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 (6)

« CHILDREN ARE ASKING FOR BREAD »
1987 - 1993

 by Brother Bruno of Jesus

André Frossard related that Pope John Paul II confided something to him: « There is something that makes him sad. He told it to me. It is to see that his encyclical letters are so poorly distributed and that so few people read them, even though he has put so much effort into them. »

This single fact shows how illusory, false even, is the universal chorus of praise surrounding Pope John Paul II. He only has to open his mouth, even today when he is no longer able to speak clearly, and people applaud. But they do not pay attention to what he says.

Well, at least one theologian, the Abbé de Nantes, has carefully listened to, read and studied him, and has explained him to his readers. He made it his duty to do so:

« From the beginning of John Paul II’s pontificate, I have applied myself to commenting on his major acts, and if I have been absorbed with some other event and have failed to comment, I have always regretted it because the subject matter of these acts has been of such importance. A much stronger philosopher and theologian than his predecessor John Baptist Montini, Karol Wojtyla goes from one encyclical to the next, and again in this recent Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem, building a system without parallel in the Church’s past, especially on the part of a Roman pontiff! This system is the complete dogma, article by article, of a new cult of man, apparently still Christian… in the bovine eyes of moronic or conniving clerics. As for me, I would rather be deaf and blind than not to see and understand this work; I would rather have my right hand cut off and my tongue cut out than forego denouncing this work and demanding that Rome anathematise it, or, failing that, Christ Himself. »

What is extraordinary and what allow us to identify precisely “the ways of Providence” is that our Father ceased this gruelling work at the same time as the Pope himself, who can no longer express himself today. It has happened as though to show us that all has been said on both sides, and that it is incumbent on God to give judgment.

Consequently, we no longer have any excuse: we, in turn, must understand under our Father’s guidance, and then believe with supernatural hope that divine truth will triumph in the end. In the meantime, we must fight for it with all our strength, even though it convinces no one. In short, we have to follow our Father’s example very closely, walk in his footsteps, without deviating to the right or to the left.

This is a gigantic fight, but to wage it the Abbé de Nantes was forearmed with his relational metaphysics, the antithesis of Pope John Paul II’s « generalised solipsism ».

For example, in his encyclical Mulieris dignitatem, on the dignity and the vocation of woman, « the Pope noted, in passing, the origin of woman “drawn from man’s side”. But of these words he retains nothing. He forgets, therefore, that Eve is of Adam, born of Adam, and thus subjugated from the beginning by this relationship of being, in itself full of love. From this origin, Adam draws his authority and Eve her reverence and obedience; whence proceed a human and Christian morality... John Paul II wants none of it. He ignores it, and makes Catholics themselves ignore it in his feminist passion for the freedom, equality and independence of the me with regard to any other me. He wants the same to be equally true of God so that the mystery of God does not eventually contradict and condemn his cult of Man and of Woman! » (CCR n^o 215, January 1989, p. 5)

Now God is one, and yet... three Persons.

Then, Karol Wojtyla, an « exceptional German philosopher », but certainly a « very mediocre theologian », « imagines God as a unique and self-sufficient substance and person... contradictorily doubled with three gods, three persons loving each other and giving themselves to each other in total freedom, equality and fraternity... So, he idolises a man, a woman, it is the same thing. It is a question of an “extraordinary dignity”, autonomy, liberty and self-sufficiency... contradictorily linked with another “me”, an interlocutor, a partner, who is just as autonomous and sufficient as himself... Linked by duty? by love? by free gift: “disinterested self-sacrifice”...? But wanted by him “to be himself”! This is a pure war of words. »

And no one, « in Rome or in the universal hierarchy has undertaken a canonical and public action similar to the one that we have been pursuing for twenty-five years against the cynical preaching of such a doctrine by a warped and corrupting Magisterium, and yet applauded by the entire world.

« Beside us, who has protested? No one. Even today, who will protest with us? No one, no one, no one... It is a mystery of iniquity. »

THE POPE’S UNANIMIST GNOSIS

As an introduction to his commentary on the encyclical Redemptoris missio, of 7 December 1990, the Abbé de Nantes wrote:

« There is in the Pope’s teaching – authentic if you like – but certainly not “ordinary” [that is to say, he is unable to invoke his predecessors] or “extraordinary” [that is to say, he is unable to invoke his personal infallibility because, if he were to do so, he would condemn himself!], for it is innovating and deviating beyond what is tolerable! A certain progress in boldness and in fusing opposites in a Gnostic proposition of the mystery of man and of God who are but one. »

« It is the Hegelian, Marxist, dialectic synthesis of the classic Catholic thesis and of its present-day modernist-progressivist antithesis, surmounted by the rare genius of a thinker who was initiated to the most extensive gnostic visions of our time. It is a forecast of a general evolution of religions toward their definitive fusion in an “eschatological kingdom”. »

How is this? Oh! It is quite simple:

« What is said about the Church is secretly granted to the whole of humanity. What is attributed to Christians by virtue of their faith and baptism is as though already possessed, incognito, in the state of “seeds of the Word” by every religious man or as “evangelical seeds”, in every soul of good will who is preoccupied with the good of his neighbours and the progress of humanity. »

This is what our Father calls Pope John Paul II’s « unanimist gnosis », « whereby apostasy dons sumptuous Christian, Catholic chasubles, and whereby the Church takes off her divine and chaste adornments to become a courtesan ».

