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!

THE APPEAL TO THE GREAT JUDGE

Following the publication of the “Letter of the Abbé de Nantes to H. H. Pope Benedict XVI ”, we have received the following letter from our bishop, Mgr Marc Stenger, Bishop of Troyes:

Jesus - Mary! Joseph  Maison Saint-Joseph, 18 November 2007. Monseigneur, The Abbé de Nantes is indeed the author of the Letter that scandalises you and it is not a “miracle”. I explain it in black and white in the introduction to issue 61 of He is Risen (October 2007, p. 2): The Letter FROM the Abbé de Nantes to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, of October 1967 – which has remained unanswered to this day, forty years later – is so surprisingly topical that it seems to have been written for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. This is why we addressed it to him, while bringing it up to date by changing a few names, and by a commentary that is indicated each time by a different typography. I wonder if you really read this text, Monseigneur. For my part, I read you attentively; let me reply to you quite frankly. First, the brothers and sisters pointed out to me smilingly that we were welcomed by « the Church of Aube » in the person of Mgr Le Couëdic, your predecessor, fifty years ago next 15 September, 2008… Nonetheless, we are touched by the fraternal welcome that we are receiving there « of late »; your own instructions are surely the cause, and we express to you all our sincere gratitude. Yet, how is it that, if some institution from another diocese asks you for information before granting us hospitality for a pilgrimage or a sojourn, you always give a unfavourable opinion, and doors close. Why? Is it because I criticise the Pope in the name of a distinction that you judge unacceptable, between the Magisterium of Peter and the man who is its depositary? The Church, however, has always made this distinction! To deny it would be tantamount to calling into question the dogma of pontifical infallibility; history presents cases, rare but indubitable, of Popes who erred in matters of faith and whom every baptised person had the duty to oppose. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council had to specify the limits of infallibility. Furthermore, you will find the « grave position from an ecclesial point of view » that worries you about us, in the first pages of the book of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: « It is clear that I have no need to say expressly that this book is in no way an act of the Magisterium but solely the expression of my personal search for “the Face of the Lord”. » (cf. Ps 26 [27].8) Thus everyone is free to contradict me. » (p.19) If Benedict XVI authorises us to criticise him on the interpretation of the Gospel, all the more so must we be authorised to criticise Paul VI proclaiming « the cult of man » in Saint Peter’s on 7 December 1965. This « new humanism » is something “unprecedented”, “insane”, and “impious”. Each of these terms, employed by the Abbé de Nantes in his Letter to Paul VI, was explained and justified at length. These accusations were examined by the Holy Office the following year, in May 1968, and, in July, a total retraction of these accusations, globally and without examination, was required of the Abbé – like the one that you are requiring of me today, Monseigneur – accompanied by a promise of obedience to the entire hierarchy, from the Pope down to the Bishop of Troyes, your predecessor. The Abbé de Nantes refused, but not without writing a “Profession of Catholic Faith and Obedience” in order to explain and justify this refusal of a « Muslim obedience » (sic) beyond the orbit of canon law… and of all natural law. Now, apart from the Vatican postal receipt, he did not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt. Furthermore, Cardinal Ratzinger “forgot” to publish this document in his “White Book” in 1985. Could you not, Monseigneur, ask him what he did with it? If I write, I will receive no reply. I addressed a letter of joyful accession to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, on the initiative of the nuncio. I did not receive the slightest acknowledgement of receipt. Yet it was surely transmitted by the diplomatic bag. This is why I am extremely sorry that you do not dwell on what you so rightly call « putting Vatican II on trial », which is the main subject of the Letter addressed by the Abbé de Nantes to Paul VI in 1967, and again addressed by the same Abbé de Nantes to Benedict XVI in 2007. Could you not intervene in Rome, as you promised me in the past that you would do, in order to obtain a judgement, for the sole purpose of enlightening our consciences and freeing them from the « withdrawal » that you lament? This is in fact the only ecclesial attitude that is in conformity with the law of the Church: when the consciences of the baptised are troubled in matters of faith, they must appeal  to the Holy See in order for it to judge according to the laws of the Church, which guarantee – and they alone – a response free from error, requiring the obedience of the faithful under pain of canonical sanctions. In order to make this task easier for you, I have made a succinct outline of the facts and their motives, with references useful for an exhaustive study of the file. We, of course, have all this documentation at your disposal, Monseigneur. I suppose that it is already present for the most part at the Bishop’s Palace. I do not claim to convince you, nor even to influence your judgement, but only to inform you, failing which the « dialogue » to which you invite me will not be « effective ». As for judging by myself, I dare not, and prefer to rely on the science and wisdom of the Roman authorities with whom you will intercede. We hope, in fact, to be so well enlightened on this long, obscure and hopeless combat – in which our Father has ruined his health – by the decision that you will obtain from Rome, that it will be easy for us to resume his work, this time in full clarity, in complete justice and obedience for the service of God alone and the salvation of souls. It is in this expectation that our brothers and sisters join me in order to assure you of our filial obedience, and to ask you to bless us. Brother Bruno of Jesus.

I. THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF APPEALS TO ROME,
ALWAYS FRUSTRATED

Beginning in 1964, the Abbé de Nantes, believing that he discerned errors and heresies in the Acts of Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, publicly formulated his opposition to these novelties that jeopardised, according to him, the deposit of divine Revelation. Now, in December 1965, at the closing of the Council, Mgr Le Couëdic, your predecessor, ordered him, under the threat of interdict, to put an end to the public controversy that he was carrying on more and more violently against the progressivist and modernist party, which finally prevailed. The Abbé de Nantes appealed to Rome (“Petition to Mgr Le Couëdic on 19 December 1965”, Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 227-228 ; Letter to My Friends n° 220, pp. 1-10)

There followed a series of “trials”, none of which has been brought to a conclusion, but they were all engaged in, and conducted or endured in the assurance that an Appeal to Rome cannot be in vain, with the presumption of innocence that accompanies it and, hence, the indispensable support of the sacraments that it guarantees to our souls.

