pilate rightly observes that this negation includes an affirmation. He therefore asks a second time: “So, you are a king?” To which Christ answers in the affirmative: “I was born for this, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears My voice.” »

Here is the Pope’s explanation:

« 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. »

According to the Catholic faith, asserts the Abbé de Nantes, this is its violent and blasphemous contradiction:

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, on this idol whom every man and all men of our time are invited to worship, honour, cherish and serve within themselves in place of and instead of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. 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. 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! »

We recognise here what already formed the subject of the first admonition to Pope Paul VI. However, what is decisively new is to learn that the « cult of man », « our new humanism », in Paul VI’s own words, was introduced into the Council by Karol Wojtyla and understood by him alone as an Hegelian “synthesis” between the modern world and his atheistic philosophy on the one hand, and the Catholic religion of a Pope consecrated to the Blessed Virgin by his motto « Totus tuus » on the other.

The aim of the second Book of Accusation is to dismantle this infernal mechanism, in particular by analysing a retreat preached by John Paul II when he was still only Cardinal Wojtyla, the Archbishop of Cracow, in 1976, two years before his accession to the pontifical throne. This retreat’s title, “A sign of contradiction”, recalls the words of the old man Simeon to the Virgin Mary on the day of the Presentation: « Behold this child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted. » (Lk 2.34)

For John Paul II, this is the sign of the Hegelian contradiction between thesis and antithesis, between Catholic religion and modern atheism. The “synthesis” that overcomes this contradiction is the revelation brought by Cardinal Wojtyla: the idea according to which God does not want this kingship for man is what constitutes original sin. That was Satan’s suggestion! Satan caused in the beginning an appalling and unjust misunderstanding that John Paul II dispels.

Of what does this misunderstanding consist? Of imputing as a crime to man what is most natural, most normal. For it is one of Satan’s lies to make us believe that God will not tolerate man’s making himself God, when man has the irrepressible desire for this.

« God is not against man in that way! So, for the first time in the history of mankind, the contradiction is going to be revealed and surmounted by you. Gentlemen atheists and deicides, you will say to them, I have understood you. You did the right thing to revolt, to dominate the earth and to kill off all those false gods obstructing humanity’s forward march. The disciple and apostle of the God of the future views you as his brethren and his forerunners in the new humanism where God becomes man’s friend and no longer his rival. Because, until today you have been misled about God and about the true religion. » (Liber II, p. 57)

Such is the « new humanism » proclaimed by Paul VI in his closing speech of the Council, but introduced by Karol Wojtyla. Thus, according to Karol Wojtyla who became John Paul II, « the “Truth” » to which Jesus testifies before Pilate is what the Second Vatican Council preaches, and John Paul II assures us that this is the faith. However, the Council, on this point is already him! Therefore, the Word of God today is, on the word of Karol Wojtyla, the Word of Wojtyla! This is, in concrete terms, the faith in man today in the Church: the faith of John Paul II in John Paul II. It is a circle! »

How can this circle be broken? By the patience of the saints. (to be continued)

Brother Bruno of Jesus