When rereading this text from June 1991, we cannot help ourselves from thinking of the gaudy cope that Pope John Paul II wore for the inauguration of the third millennium on 24 December 1999, at Saint Peter’s, during the ceremony of the opening of the Holy Door. The Sovereign Pontiff celebrated a strange, esoteric and syncretistic ritual. This was the outcome of the Second Vatican Council, such as it had been foreseen by our Father:

« The great solemn river of the Roman Church flows, through the ever enlarging delta of the Conciliar reform, into the ocean of the universal religiosity wherein it longs to vanish. Instead of going back to its source to purify and vivify itself, after the fashion of previous reforms, it follows the rapid descent toward the cesspool of the pagan world and the mixed waters of apostasy. »

The Abbé de Nantes implacably demonstrated this by analysing the speech that John Paul II addressed on 16 March 1991 to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

In this speech dealing with « man’s aspiration to happiness, as a foundation stone for faith », our holy religion based on the new and eternal covenant in the Blood of Christ, which is historic, real, unique, holy, apostolic and Catholic, was totally absent:

« There is no divine and conditional Covenant, no revealed Law, no adoration, no worship of God. One finds no conversion, no faith, no baptism. There is no cross, no sacrifice, no justification, no concession of grace. One sees mention of no Church, no sacraments; no confession, no Communion. There is no Heaven, no Hell, even less any mention of Purgatory. One reads of no particular or general judgment, no good or bad angels, no saints of Paradise, no devotions to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The poor Virgin Mary is forgotten. Worse yet, She is excluded...

« What, then, is this Christian initiation? It is a call for a casual, unconditional and unlimited love, as the love in God is thought to be, and the offer of a joy in Jesus Christ that is promised, as soon as it is accepted, without having to make any effort. It is a present and perpetual beatitude based on the certainty of a universal resurrection.

« Thus, John Paul II makes himself, unobtrusively and without the consent of the Church, without so much as a countersignature from Cardinal Ratzinger or anyone else, the Magus who reveals a “conception of life and happiness” that any man, from whatever religion or irreligion he may be, can adopt without changing in the slightest any of his ideas, practices of worship and morals and submitting to the dogmas, sacraments and commandments of the Roman Catholic Church. »

Do you understand why God sent us His Holy Mother to Fatima to teach us the catechism that the Pope no longer teaches, but that Sister Lucy evoked in her book on the Calls from the Message of Fatima?

In fact, we have to bow to the evidence: « The Pope “does not know God” in the Johannine sense of such an expression: he does not love Him, he flees from His light, he distorts and amputates His revelation in order to please the impious men of our time. »

He does not know Jesus Christ, the Son of God, either:

« Of course, he existed! He was born, He died, and He rose from the dead. Then, everything becomes muddled and fades away. His historic destiny has ended and remains in the collective memory... as Mozart remains in his indefinitely reviviscent musical work and in his immortal message. »

This is not a whim! It is the Pope who in his speech of 16 March 1991 passed without transition from Christ to Mozart, who is supposed to have delivered a message similar to that of the Gospel. This is the astonishing confirmation of the truth that John Paul II’s religion is in the final analysis a “gnosis”, « the human expression, in words or in pure music, of the experience both of “death and resurrection”, that is lived consciously by Christians through baptism, and unconsciously or otherwise by freemasons and other initiates through Mozart’s music. Music is for Mozart what speech is for Karol Wojtyla: the expression of an intimate song of joy because man is saved, life is beautiful and, new times have come.

« The Creed of John Paul II is the transposition into vain words of an intimate experience so profound that would be unable to contradict or invalidate any religious dogma but that, on the other hand, meets and assimilates them all. All men will be reconciled and more and more united in one single cult of beauty, the reflection of the great Architect of the universe, and of his Word, the Archetype of all given existence. May dogmatic disputes be silenced and the theologies that fatally revive them. May the first notes of “the Enchanted Flute” sound. Music is man’s best religion! »

Here is confirmed the analysis of the Book of Accusation of 1983:

« A noumenal God for a phenomenal Pope. »

Here we have it, literally: a noumenal God. In three Wednesday allocutions, the Pope went as far as denying the physical fact of Jesus’ bodily Ascension into Heaven, while affirming that this event was certainly not a local transfer of the risen Jesus, from earth into some sky, but His « full and definitive withdrawal from the laws of time and space ». In other words: His dematerialisation.