1. On 29 December 1965, a solution to this grave crisis was found and an agreement was signed. The appeal to Rome for a judgement on the fundamental question was accepted by Mgr Le Couëdic. A communiqué of the Revue catholique on 13 January 1966 officially gave notice that the Abbé Georges de Nantes was authorised to remain in the diocese « until the superior Authorities to whom he submits his previous writings have delivered their judgement » (“The Act of Reconciliation, 29 December 1965”, Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 239-240 ; Letter to My Friends n° 220, pp. 11-12).

The doctrinal examination of all the writings of the Abbé de Nantes by the Holy Office was guaranteed and promised to him. The interest of such a trial, shortly after the Council, would be to make known the degree of certainty, and thus the submission due, of each novelty in dispute.

2. In Rome, however, they did not want to judge the Abbé de Nantes. On 30 April 1966, at the request of Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Lefebvre urged him to abandon his appeal to Rome, judging that an act of submission was preferable for all.

« The cardinal began by explaining to me with kindness this attitude of the Church and this new spirit to which I seemed tragically closed […]. I was thus being forced to surrender my weapons and enter into a submission that was infinite because it was limitless. An immense feeling of helplessness swept through me as our conversation progressed. »

« It was certainly not a question of condemning my writings or of anathematising one or another of my propositions, but it was in fact because they did not even deign to enter into discussion, or examine our reasons or our alarm. They rejected everything outright as a detestable exercise of private judgement. No other way was proposed to us other than confidence and admiration towards the present, practically infallible and impeccable, Magisterium, other than the unreserved acceptation of the New Church, considered as a whole, in her totalitarian Reform […]. »

« The cardinal, moreover, intended to maintain a familiar tone in his remarks and refused to put forward anything that could assume a precise and public canonical form, deciding our fate and formulating the requirements of the Church as well as the protection of our just Christian liberty.

« I thus spoke again to recall respectfully but firmly, that I was asking for a canonical judgement of my writings. To me the present conversation did not seem to be able to replace it since the cardinal did not want to give it the form of a decision of authority. I wanted the goodness of a Father to be expressed in the sentence of a judge. He then said to me, repeating the formula of Festus to St. Paul: “Cæsarem appellasti ? Ad Cæsarem ibis.” (Ac 25.12) You want to be judged by Rome, you will be! You will write to Cardinal Ottaviani that being unsatisfied with our conversation you ask for your condemnation! (Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 244-246).

3. The Abbé de Nantes thus wrote a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, dated 16 July 1966, in the form of an opening of this trial. He brought it to the Bishop’s Palace in Troyes for it to be forwarded to Rome through the hierarchical channel. Out of courtesy he attached a copy for Mgr Le Couëdic. The latter refused to transmit the letter to its addressee, under the pretext that he judged its tone to be offensive towards the Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Furthermore, he forbade the Abbé de Nantes to publish it, on pain of suspension a divinis. Taking into consideration the doctrinal stakes involved in this trial, and the truth that had to be obtained on this uncertain Council, the Abbé de Nantes published his Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani on 16 July in his Letter to My Friends n° 231, (Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 261-263).

On 25 August 1966, the sanction was pronounced in the form of a “ suspens a divinis ”, following a “ suspens ab officio ” that had deprived him of his parish ministry in 1963, resulting from a clash with his bishop concerning the Algerian War.

Mgr Le Couëdic judged the Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani « gravely insulting »… but he did not say in what way. In it, the Abbé de Nantes expressed his absolute will of submitting to the Magisterium of the Church:

« I profess that the Magisterium of the Church, in her legitimate Pastors, Our Holy Father Pope Paul VI and the Episcopal Body in union with him, has the authority to fix in dogmatic terms the Truths in which we must believe, and to set down in canonical terms the Laws to which we must subscribe in our religious life and moral conduct; not in a totalitarian or arbitrary manner, but as defined and justified by this same Magisterium. It is, therefore, with perfect confidence and serene submission of mind and heart that I dare to address this Sacred Congregation in the person of its Pro-Prefect. »

The entire Letter is in this tone. A few months later, we learned that the Sacred Congregation, to which our Father had finally sent his dossier by mail, was conducting his trial with its impressive ancient method that judges everything according to the rule of the Faith. On 23 April 1967, Cardinal Lefebvre wrote to the Abbé de Nantes:

« At Croix-Palmer, where I am convalescing, I have received a letter from Cardinal Ottaviani telling me that the voluminous dossier of your “Letters to My Friends” is presently the object of a meticulous study » (hitherto unpublished, archives of Maison Saint-Joseph)

4. In 1968, the Abbé de Nantes was summoned to Rome for the preliminary hearing of this doctrinal trial, which would in fact be held in April – May, and would be ended in July by an injunction from the Holy Father, ordering Father to retract his criticisms and accusations, and to submit unconditionally to the Pope, the Council, the French episcopate and his own bishop, without this tribunal agreeing to discuss and resolve the dogmatic questions concerning his accusations against the Council. The Abbé de Nantes refused either to sign the formula of retraction, because they had reproached him with no error, or to convert to the Council despite the touching entreaties of Fathers Gagnebet, Duroux and… Dhanis, the denigrator of Fatima (Cf. “The Threat of an Excommunication”, Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 326-328 ; cf. CRC no 24, p. 5).

5. On 23 May 1969, the Abbé de Nantes was summoned to the Bishop’s Palace in Troyes to hear Cardinal Lefebvre, President of the episcopate and member of the Holy Office, enjoin him to sign the formula of retraction refused in Rome the previous year. The Abbé de Nantes objected to the cardinal as an envoy of Rome because it was he who was responsible for the heretical French catechism and he was also the head of the rebellion of the episcopate against the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ ! (Pour l’Église, p. 340-342)

6. On 11 July 1969, the Abbé de Nantes received from Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the ultimatum to sign within three days the aforesaid formula, refused by him, on pain of the gravest sanctions. You will notice here again, Monseigneur, the total absence of debate on the true Faith and on the doctrinal accusations formulated by the Abbé de Nantes against the teaching of Paul VI and Vatican II.

This is when he sent to Cardinal Seper on 16 July 1969 a truly Catholic profession of faith and obedience. He asked that it be considered as the summary of his convictions on which he demanded a dogmatic judgement, basically: on the two religions, the ancient and the new, which are fighting within the one Church (“The Reply to Cardinal Seper: My Profession of Catholic Faith”), Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 343-349 ; CRC no 23, August 1969).

He would not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt. Cardinal Seper did not give him any reply. This profession of faith, in which the Abbé de Nantes countered most clearly and point by point the abusive requisites of the Roman formulary with a precise reminder of the obedience due to the Pope and to the bishops, has remained unanswered to this day. Never has any organ of the Holy See cited it, criticised it or refuted it.

7. On 10 August 1969, without being otherwise informed, the Abbé de Nantes learned about the Roman Notification from the press. It announced his « disqualification » to the whole world, and presented him as a priest who demanded justice and refused to retract his « errors », without any details about those alleged errors (quoted in CRC no 23, August 1969, p. 2-A, Pour l’Église, t. 2, p. 349-350).

This official statement of “self-disqualification” had no canonical or doctrinal significance. The trial of the Abbé de Nantes was interrupted by a denial of justice, an abuse of authority in the strict sense of the term.

Thus, the supreme Authority did not respond to the accusations of heresy formulated by the Abbé de Nantes against Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council with any contradiction or refutation! It only claimed in the end to force him to withdraw them out of obedience, by « notifying » the press that the Abbé de Nantes « disqualified himself » because he refused to submit the divine Catholic Faith to the whims of the reformers of the Church!

You must admit, Monseigneur, that we are justified in seeing in this “disqualification” much more than an admission of weakness on the part of the authority: an admission of culpability, in fact!

Excuse me, Monseigneur, I had promised to be brief.

8. In 1969, after the promulgation of the new ordo missæ, the Abbé de Nantes denounced the attempt to change the definition of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, while at the same time publicly opposing the schismatic ideas and plans that were brought to his attention.

He then founded the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth Century in order to prevent his friends and readers from entering into an excessive rebellion that could lead to schism. He disowned those who dragged the faithful down the path to a break with the Church. He refuted their doctrinal errors, by demonstrating the validity of the new rites of the Sacraments. He thus denounced their rejection of the present visible Church and their forming of separated chapels.

9. In 1971-1972, the Abbé de Nantes undertook, with our circles of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, a detailed study of the contents of all the Acts of the Second Vatican Council, as freely critical as it was laudatory, concerned with total truth and justice, with a constructive opening: towards Vatican III. He appealed from the Pope and the bishops of Vatican II, a pastoral Council, which did not want to be infallible (Acts of the Second Vatican Council, Notification 1, on the theological import of the constitution “ De Ecclesia ”), to the same Pope and the same bishops gathered in a dogmatic Council, Vatican III (t. 4 de la CRC, 1971-1972 ; For the Church, Vol. 3, Chapter 4). We plan to take up this study again and update it each month, as you will see if you read us.

10. On 1 January 1973, the Abbé de Nantes wrote to Pope Paul VI to ask him to grant him an audience for the purpose of explaining to him the accusation proceedings that he had decided to undertake against his own Person: « We intend to request, according to law, that, against the acts and opinions of your free and fallible Person that have appeared to us for almost ten years now to be the principal and underlying cause of the “auto-demolition” of the Church, you should bring to bear the sovereign judgement of your own personal Magisterium, which is infallible in matters of doctrine and against which there is no appeal in any question of ecclesiastical discipline […].

« We trust that Your Holiness will receive us, even if only with the thought of enlightening our minds and touching our hearts by giving us the necessary explanations and assurances. We must add, however, that Your Holiness cannot evade this duty and refuse – either by inaction or procrastination – to proclaim the Faith and the Law as He is requested, without dereliction of duty. » (CRC n° 64, January 1973, p. 2 ; For the Church, Vol. 3, Chapter 6)

This petition remained unanswered.

On 10 April 1973, the Abbé de Nantes accompanied by his brothers and about sixty friends went to Rome in order to give to the Holy Father a Book of Accusation against himself, Paul VI, for « heresy, schism and scandal ».

Two days previously, 8 April, one could read on the front page of l’Osservatore romano:

« This is an arrogant and fanatical act, which is not supported by any ecclesiastical authority, but which, on the contrary, is disqualified and deplored by ecclesiastical authority as deprived of all seriousness and any canonical basis, and which is gravely offensive to the person and the minister of the Vicar of Christ. » (quoted in CRC n° 68, May 1973, p. 1 ; Pour l’Église, t. 3, p. 263)

On 10 April, the Pope commanded the Italian police to prevent us from entering the door of his palace and, later on that of the palace of the Holy Office, placing us in the physical impossibility of presenting this Book to any functionary of the Curia and thus he, the supreme Judge and the Accused in this case, obstructed Roman justice. This book, however, was placed by surprise that very day into the hands of Mgr Martin, the Vatican Prefect, who immediately had it brought back to our hotel. The following day, 11 April, during the Wednesday public audience, a daring friend placed it in the hands of the Pope. The latter immediately rid himself of it had had it returned to our friend who had been dragged outside and taken to the neighbouring police station. He was expelled from Italy that very evening for insulting behaviour towards the Head of State of the Vatican.

11. In November 1973, some of us returned to Rome to distribute this Book of Accusation against the reigning Roman pontiff to the cardinals and the most important people of Rome, « Mother and Teacher of all the Churches ». Not one of them accepted it officially (Pour l’Église, t. 3, p. 307-321).

In order to conclude in a canonical manner, as is right and proper, his public accusation of the Pope, the Abbé de Nantes published on 25 March 1974, a “Letter to the Roman Clergy”. Here is its conclusion.

« If the Pope can build up a wall of silence and inertia against the petition of a nobody from afar, the least of the priests of the Church, he cannot ignore the voice of his clergy, his Curia and his Cardinals for long... That is why, our humble task accomplished, we solemnly entrust our Book of Accusation against Paul VI to the Church of Rome and we remit this grave business of truth and ecclesiastical justice to her care. »

This Book, published in five languages – French, Italian, English, German and Spanish – remains a perpetual accusation against Paul VI who, by his formal and obstinate refusal to receive it or simply take it into consideration, left it all its force and topicality. Does it not seem to you, Monseigneur, to require, imperatively, a judgement from the sovereign authority? For the facts mentioned in it are established, the texts quoted are authentic, and its conclusions are difficult to contest…

If it could be established that this book is offensive to the person of Paul VI or that it lies about the words and facts alleged, or that it claims acts and teachings of Paul VI that are free of all error and all fault to be heretical, schismatic and scandalous, then, it would be necessary to condemn this book and its author by a clear judgement and explanation of the grounds for it, followed by real canonical sanctions.