« The concept of the man Jesus is over. Forever. »

« He has disappeared completely from our world; He has ceased to be socially and to act historically. »

The same applies to the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for the Sacraments He instituted and distributed by means of her. In his preaching opened to all « men of good will », believers and non-believers, the Pope never refers to the need for them. Furthermore: he infects the Roman Church herself with the deadly poison of this « unanimist gnosis » by means of a new “catechism” published in 1992, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, C. C. C., the antithesis, if ever there was one, of the C. R. C.!

A CRUSADE TO ROME, UNDER THE AEGIS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA,
AGAINST THE C. C. C., THE SUPPOSED CATECHISM
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (13 May 1993)

« It is the undiluted venom of the Second Vatican Council in all its impudence and insolence, republished in its own terms before the Face of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, and in Their Name! It is published in a catechism that is universally distributed and praised by all, by the teaching Church, by the lay leaders of world opinion, except for the criticism of the revolutionary Left, who condemn it for its half-heartedness and indolence. Such criticism, however, can only serve to make the book more acceptable and cherished by the faithful, worn out after thirty years of contestation. »

This is even more true since this Catechism was done at the request of several bishops to operate a doctrinal correction in the Church!

« So, in an instant, the voice of conscience told me that we, the CRC, would have to return to Rome, more isolated than ever, to bring an accusation of heresy, schism and scandal, no longer against one or two popes taken to task personally, but against the entire Church for public and provocative adultery and fornication after thirty years of shocking and wild behaviour. It had to be done; we would do it. An inspiration from Heaven? An illumination? Never! Not at all! There is no need for an apparition, a revelation, a sign or a miracle to know what is commanded by the divine Law, both natural and supernatural, and by the Ten Commandments enlightened by the Gospel. That is sufficient for us to know what we should do for the Faith and therefore the Hope and Charity of the Church. »

Consequently, our Father began work on a third Book of Accusation, in every respect similar to the first two except that the accusation was not only against the reigning Pope but against « the generality of the Conciliar party which has grown to the point of being confused with the Church’s catholicity ».

Furthermore « it is the entire work of the Second Vatican Council, conceived and deepened by the universal Church over thirty years, that is summed up in this one book by the six years’ work of a commission of cardinals and an editorial committee of experts, further supported by the entire Catholic episcopate under the direction of Cardinal Ratzinger, delegated for this task by Pope John Paul II to stand in his place »

However, to accuse such a Catechism of heresy is once again to attack the Pope principally:

« The words of H.H. John Paul II establishing the “doctrinal value of the text” would make any ditherer, malcontent or dissident tremble, and they forearm the people, the clergy, the Episcopal college and even the Roman tribunals against any such blasphemers, who would be reprimanded, warned to retract and threatened with the ultimate sanction that could constrain them to save their souls by regaining full confidence in and due submission to the living Pope, in the perfect “symphony” of today’s Church, postconciliar and reformed. »

In spite of this, our Father went to Rome for the third time on 13 May 1993, along with two hundred and sixty-seven representatives of our Catholic Counter-Reformation, to lodge this third Book of Accusation, « with a view of obtaining, in accordance with Canon Law, which is imprescriptible and unavoidable, a canonical trial concerning these criminal questions, with the Sovereign Doctor, Pontiff and Pastor of the Church, the Bishop of Rome His Holiness John Paul II, judging infallibly and irreformably from his apostolic Cathedra, beyond which there is no conceivable appeal either on earth or in Heaven. Such a sentence, requested, called for and awaited in vain since 7 December 1965, will alone put an end to our protest »

THE TEMPTATION TO RALLY

Just as he had done twenty years earlier with the Dutch Catechism, our Father began by admiring this new Catechism: « even though I soon regretted allowing myself to be caught, so I admit that I was charmed and conquered by the religious ardour, the spiritual joy and the contagious magnanimity of this Catechism.

« Furthermore, its perfect mastery of dogmatic questions, its admirable knowledge of Holy Scripture, its excellent choice of quotations from the Fathers of the Church, and even better, if possible! its opening to the best of modern science and theology with a Roman sobriety that does not exclude warmth and due enthusiasm, make this Catechism a great book, worthy of the Holy Catholic Church, a “Roman work”.

« From beginning to end, I found myself being powerfully and gently enticed to adhere to it, “charismatically” conditioned to yield to its Weltanschauung, to its global model of envisaging the Christian religion, so new and apparently so liberating. But liberating from what? From all constraint? »

Yes! That is where the shoe pinches.