12. In May 1978, a few weeks before the death of Paul VI, the Abbé de Nantes took measures toward the goal of his reconciliation with the authorities of the Church. During a meeting in Paris on 13 June with Cardinal Marty and Mgr Etchegaray, the principle of this initiative was accepted and they sent to Rome a Note written by the Abbé de Nantes. Here are the last two points:

« Beginning in 1971, I considered it prudent to reconsider my opposition to the novelties – trying to distinguish in the present Reform that which comes from the homogeneous and continuous development of dogma, of normal progress in exegetical, historical and catechetical science, as well as that which is an evolution of liturgical and canonical institutions… from their systematic alteration or destruction.

« I came to desire that my Roman judges should reconsider our overall differences and that the possibility of an agreement and of paths of reconciliation be examined: “in the unity of the Faith, diversity of opinions, and the charity of the Church”. » (For the Church, Vol. 3, Chapter 11, http://www.crc-internet.org/ftc3.htm)

13. The luminous pontificate of John Paul I was an exceptional consolation for us. To the approval of the entire Church, this Pope, so good and so gracious, was restoring this religion of all time that we had been defending against the current for twenty years, openly, in the face of the almighty so-called conciliar and postconciliar revolution!

Furthermore, we had been told for fifteen years that our Counter-Reformation opposition was leading us to a dead end and you repeat it again to me today, Monseigneur. The Abbé de Nantes wrote:

« John Paul I, however, has reopened the path before us by his simple words of honesty and humility. His words alone are the unmaking of heresy, they put an end to the conciliar impasse. By themselves these words would justify the all too brief reign of this Pontiff on the throne of St. Peter, when the Church unanimously recognised herself in him. Confessing the inner struggles he had experienced at the time of the Council and the difficulty he had had in coming round to the theses of the innovators, particularly the theory of religious liberty, he admitted,

« The most difficult thesis for me to accept was that on religious liberty. For years I had taught the thesis that I had learned in a course on public law given by Cardinal Ottaviani, according to which only truth has rights. I studied the problem thoroughly and finally I became convinced that we had been mistaken. »

« At one blow, the candour of the Pope restored the right of everyone to be heard, even after Vatican II, without any fraudulent excommunication. The true proportions of the present drama were reinstated, to wit: Some had ended up allowing themselves to be persuaded or else had managed to persuade themselves that the Church had hitherto been mistaken, while others remained persuaded or else ultimately came to understand that it was the innovators who had made the mistake and misled us – the innovators of this Council, that is, and not the Church of all time. To admit the possibility of error, on whichever side the mistake actually lies, is to restore peace to the Church by relegating these difficult questions to the domain of free opinion pending a dogmatic Vatican III or the infallible definitions of the Pope. » (The Pope of the Secret: Chapter 9)

14. In October 1978, after the election of John Paul II, the Abbé de Nantes learned from the Secretariat of State that his demand for reconciliation had been favourably considered. Three months later, on 26 January 1979, Cardinal Marty transmitted to him a demand for further information from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with a view to learning the « grounds » for his request and « the points  which he desired to discuss with the Congregation. »

His letter to Cardinal Seper on 8 March 1979, provided all the desirable precisions:

« I am prepared for everything: let the Sacred Congregation inform me of all the dogmatic propositions and disciplinary decisions to which I should subscribein 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 that I find difficult to reconcile with the Faith or opposed to divine law, so that misunderstandings might be removed, or so that I can be freed from doubtful novelties and debatable opinions that the Holy See does not hold to be obligatory. » (quoted in CCR n° 298, July 1997, p. 14)

During the following months, he received no reply. I went to Rome to see Mgr Hamer, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation in order to request one. It was a waste of time! I was summoned to the nunciature in Paris and was received by a secretary who gave me a note, dated 14 January 1982, indicating to us the reason for the silence:

« The Congregation does not see how it would be possible to reach a satisfactory result, permitting a revision of its Notification of 10 August 1969, as long as the Abbé de Nantes does not modify the attitude towards the Catholic hierarchy, including Pope John Paul II himself, that he publicly manifests in most numbers of the “Catholic Counter-Reformation” bulletin, even the most recent ones. »

Can a worse dialogue of the deaf be imagined!

It must be said that in order to penetrate the thinking of John Paul II, the Abbé de Nantes required months, almost years of attentive study of his homilies and his speeches. The thorough analysis of his first encyclicals convinced him that, from Paul VI to John Paul II, we had passed from a romantic and progressivist Italian Pope to a Slavic Pope with a Germanic culture, a dialectician initiated into the various gnoses that have infested his country, upper Silesia, for centuries.

15. This regrettable « withdrawal », to repeat the word that you use, Monseigneur, but applying it to the hierarchy in its refusal to fulfil its office of judge, led the Abbé de Nantes to write his second Book of Accusation and to bring it to Rome on 13 May 1983, accompanied by all the brothers and two hundred friends. Received in the palace of the Holy Office by Mgr Hamer, the Abbé de Nantes came up against his refusal to receive the two Books of Accusation, against Paul VI and against John Paul II. Here is the reason: Mgr Hamer affirmed to the Abbé de Nantes that during his trial of 1968, the tribunal had indicated to him his « errors »; that he had recognised and retracted them at the time and then had returned to them in complete bad faith.

I was there. The Abbé de Nantes stood up and protested. Mgr Hamer reiterated. It was a solemn moment. The Abbé de Nantes asked him: « What errors? » Mgr Hamer was unable to articulate a single one. They were standing, facing one another. Behind the secretary of the Sacred Congregation, whom the Abbé de Nantes accused of lying, a large Christ on the wall acted as judge. Mgr Hamer persisted; the Abbé de Nantes protested the abuse of authority,

We left, dreadfully afflicted and humiliated for the Church. We were, however, reinforced in our certainty of being in the right. Could they not, after all, have explained to us, told us our error, if there was an error? Could they not have opened this trial that we demand?

Dear Monseigneur, you open to me your door by inviting me to enter into « dialogue ». I reply to you what the Abbé de Nantes wrote to Pope John Paul II on his return from Rome in June 1983: « This invitation to dialogue, on this occasion as always, is a refusal to put the question concerning the truth, it is a refusal to pass a doctrinal judgement. Yet is not such a refusal, through its neglect of duty, in itself an admission of culpability? » (Open Letter to Pope John Paul II in Reply to his Notification of 13 May 1983, CCR n° 190, July 1983, pp. 10-22)

16. The interview of Cardinal Ratzinger published in November 1984 by the journalist Vittorio Messori contained the most alarming secrets that a high-ranking person in Rome has ever let out on the collapse of the Church on four continents out of five. It was an appalling list of sombre forecasts, twenty years after the Council and its promise of a « new Pentecost »!

The Abbé de Nantes adhered fully to this cry of alarm, to this oracle of calamity, all the more because it seemed to come from a higher source than its author, authenticated, certified by Our Lady of Fatima, the Virgin of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. The Cardinal had admitted the previous day that he knew the terrible Secret of 13 July 1917, in its third part, that successive Popes since Pius XII had refused to reveal to the world for forty years: « Io lo letto », « I read it », and that is why I speak!

Alas! His “Open Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger” (CCR n° 176, February 1985, pp. 1-29) and his offer of a loyal reconciliation for a better service of the Church in peril, once again left our Father without an official reply. Moreover, we are no longer going to be secretly satisfied with unofficial messages.

17. In order to repair “the shock” caused by the cry of alarm from Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II convened an extraordinary Synod on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the closing of the Council (8 December 1965 – 8 December 1985). Having noticed that the Pope defined in advance the climate of this assembly – of charismatic illuminism, and its direction – of celebration of the conciliar achievements, our Father wrote him a “Petition for the Peace of the Church” (CCR n° 184, pp. 1-17). In the « deadly war » that has been waged since the Council by the two religions within the Roman Catholic Church, the unique and holy depositary of divine Revelation, « your synodal assembly would certainly render a great service to the Church and to souls, to the cause of God, by proceeding first to an examination of this primordial division touching the Faith and of this intolerable discord, both of which date from the Council that this Synod is due to revive and to reiterate […]. To decide on this primordial dogmatic question, as to whether or not the attainments  of the Council are in conformity with the Catholic Faith of all time, and to decide on this definitively, irrevocably and infallibly, is something that your sacred Magisterium ought to do easily and rapidly. Let Rome speak with her supreme and universal authority, the cause will be heard and, please God, the division and the war will thereby be extinguished! »

I address to you today, Monseigneur, twenty-two years later, the same petition, because the plaint of the Abbé de Nantes rises in vain to Heaven, like the cry of Abel assassinated by his brother, in order to call grace and divine mercy down on our apostate generation and on a Church « half in ruins ».

18. Having observed that the errors and heresies that were teeming in the Acts of Vatican II were found recapitulated in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” published for the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Council, the Abbé de Nantes wrote to Pope John Paul II on 16 April 1993, in order to announce that we would go on 13 May to the doors of his Dwelling, and to those of the palace of the Holy Office, in order to place in authorised hands our Book of Accusation againt the authors of the supposed Catechism Of The Catholic Church: « For thirty years, I have in vain waited for this hour when at last my ultimate recourse to your infallible Magisterium would be accepted for a decisive judgement by your own Person in this terrible affair in which the Catholic Faith is pitted against the conciliar and post-conciliar novelties, now summed up and introduced or insinuated without truth, authority or justice, among the entire Christian people, assaulted by a supposed “Catechism” that is Catholic only in name. » (CCR n° 256, March 1993)

On 13 May, in the palace of the Holy Office, Mgr Damiano Marzotto Caotorta, Official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took the two copies of the Book of Accusation, one for the Holy Father, the other for Cardinal Ratzinger, by signing, because the Abbé de Nantes demanded it, an acknowledgement of receipt.

Taking down what our Father dictated, he wrote 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 »

Nevertheless, no procedure followed.

After having demanded, for thirty-three years a doctrinal judgement on his opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-Council, to the Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as heretical, schismatic and scandalous, the Abbé de Nantes had received, for sole reply to such plaints and accusations, only  dereliction of duty on the part of the Sovereign Judge, the hatred and contempt of the hierarchy, and the embarrassed silence of his confreres.

II. TEN YEARS OF APPEALS TO THE IMMACULATE

Ten years ago, our Father made a sombre observation: the League of Catholic, Royalist and Communitarian Counter-Reformation, of which the 150 Points is the charter, « a totally ordinary structure, a structure of Catholic action, a school of thought, in the service of Church and country », is comparable, he said, to a bankrupt company; and he claimed full responsibility for the “bankruptcy”.

Therefore, he decided to “give way”: « I decided to give way to the Immaculate Conception. »

The decision was not taken in a fit of depression, of discouragement, but on the contrary in a fit of enthusiasm at our discovery of St. Maximilian-Marie Kolbe and his extraordinary devotion, an “eccentric” devotion, as was already said about that of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort, to the Immaculate.

This enthusiasm was expressed by the consecration of the Phalange to the Immaculate, which opened a new phase of our life. After thirty-three years of civil and religious postconciliar war, during which the creation of the Phalange, I recalled on All Saints’ Day, had allowed each person to choose his camp, and to commit himself loyally to it, we had entered in 1996 into a phase of formidable, terrifying even, “turbulence”.

The first time that our Father understood that certain people had an implacable hatred for him, he was really distraught. « You realise, however, that you can continue living regardless », he used to say.

Then we found ourselves doing battle against enemies determined to harm us, who succeeded in leading astray even our friends. Our numbers started to diminish, subscriptions as well.

When they referred to us as a “sect” for the first time in 1986, our Father said: « We will not come out of it alive. » Then, one day, the whole world learned that the Chamber of Deputies had registered a report on sects in which the Little Brothers and Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart were described as « a dangerous pseudo-Catholic sect ». It was on 10 January 1996; Mgr Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, immediately voiced his agreement by publishing a communiqué in order to say that the Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Charles de Foucauld, an officially “recognised” congregation was not concerned; it was indeed we, the rabble, the scum against whom the forefront of this campaign was directed, rather than against the really dangerous “sects”, the crimes of which are proven and come under penal law. Nevertheless, for us who do no evil, it was necessary to find a reason to make us disappear.