Because there is « venom » in this « honey », as in every encyclical of John Paul II:

« There are chapters, easily recognisable, composed of massive quotations from the Acts of Vatican II, which our Catholic faith has increasingly rejected for a quarter of a century on account of their obvious incompatibility with and contradiction of simple philosophical truth or scientific truth easily accessible to natural reason, or points of ecclesiastical doctrine that cannot be challenged or doubted because they are now defined. »

VENOM IN THE NECTAR

Our Father classified the errors of the CCC in twelve chapters. In chapter nine, entitled “The apostasy of an antichrist cult of man based on the repudiation of the Heart and the Cross of Jesus”, he puts in the first column what he calls the « pure nectar of Jesus Christ crystal clear, sweet, sanctifying and intoxicating with the chaste love of His Cross and His Glory », the fruit of which is « Life in Christ » (n^os 1691-1696 of the CCC).

Opposite, a second column is full of « satanic venom », lethal poison presented as « the vocation of man: life in the Spirit » (n^os 1701-1709).

The first column is a series of quotes from the Fathers of the Church, from the Gospel and from St. Paul. The second one strings together passages from the Conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes. They present two worlds that are completely alien to one another. Or more precisely, as we understand it today, these are the two « halves » of the « big city half in ruins » of the “Third Secret” of Fatima. In the middle of the « ruins », there are still some intact monuments:

« Combining the true and the false, the good and the bad, orthodoxy and heresy, this Catechism is like an hallucinogenic drug, the euphoric effect of which is to mix the cult of God with the cult of Man, as though they were equal and in osmosis, marrying their two infinities, their two beatitudes, their two liberties, as though mutually acceptable in a definitive Alliance of no obligation or sanction and already replete with earthly happiness, giving a foretaste of that happy nirvana where all men and women go from generation to generation, outside time and space, plunged in God, in Love »

Commenting on the first of the 2865 sections contained in this catechism, our Father wrote: « From the very first words, it seems to me that some lethal poison has been mixed with the exquisite Catholic nectar, some heretical gnosis, as old as the world. »

« 1. God, infinitely Perfect and Happy in Himself, in a plan of pure goodness, has freely created man to make him share in His own blessed life. »

True or false? True, of course: this is pure Catholic nectar.

« That is why, at all times and in all places, God draws close to man. » At all time? Even when He chased him from the terrestrial Paradise? Even when He destroyed every living soul at the time of the Flood? Even when He struck the proud men of the tower of Babel and confounded their languages?

No, certainly not! « This supposed loving solicitude of God for all men of « at all times and in all places » is lethal poison from a heretical gnosis, as old as the world ».

« He calls him, helps him to seek Him, to know Him and to love Him with all his strength. » This is true for Abraham. But not for « all men »...

« He summons all men, whom sin has dispersed, into the unity of His family, the Church. »

Our Father comments: « Between the short duration of Paradise, before the Fall, and the time of the Church with its long duration of slow and uncertain growth, what an immense gap, what a time of ignorance and crime when God had not yet spoken, at least not to the pagan nations! »

« Well, here we have to believe in God’s equal concern at all times and among all peoples, adopting all men and making them share in all His blessings »…

« Anathema sit! »

It is very interesting to follow, step-by-step, the analysis of this « error concerning the universal and absolute predestination of all men to grace, to the remission of sins, and to life eternal », a heresy that he already fought in the seminary, in 1946, because it impregnated the teaching of some of his professors. This is a « gnosis ». What does this mean? Quite simply: men are supposed to receive words and signs from God who reveals Himself to them, secretly, beyond the words and rituals of the various religions including our own, and they are supposed to abandon themselves to it with trust. The word « gnosis » refers to this secret « knowledge ».

It is in this « gnostic » spirit that § 222 offers to our devotion the literal transcription of the shema’ Israel (Dt 6.4), the creed of the Jewish faith, and of the shahada (sura II 163), the creed of the Moslem faith.

The basis for this confusion of religions is found in the « third heresy », where Christ is represented as being united to each man, forever, through His mysteries, saving them all infallibly. « Anathema sit! »

In fact, Christ loses all historic consistency in this “Catechism” in order to make way for man who makes himself the centre of the world and who gives glory to himself with no further regard for God, His Heaven, nor Hell.