For more than ten years, we have been branded in an indelible manner, “to be avoided”, like lepers in Jewish society in the time of Our Lord. We are henceforth encircled by a quarantine line, which places us in such isolation that we can say anything at all, and no one hears us. We need the small number of our very faithful friends who are attached to us, not by self-interest or ambition, but solely out of love of the truth, and who are anxious to read us, in order for us still to be able to publish what we have to say about the terrible situation of the world and the Church.

THE APPEAL TO THE « HELP OF CHRISTIANS »

The recourse, the only recourse, is the Immaculate.

On 13 May 1994, one year after having taken the third Book of Accusation to Rome on 13 May 1993, which remained unanswered, the idea occurred to our Father to promise to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our divine Mother, to go to pilgrimage to Fatima on 13 October 1996.

It was a significant date, because after having gone to Rome ten times from 1951 to 1993 – five times « in order to bring there, according to canon law, our demands for infallible definitions on the Faith, hélas! without any success or effect », he decided: « I will no longer go there, until the synagogue of Satan that is there is first annihilated. » This remark has nothing excessive about it, if one remembers what Cardinal Luciani himself used to say: « The Devil is in the Vatican! » When he became Pope, he experienced his evil power…

For the time being, it was our annihilation that was on the agenda. It is noteworthy that it was in the very year of the planned pilgrimage to Fatima, as though the appeal to the Immaculate had suddenly stirred up the fury of Hell against us.

It was not easy to annihilate us! The Maison Saint-Joseph and its surroundings, and the houses that depended on it, as far away as Canada, represented, together with all our activities, a weighty economic and social organisation of great complexity and with a considerable force of inertia. It existed, it was rooted, it had been established for fifty years, and that cannot be destroyed with the blow of a hammer or an episcopal decree!

A bishop did attempt to make us disappear, however: Mgr Daucourt, Bishop of Troyes, our bishop, rather young, authoritarian, supported by civil and media powers, undertook to snatch our Father away from us and threatened him with a media scandal if he would not consent to leave the Maison Saint-Joseph. He had already set the campaign in motion by making known, through a “private” channel, a declaration dated 27 July 1996:

« As bishop of Troyes, I regularly receive complaints about Monsieur l’Abbé de Nantes.

« After examining them carefully and having collected several written and duly signed testimonies, by virtue of the powers and responsibility entrusted to me for the firm defence of the integrity and unity of the Catholic Faith, I now intervene with this present declaration for the good of souls and the salvation of all in those matters that are within my jurisdiction. »

Mgr Daucourt, a defender of the integrity and unity of the Catholic Faith! If you pass through Hauts-de-Seine, of which he is presently the bishop, you will find in the back of all the churches of the dioceses a small card, dated October 2007, thus worded:

 The text is then translated into Arabic. I do not know whether Mgr Daucourt spoke to his flock about the Rosary in this month of October that is devoted to it! Please notice, however, the denial of our God that this hand held out to the Muslims represents: the denial of our God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the middle of the month of the Rosary, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin since a certain victory of Lepanto against the Saracen navy!

Thus, Mgr Daucourt intervened for the good of souls and the salvation of all against the Abbé de Nantes, and against him alone.

« Monsieur l’Abbé de Nantes teaches doctrines that are in contradiction with the Catholic Faith, notably on the subject of the Holy Trinity, of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Holy Eucharist. »

If you please! Yet he does not say what. He was the Bishop of Troyes for six years and he took an interest in us for the first time! Never having given a sign of life nor manifested the slightest interest since his arrival in the diocese, he suddenly became concerned about the heresies of the Abbé de Nantes!

On 30 July, Mgr Daucourt summoned our Father by a letter in which he accused him of heresy on the Blessed Virgin and on the Eucharist, blaming him for having exercised a ministry and spiritual direction without a hierarchical « mandate ». He asked him to step aside and withdraw into a monastery.

On 1 August, our Father went to the office of the bishop, calm and resolute. He entered at 9:05, he came back out at 9:25, grave and overwhelmed, only saying to us: « Pray so that I may know where my duty lies. »

OBEDIENTIA

The bishop ordered him to leave, as Mgr Le Couëdic had already done. Furthermore, Mgr Daucaourt said so in his “declaration” of 27 July: « I am only recalling here what Mgr Julien Le Couëdic, Bishop of Troyes at that time, had asked on 11 February 1965. » For thirty years, the objective was to be rid of this burdensome opponent of the Council at all costs. Mgr Daucourt had nearly achieved his aim: if the Abbé de Nantes was in contradiction with the Catholic Faith concerning the Trinity, the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Eucharist, he no longer had any right to be opposed to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning:

1° the interfaith movement and the religious liberty that is its principle and foundation;

2° the contradiction of the message of Fatima with the minimalist Marian theology of the Council;

3° the liturgical Reform entirely devoted to pleasing the Protestants.

Finally, after much hesitation, our Father informed us of his decision: he would obey the bishop. « For once he spoke to me! » he told me in the car when I drove him to his place of exile. His confidence, or rather his faith in the Church, made him place all his children in her holy safekeeping, with a sovereign and smiling liberty, with no intention of returning:

« We exclude on principle that the Church can fall entirely into heresy, schism and scandal… and thus we must count on the Church, but at what a price! It is sanctifying. God will reward us. Through it, He will have made us make great progress on the road to Heaven. We are beginning a long painful road. It makes me sick when I think that soon, perhaps, the Good God will no longer be in the chapel. »

From a legal point of view, the bishop was acting in defiance of not only canon law, the law of the Church, but also of French law, and even of the most elementary justice, of the simple right of the people, by imposing sanctions without a preliminary investigation and without a judgement. What point would there be in appealing to Rome, which never responds? God was permitting the failure of all, even of the Abbé de Nantes, in order to show that it is not the Catholic Counter-Reformation that will save the Church, but God alone through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Was there nothing left for us but to bear the blows, up to and including the obligation of abandoning our religious habits and living like laymen? This was in fact what Mgr Daucourt was meditating.