THE APPEAL TO INFALLIBLE JUDGEMENT

At least this is our Father’s analysis: « To be submitted to the Roman Magisterium in order to know which of us has run in vain and suffered shipwreck in the Faith: either I must be excommunicated and my preconciliar profession of faith anathematised, or the Magisterium must resign itself to anathematising the decrees of Vatican II that we call into question, and to excommunicating those who would refuse to reject them with the full force of the infallible Magisterium, which is Roman and Catholic. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ »

He had almost finished the draft when he was struck with vertigo. It was ten days before the date set for the trip to Rome, a Sunday evening, after the ceremony for the perpetual vows of Brother Vincent de Paul and Louis-Joseph. It was impressive! After vespers, he implored prayers, his voice choking from the anguish of not being able to see his work through to the end. It was a sort of agony: « If this Catechism is Catholic, he was saying to himself, it is criminal to attack it, to turn our back obstinately on the truth, simply because we criticise this Reformation of the Church for thirty years now. »

The light, however, dawned again at the thought of leaving it to the Church to decide, the Catholic attitude par excellence:

« It is up to the Church to judge, as I ask her to, in an infallible way. »

Once more, the Church, in the person of the Pope and his ministers, refused to judge.

In the morning of 13 May, we arrived at Rome, by air – a special airplane – and by the night train – a special wagon of the Palatino.

« Here and there, in the air and on the rails, everyone was reading the Book that had come off the press the evening before; once again we formed one heart, one soul. In 1968, I was alone. In 1973, we were sixty; In 1983, two hundred; and today two hundred sixty-seven… a small praying, conscious, very motivated community. It was the event of our life. »

« Upon our arrival at St. Peter’s Square, we were questioned by plain-clothes policemen and Italian carabinieri: we were told to get back into our coaches and leave! Like the other times, the same business. I refused and asked questions. The orders, they admitted despite instructions, came from the Vatican. And they did not understand anything: does one drive back such peaceful pilgrims?

« There was much discussion, and the time passed. On this 13 May, Saint Peter’s Square was abnormally empty. There were no coaches, no groups, only Italian police, barriers piled up and chained, military vehicles and ambulances. And uniformed carabinieri and plain clothes police. All there to bar our access to the Holy Office. More discussion; it was absurd, and the time passed. Finally, whilst our friends were held in a far corner of the Square, I was authorised, conducted like a criminal, to gain access to the Holy Office where Cardinal Ratzinger reigns. Accompanying me were two of our brothers and two of our friends, one Belgian and the other French. By good fortune, the younger friend had an excellent camera which now allows us to have proofs of this event, which, though ridiculous in the eyes of men, is grandiose, sacred even to the Heart of Christ.

« The important part consisted in a few words. We were received by a Monsignore beaming with youth and naivety, but like beggars, in a corridor of the porter’s lodge. I asked to be taken to a decent reception room; telephone call, wait, permission granted. Up there, I asked for chairs; no one was on that floor, unless they were all hiding behind doors! to bring these chairs. Our plenipotentiary had to go and fetch them himself. We sat down.

« It was quickly done. Two books were handed over with explanations as to their addressees. One for the Holy Father, the other for the Cardinal. All right, very good. The comedy lasted two minutes, and our young angel was already holding out his hand… “No, not yet, Monsignore… I demand a receipt.” Search for an unfindable piece of paper. I dictated the text that the other, pretending not to know our language, wrote down as though he were an illiterate. To cut the story short, here is the essential:

« I asked him to declare that these books were placed on the desk of the Holy Office with a view to the canonical opening of a Trial. He had never seen a thing like that; he could not write it! Very slightly the tone raised. I dictated the acknowledgement of the two books, then the canonical significance of our action, which he still protested he was unable to sign. Yet, it is for this declaration that we had come; it was to receive and transmit it to his masters that they had delegated him to deal with us. He must either fulfil his task or take us to one of his superiors.

Finally Mgr Caotorta signed this receipt

Rome, 13 May 1993.

« I, the undersigned, Mgr Damiano Marzotto Caotorta, Official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have received from the Abbé de Nantes two copies of the “Book of Accusation for heresy”, one for the Holy Father, and one for Cardinal Ratzinger. »

« I asked, our Father also related, that he specify that these items were being deposited with a view to the opening of a trial for which this Book was the Act of accusation. He protested that this was not possible. So, I dictate this demand on another piece of paper to be presented to the Cardinal: “This book of accusation is a canonical appeal for the opening of a heresy trial, as soon as possible, under pain of dereliction of duty.” He complied, always indifferent to whatever was asked of him. Then, closing the meeting, he accompanied us to the street, where he left us, undoubtedly happy that he had not committed a single blunder and had not said something foolish as his predecessor had done in 1983! »

It is incredible! We must add that our Father had forewarned Cardinal Ratzinger: « With our two hundred and fifty friends, we do not come to debate with You, to express our frame of mind, to insult anyone, to seek honourable conditions for giving our support, nor to plead our case, but only to introduce it. It is clear and simple. One minute will suffice. And Your Eminence knows that because of his high position, it is His duty to receive this Book of Accusation and in this way have the dossier prepared for our trial and seen through to its juridical conclusion under pain of dereliction of duty. »

A MAGISTERIUM DEFEATED BY DERELICTION OF DUTY

Mgr Re

Once that task had been carried out by main force, since our Father had received no reply to his requests for an audience either from the Holy Father or from Cardinal Ratzinger, the Roman dicastery continued to lie low. True, Mgr Caotorta had accepted the book, but only to shelve it so that no one would talk about it any more! So, our Father sent me to Rome to enter into discussions with the Secretariat of State, a place where I had privileged access, so to speak! since Mgr Re, substitute, had seen me there in 1982, as I have previously related. Mgr Re asked one of his subordinates, Mgr Leonardo Sandri, an assessor, to see me. That was less than ten days after 13 May.