On 13 September, our Father wrote to us:

« I am quitting the scene in three days time, not to sit on the steps of the basilica from which I have been thrown out but to be a prisoner in a tower where I cannot be tracked down from either within or without. I have accepted this to put an end to a process in which I have been and remain condemned outside all legality and truth… but in this I submit as to the will of God, as I did in 1966 when I submitted to a manifestly illegal and unjust suspension, rather than let it be thought that we dared to go into schism. Indeed, we have so far avoided that horrible accusation. »

« Now, separated from you, no one can reproach you with any responsibility for or connivance in what I am accused of… I am condemned; I do not attack this judgement, I serve my sentence. As for any Catholic, however, my just freedom of conscience has been acknowledged: I am free to profess my faith and to hold to all my convictions and opinions, which have never been, at least not yet, proscribed as heretical, having never been the object of any dogmatic definition. I leave you this as your heritage: like me at X, [at Hauterive] you, at Saint-Parres, guard your “religious liberty” whole and entire as it has always been professed by the Church, not by virtue of the dignity and the rights of man, but by virtue of the holiness of the Catholic Faith and of the truth of what we received from the Church yesterday as proceeding from her Tradition. As for my trial, it is closed. You are free…

« I do not hide from you the fact that the will to destroy me included the will to destroy you too, morally, psychologically and socially, with the same method and the same procedures. I retire, but I leave to Brother Bruno, your elected prior, and to Brother Gérard, likewise elected, responsibility for each one of you and of your community […].

« No one has the right to close this house, for it saves the Catholic Faith. When I am gone, it must continue. »

It did continue, by virtue of a truth that he had just taught to us by commenting on the priestly prayer of Our Lord (Jn 17):

« When Jesus was amongst them as their Leader, and the Head of this apostolic college, we would not have rated highly the persistence of the unity, the holy harmony, and the charity of this body dispersed without Him. “I shall strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered”; this was true during His Passion. It would no longer be so, however, after His Ascension, closely followed by Pentecost. For then, the Father, at the request of His Son, would give through Their common Spirit to the Twelve to be “one among themselves”, as He, God, is one in His three Persons […].

« They believe that we are a sect, and I a guru, and moreover a disgusting one. Let the guru go away, and all his blindly devoted, hypnotised followers will go away, freed, to other and undoubtedly better masters. Against these worldly suppositions, it is useless to unite all our good wills, to bard ourselves with strong resolutions: a charismatic or sectarian group cannot last if it is decapitated, if it loses its leader. On the other hand, Catholic religious Orders, willed by God, blessed by Him, survive their founders and cross the centuries. In the trial that has struck us, we can give the proof, by this miracle, of the benediction of God that is upon us. » (Letter to the Phalange n° 59, 21-22 September 1996)

THE IMPRISONMENT OF A FREE MAN

The departure of our Father first earned us six months of respite, an easy truce, with nevertheless a few warnings.

He had written to Mgr Daucourt:

« I commend myself entirely to Your Excellency for the care, the charge of having me admitted into a cloister, behind walls, near a community, or within it, abandoning all right of communication, of correspondence, of exterior relations, in an exact obedience to my superiors… retaining only the inalienable freedom of inner belief. I was troubled to see that no one in the world could admit me on these conditions. To add to it the requisite of submitting to the new ideas not guaranteed by infallibility is my only fear, really insurmountable. »

In fact, at the end of a brief stay at the Grande Chartreuse, Dom André Poisson, the Father General, had told him that he could not keep him and no other monastery would accept him, given his opposition to the Council; Dom André himself – as well as all the Carthusians – was in complete support of the new doctrines, without any problem…

« I will refuse no solution that you indicate to me, our Father continued, not of place, not even of country, not of religious order, and I will not balk at work or prayer or life in common, as long as my strength permits, and this for the duration that will be demanded by you or by your successors […]. »

« If I find it difficult to leave all, all that I do not dare recall, please believe that the thought of monastic cloister and sovereign application to God alone are for me an attraction superior to all other thought. »

On 5 September, a fax from Mgr Daucourt announced to our Father that the Abbey of Hauterive in Switzerland agreed to receive him. On that day, we read in the refectory, at the end of the meal, article 73 of our Rule on the reclusion that a brother might see imposed on him for his amendment, or that he might request:

« It will last at least a year but will not be more than three years. It will consist in an increased solitude in which the brothers will have no contact with the world, neither direct nor indirect […]. The reclusion will be characterised by abjection and effacement accepted without limit for love of Christ, as unprofitable servant. »

Here is the secret, the profound reason for the entire attitude of our Father. Later on, he confided to our Brother Vincent de Paul of the Mission: « I wanted to show to Jesus and Mary just how far I desired to humiliate myself for love of Them. » He also said this to us: « At my age, one thing alone counts: the defeat of Satan and the condemnation of the Second Vatican Council. »

While our Father imagined or persuaded himself that Mgr Daucourt was watching over our community, which he had left « in his arms and on his heart » – as Monseigneur wrote to him! – it appeared with each passing day unthinkable to entrust to an ecumenical, conciliar bishop who was keen on modernity, the care of a community of Counter-Reformation and Counter-Revolution, hoping for its survival from his attentive care.

On 6 September 1996, we received a letter from Mgr Daucourt, proposing three possibilities to us.

1^o to return into the world,

1^o to join another community,

1^o to remain in community as a de facto association of lay people with the aim of becoming recognised.

We replied as one man, the sisters included, that we would not budge from the status quo as long as a doctrinal judgement had not been pronounced in the case made by the Abbé de Nantes against the Second Vatican Council. This greatly infuriated the bishop who accused me of not letting the brothers and sisters express themselves freely!

In the meantime, in Hauterive, our Father asked Father Abbot for the Acts of the Council: « The cause of the ruin of the Church is here, under my scalpel, and it has to be eradicated. »

In a slightly shaky handwriting, in which the first effects of disease could be discerned, he undertook to recopy the texts, and to annotate them in an exercise book, with a pen « soaked in vitriol », under the title: Vatican II, Auto-da-fe, with a subheading: Pamphlet, and as an epigraph: We are mocked; one does not mock God.