To begin with, I asked Mgr Sandri whether the trial that the Abbé de Nantes had requested would be opened.

« I suppose that an examination will be made. I do not know whether there will be a trial. But I think that from a subjective point of view you will have no need to worry: you have done what your conscience commanded. »

Had I been brave enough, I would have replied: « What about you, Monsignor? When will you act as your conscience dictates? » The only thing I allowed myself to say was a reminder that this was the Abbé de Nantes’ fourth attempt and that he never received any reply.

	Mgr Sandri

« In a non-reply, there is an implicit reply. Especially four times. You should understand the meaning of this form of reply. The Lord left His Spirit to the Church. It is impossible to think that He has abandoned His Church. In the Pope and the bishops, we have Jesus Christ’s successors on earth for our guides. Of course there are deviations. But the Holy Father has always pointed them out.

– Excuse me, Monsignor, but the deviations, which are countless, are in this catechism. The Abbé de Nantes has set them out in twelve chapters.

– You think that the Pope can give his children heresies in place of the food of life? That is not so! »

And yet… that is so! One only has to read.

It so happens that the first chapter of the accusation elaborated by our Father consists in denouncing the abusive extension of the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility in its head, its pastors and its people. After quoting a few typical passages of the CCC to illustrate this error, our Father reminds us that the infallibility of the Pope is limited. He summarises this Catholic truth in a few “dogmatic sentences”, five propositions, the first of which is sufficient to cast light on the matter:

« No man, nor assembly – be they Pope, Council, college of bishops or priests, group of theologians or body of lay people, nor even an allegedly universal Church – may impose their doctrinal or moral opinions as though invested with some sort of infallibility, outside of the perfectly defined boundaries of the solemn or ordinary Magisterium. » (p. 5)

For instance, aside from our small group, the present-day Church unanimously accepts religious freedom as proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council. But this fact in itself is insufficient to impose it on us, because it was treated in a “declaration”, not in a definition from the solemn Magisterium, as for instance, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined by pope Pius XII with the power of his infallibility. Religious freedom is not an infallible truth. Therefore,… it is fallible! How is it that such a truism is so difficult to get across?

All the more so, our Father points out, since « the authority of the ordinary Magisterium can only be claimed when it is used to teach what the Church has always believed, at all times and in all places. » Now, the Church has condemned religious freedom « always and everywhere » up to the Second Vatican Council, which is therefore in contradiction with the ordinary Magisterium.

This is implacable. Whence the second proposition:

« Every member of the Catholic faithful has the right, if not the duty, to stand up against any new teaching, even though emanating from the “authentic” magisterium of the Pope and the bishops, and to appeal from this imprecisely bounded magisterium to the decisions of the infallible Magisterium of these same legitimate authorities. »

Each of the twelve demonstrations elaborated in the same fashion about the twelve errors in this Catechism concludes with an anathema:

« If anyone says that the Pope, the Council or the Christian people cannot be deceived or cannot deceive, but that they profess the divine truth and discharge the role of the teaching Magisterium or their prophetic charisms in a way that is indefectible, such that they can never be subject to any canonical complaint or accusation in the Church, let him be anathema. »

That was precisely Mgr Sandri’s case. When he told me: « You think that the Pope can give his children heresies in place of the food of live? That is not so! »… he was stating something the anathema condemns. Besides, he was perfectly aware of that, and since our conversation had begun in a perfectly polite tone, and even with some marks of friendship, he was going to attempt to make me yield on this point, or at least make me back down and acknowledge that we were going too far!

In a confidential tone, he told me:

« A friend of mine used to receive your bulletin when he was at the seminary here in Rome. And I used to read it too. It was of an implacable and fearful logic! Very strong. But you should study your method. It seems as though you constitute another power centre, which condemns the Church with anathemas. It is not like an obedient priest humbly presenting his objections. It is always necessary to have the humility to submit first. »

THE JUDGEMENT

The prelate stopped for a moment; then continued with great affability and even candid friendship:

« You know, everyone wants you to be in the Catholic Church. »

– But Monsignor, we are in it! In the last place maybe, but inside, and not outside like Mgr Lefebvre.

– But your way of proceeding is too brutal. You condemn!

– No we don’t. We accuse. It’s not the same thing.

– Yes you do! You condemn. Look : anathema, anathema…

Indeed, how inappropriate an expression! How do you anathematise such a delightful man? I nearly “fell for it”. But I replied:

« That is to prepare the work of the Holy Office, Monsignor. It’s a question of presentation. Each “anathema” sums up in a proposition the object of a thesis under dispute. It is now a question of judging its content: true or false?

– It is the form you use that is too brutal. You should have begun by presenting your objections to your bishops. What do your bishops say?

– Our former bishop of Troyes, Mgr Fauchet, remained silent, saying that our affair was the concern of superior authority in Rome. The new bishop, Mgr Daucourt, does not hesitate to say that we are outside the Church. Other bishops say the same. But if you ask them why, they won’t answer.

–The Abbé de Nantes should see everything in the perspective of a faithful son of the Church 

– That is precisely what he does! Otherwise, he would have left a long while ago. But he perseveres and persists in asking for justice. And that is the object of my visit to you.

There was a silence, then this incredible admission :

« If we did what you asked, it would mean that it all has a fundus veritatis, a basis of truth. If we began to examine, that in itself would mean you are right. The whole post conciliar Magisterium has explained Vatican II. The Abbé de Nantes must open his mind to all the novelties. He must be his own Holy Office. Even if you are not formally declared heretics, you have to try to understand why you never receive an answer; you have to see in the Church’s globality the answer to your contestation. Instead of remaining stuck in your positions like mammoths!

– You are not serious, Monsignor. You are failing to answer my question: can we hope for an end to the abuse of authority practised by the Church’s pastors?

– First of all, show yourselves to be obedient sons, and then we shall see. »

Precisely! I seized the opportunity:

« The situation is grave, Monsignor. The Abbé de Nantes is acting less out of concern for himself, for us, than for the Church, for the Holy Father. This catechism is a scandal affecting the whole Church; the Church which gives a favourable welcome to an heretical catechism! And the Abbé de Nantes is perfectly aware that there is no way out of this situation because, from a dogmatic, theological point of view, he is right. But he also sees that the Holy Office cannot prove him right against the Pope. That’s impossible. So he has asked me to transmit a sort of proposition to the Holy See. »

At these words, Mgr Sandri changed expression. He became grave. He took a sheet of paper and made a note.

« 1. The Holy See could open the trial introduced by the Abbé de Nantes’ accusation by a public, official decree announcing that the catechism is to be examined by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

« 2. Whilst awaiting the conclusion of this examination, the “suspension” unjustly weighing on the Abbé de Nantes for twenty-seven years could be suspended, for it is a suspension that allows the Abbé Laurentin to say that we are excommunicated and our new Bishop of Troyes, Gérard Daucourt, to say that we are outside the Church… »

« How many of you are there?

– Twenty-seven male religious divided between France and Canada, and as many nuns. And a third order, to which my companion here belongs.

– Pusillus grex! »

That was said with a smile marked with kindness. It is a quotation of the Gospel: « Fear not, little flock, for it has pleased your Heavenly Father to give you the Kingdom. » This is the word of the Lord!

At that point, Mgr Sandri asked where the Abbé de Nantes had celebrated Mass in Rome on 13 May:

« Nowhere, since superior Authority had not given authorisation! He attended the midday Mass with us and received Communion like a simple member of the faithful. That is the obedience of the Abbé de Nantes, Monsignor. And above all it is his concern for the Church. He is not concerned about being unjustly punished but at seeing an heretical catechism imposed on the whole Church. This dispute will have to be examined. And he proposes that you declare this examination to be opened. He will then consider himself as discharged of all that and his status in the Church will thereby return to normal. And similarly his defence of the Catholic faith in the best service of souls. If the Holy Office examines this affair, he will occupy himself with his affairs, with us his communities restored to their missionary vocation through the lifting of the suspension which unjustly weighs on our Father Founder and Superior. His thinking is that things could thus proceed in all freedom of spirit, solely in the service of divine Truth, without the Holy See needing to take account of the parties engaged in this controversy.

« Our Father, the Abbé de Nantes is not asking for any special consideration, reward or congratulations for having done what is merely his duty as an “unprofitable servant”… Servi inutiles sumus, Monsignor! This delay would allow a new edition of the catechism to be prepared, revised and corrected of all its errors, without loss of face, without even having to say publicly that the Abbé is right. This is what he himself proposes.

– I shall pass it on. Only what you request is official. The rest is personal conversation.