As for us, we organised and carried out our pilgrimage to Fatima on 12-13 October, a « lightening pilgrimage » as he had wished: « in one airplane roundtrip, in a single day, without tourism, with no hotel expenses, or the minimum, without double charter expenses… In order to be at the feet of Our Lady, this night from the 12^th to the 13^th and this thirteenth, in a pilgrimage of reparation… »

The mission was accomplished, which showed to what extent our Father had already placed us in the hands of Mary.

We were seven hundred. The authorities were ready and waiting for us: Cardinal Ratzinger was coming to Fatima for the first time, under orders. As for our Father, who had decided on this pilgrimage, he was not there, as though he had already “made way” for the Immaculate.

THE SNARE

Then the fowlers’ net tightened.

In November, I received a letter from a religious, offering his good offices to preach a retreat to us, assuring us of the benevolence of Mgr Daucourt:

« He will help you to keep your traditions or to have them evolve in a supernatural spirit. »…

Just imagine…

In December, Mgr Daucourt sent to our Father a beautiful Christmas present: the Complete Works of Saint Thérèse, accompanied by a letter in which he gave our Father news about us:

« With discretion and patience, I wish to exercise my responsibility towards them so that they may have a canonical status, a legitimate superior and a chaplain, but at present that is very difficult. »

« Difficult », indeed, because we had replied to him that we did not want any « legitimate superior » other than the Abbé de Nantes, and we wanted the bishop to return him to us!

Our Father understood immediately. « We know what words mean, and on this Christmas night the tragedy of the situation appeared to me in all its clarity. » We must imagine our Father imprisoned in his abbey, having promised never to leave it, and ourselves handed over to the good pleasure of Bishop Cauchon.

« This honeyed letter was telling me to lose myself in prayer and to adhere blindly to the decisions about to be taken, if not already implemented, over there where the brothers and sisters, banned from all communication with me, would learn from their executioner of my unconcern for their fate, even my acquiescence in their ruin. It was well calculated to trick us, to divide in order to rule. The same bishop who ruined my reputation in a single day, after six years of total silence, was now going to destroy an already considerable work in a couple of ticks, leaving sixty consecrated persons on the streets, unless they willingly reduced themselves to his slavery. » […]

« Maybe, I said to myself in this long drawn out Christmas octave, it has already been done. I peer into the darkness. I am worn down by the distress of having betrayed them and in the fear that, in coming to their aid, I would see myself declared relapsed by that sect bent on my ruin, like St. Joan held in pincers by Cauchon, the Bishop of Lisieux (!) who had her burned. »

He seized his pen and replied:

+ Jesus!

31 December 1996

« Your Excellency,

« First of all, please excuse this school exercise book paper and this old man’s hand writing. Something must be beginning to go wrong with my right hand. But it is nothing. » [It was the first effects of Parkinson’s disease.]

« I did not acknowledge receipt of your last letter because of the persistent turmoil into which I was plunged by the news of your evident intention to disperse and destroy our communities, our houses and our various activities. It was something I feared  –countering our dreams of regaining the status quo – if not in regard to myself, at least, after my obedience to your imperative advice to disappear, at least in regard to our Houses, all more edifying than scandalous. You have judged it good to pursue this destruction of the “Catholic Counter-Reformation in the xx^th century”, for which you can only feel a very understandable hostility. After annihilating me, you thought that the decapitated “body” would easily surrender, in imitation of my obedience, and you kindly warn me of your plan in order to align me with your views and to let the others know, to convince them that submission is an obvious and supernatural duty.

« There are, however, several things to be taken into consideration, which I want to explain to you straightforwardly and with no bad feelings, especially as my letter is purely disinterested. [He asks nothing for himself or for us. He only asks Mgr Daucourt to reflect five minutes on the object of the dispute…] I shall try to be brief, and all the documents I refer to I shall suppose either known or accessible to you. »

Our Father then reminds him of what it was about:

« 1. From your point of view, the Council is holy, its Acts are plainly so, the whole Church has followed them, and the question is now closed: it was the work of the Holy Spirit. Our fanatical opposition is wrong, and it is the duty of a bishop of Troyes to lance this abscess. You have finally had occasion to bring down this tree, the fruits of which are bad; you have done your duty, with the conviction of having served the Church and the Holy Father well. All you have to do now is to clean up the ground. [During World War I, this was called “cleaning the trenches” after the assault. It was dreadful.] For you it is the Glory of God, peace in the Church and the return of the “lost children” to “full Christian communion”.

« Since I took this path and am now absolutely isolated, trusting in your promise to look after them, the children would presumably follow the example of the “Father”. Give them a “canonical status”, give them a “legitimate authority” and appoint a “chaplain” for them, and then tell me about it as though it were a service and dedication to their souls – that in fact is to annihilate the “Catholic Counter-Reformation in the xx^th century”. You will have deserved well of the Church, at least so you think, together with practically the whole of Catholic, and even public, opinion.

« 2. From our point of view, which I summarise, not to impress you [without hope of convincing you], but with a view to expounding the consequences… the Council not only multiplied errors and absurdities, but it promulgated –, excuse me! – flagrant heresies that are easy to demonstrate and denounce. These heresies proceed from two or three principles, certainly Masonic, but which have become a system of thought, which is a veritable antichrist gnosis [The chronicle of the Council, in the contemporaneous Letters to My Friends, from 1962-1965, offers all the proofs of the validity of this affirmation, which has remained irrefutable, with an unequalled genius for analysis and synthesis. To accuse the Abbé de Nantes, without providing even the beginning of a proof, of heresy on the Trinity, on the Blessed Virgin and on the Eucharist, is really to reverse the roles, for the Council was heretical, schismatic and scandalous on each of these points.]. Such a reversal of the cult of God made man into a cult of Man making himself god wrought a total break between the old religion and the new, that of the conciliar sect: it is a schism. [It is a concrete wall that separates the new times from the old.]

« Forgive me, I abridge…

« We believe it, we say it, and we verify it. That has lasted since the Council. If you come up against a refusal of obedience [on the part of the brothers and sisters], you are going to strike and strike hard. You think that Rome will support you and that with a whiff of scandal you will have at last won, or rather the conciliar Roman