The conversation was finished. It had lasted an hour and a half. As he lead us to the elevator, Mgr Sandri told us once again: « I would rather be wrong with the Pope than right against him. »

This is the major argument that the right-thinking, the good traditionalists use against us. They fail to see how offensive this rule of conduct is… for the Pope! « for how can you say you are “with the Pope” while thinking you are wrong on the very same matters about which he says he is right?! » asks the Abbé de Nantes, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

« Let us be serious-minded about this. Being with the Pope is not what matters most, for being with the Pope is justified only inasmuch as it allows one to be with Jesus Christ through him. Being against the Pope could never have any other conceivable justification other than to remain with Jesus Christ, should the Pope ever part with Him, which God forbid! and then to live only in anguish over such a state of affairs, in the throes of such a contradiction.

« What alone matters supremely to mystical souls is to be with Jesus Christ. For the glory of the Father, for the love of this Bridegroom and King full of majesty, for the intimate exultation of the Holy Spirit within us, the earnest and promise of Life everlasting. Now, from the irrepressible craving for slavish obedience and the indifference to changes in spiritual content that is its counterpart, both of which hold sway today even in monasteries, this unfailing commitment to divine goods that never change is subjected to a kind of asphyxia, tending to fade into uncertainty. The attachment to things divine has turned into a backdrop that would end up being forgotten due to the endless change of the front stage scenes. A mystical life that is so supernal, so disembodied that nothing can upset it, that nothing can affect and hurt it, and that nothing could prompt it to revolt, that it ceases to be true. For it stands to reason that there can be no true spiritual union with the thrice-holy God in the fervent, exclusive, nuptial zeal for the unique and pure Catholic truth! without feeling horror towards all heresy as well as all schism.

« I feel pity for these mystical dovecotes that, under the duress of obedience to all the conciliar Church’s new fashions, have become whitewashed tombs... »

God forbid!

Finally, Mgr Leonardo Sandri, number four at the Secretariat of State, accepted the Abbé de Nantes’ proposal in his official capacity.

Later, in the course of the summer, the Phalangist friend who had accompanied me in May wrote to Mgr Sandri. He received no reply. He tried again. The prelate finally replied on 20 September 1993:

« Doctor (Dottore),

« Your letters of 22 June and of 12 August reached me and I can assure you that I took careful note of them.

« In the course of our conversation of 21 May, the essential was said on both sides. As far as the Secretariat of State is concerned there is no reason to go over it again, for the eventual outcome of the various interrogations falls to the competent Dicastery, which has been informed of your move. »

« Please accept, Doctor, my good wishes. »

Since then, there has been no news… For the fourth time, as in 1968, in 1973, in 1983, the authorities have shirked their duty, contravening the dispositions of Canon Law, according to which: « By virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, every member of the faithful may freely defer to the judgement of the Holy See, or bring before it any contentious or penal case at no matter what degree of jurisdiction or moment of the trial. » (Canon 1417 § 1)

The three Books of Accusation obey quite precisely Canon 1502: « Whoever wishes to serve a writ on someone must present the competent judge with a libellum expounding the object of the litigation and requesting the judge’s intervention. »

Then, how is it that we have received no response? I am going to tell you why; it is quite simple: « If within the month following the presentation of the libellum, the judge has not sent out a decree of acceptance or rejection in accordance with canon 1505, the interested party can request that he acquit himself of his duty; if, despite this, the judge fails to pronounce within ten days after the request, the libellum will be considered as accepted. » (Canon 1506)

In other words: “Silence gives consent”… The silence of Rome is extremely eloquent. It proves that the Catholic Faith has not yet been modified, altered or corrupted in the virginal soul of the Church: « This is vouched for by this Book of Accusation that remains in the archives of the Palace of the Holy Office, as well as in the tormented hearts of those who had hoped to change the Catholic Faith by turning the centuries-old catechism into a new Catechism of the Catholic Church. »

In concluding, our Father was, however, very keen on showing solidarity with the authors of this supposed catechism, in order to indicate clearly his horror of schism, which is equalled only by how vehemently he reproves heresy. There is nothing more moving than this will to shoulder the entire responsibility, as it were, for the fault that he has just denounced:

« Our mirages have led us astray, Most Holy Father; we have lost our way because of your gnosis and we are filled with pride for having dreamed of a plan of grace more wonderful than that of God even! We have thrust the human race back under the yoke of Satan, a Liar from the beginning. Today, he believes he can triumph through our false Gospel. Ah, let us repent, let us preach the true paths of salvation! It will never be too late to repair our errors and our extravagant behaviour.

« Through the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sacred Heart will allow Himself to be touched, and our world, humbly athirst for Life, Truth and Love, will find or rediscover the way of the Church, the way of Rome, which is that of the Kingdom of Heaven in this world and in the next.

« I am Your Holiness’ humble servant. »

It remains for us to see how our dearest Heavenly Father took at his word his servant who offered himself in this manner as an expiatory victim. (to be continued)

Brother Bruno of Jesus