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!

« JESUS, HOW LITTLE-KNOWN YOU ARE! »

(Georges de Nantes, Letter to My Friends n° 106, April 1962)

	« 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”. » (Joseph Ratzinger – Benedict XVI, “Jesus of Nazareth)

For the centenary of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (8 September 1907), in which St. Pius X condemned Modernism, Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth (translated from German, May 2007, Flamarion) strikes a decisive blow to its latest manifestation, which has held sway since the 1950s under the name of « historico-critical research ».

The Pope specifies in the forward that what he has written is not an act of the Magisterium but only expresses « his personal search for “the Face of the Lord”, cf. Ps 26 (27), 8. Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. » His demonstrations, however, re-establish so many good, very Catholic truths throughout these four hundred pages that they at least come under the “ordinary Magisterium”, as infallible from the pen of the Pope as they are on the lips of a mother teaching catechism to her children. In this sense, we can say about this book of the Vicar of Christ what the Jews used to say about the preaching of Our Lord Himself: « This is  teaching given with authority. »

Yet, many of the personal views of Joseph Ratzinger seem debatable and, reassured by the paternal authorisation that we have been given to criticise them, we will permit ourselves to do so with all « good will, without which there can be no understanding », as the Common Father rightly requested. This gives us the possibility of attributing to the “private” person what appears to us unworthy of the Pope because the book is signed by Joseph Ratzinger and Benedict XVI.

All the editions in all languages vanished in the days that followed their publication. It is the charisma of our “sweet Christ on earth”, the faithful mirror of Him who is in Heaven. Repeating his master St. Augustine, Benedict XVI writes: « I trust the Gospels. » After having taken into account the results of the historico-critical method, « I wanted to try to represent the Jesus of the Gospels as a real Jesus, as a “historical Jesus” in the proper sense of the term. I am convinced, and I hope that the reader also will be able to see it, that this figure is much more logical and historically eloquent, much more understandable than the reconstructions with which we have been confronted in the course of the last decades. I believe precisely that this Jesus, the One of the Gospels, is a historically sensible and coherent figure. »(p. 17)

The Pope immediately gives the proof of this in the very fact of Jesus being put to death and of what followed:

« It is only if something extraordinary happened, if the figure and the words of Jesus radically exceeded all hopes and expectations, that His Crucifixion and His influence can be explained. Scarcely twenty years after the death of Jesus, we find in the great hymn to Christ from the Letter to the Philippians (2.6-11) a Christology in which it is said of Jesus that He is the equal of God, but that He stripped Himself, that He became man, that He humbled Himself to the point of dying on the cross and that, from then on, cosmic homage is owed to Him, the adoration that God had proclaimed in the Prophet Isaiah (cf. 45.23) as being reserved to God and to Him alone. » (pp. 17-18)

For forty years, we have seen the Abbé de Nantes develop this “Christology”, in reference to the hymn from the Letter to the Philippians, in many ways and manners, sometimes with a pen soaked in vitriol:

« Jesus was not an object that one pushes, throws away, breaks and forgets. This fall was not a minor setback or an absurd destiny that He could have experienced by chance. It was not the result of a misunderstanding or an inevitable misfortune. It is odious to see the new catechisms express this monstrosity that reduces the Cross to a regrettable event that it would be best to cover with a veil and forget. Then, crucifixes are removed from schools, houses and roadsides, from churches and their altars. Sacrilege follows close behind blasphemy. » (Hymn to Jesus Christ the Saviour, (CRC n^o 18, March, 1969, p. 5)

More uncritically the Pope writes:

« How did we arrive at this Christology? The action of anonymous communities the representatives of which we try to identify cannot, in fact, explain anything. How could anonymous collective entities prove themselves so creative? How could they show so much conviction and succeed in convincing? Is it not much more logical, from an historical point of view, to consider that the greatness is at the beginning? »

Let us remember this brilliant formula, worthy of the fourth Gospel: « In the beginning was the Word. » And liberating: « For it became compulsory to say that the New Testament writings could no longer be trusted because they were drafted long after the events that they bear witness to, because they presented the message of the events, because they conveyed a spiritual experience and a communitarian one too, rather than the facts themselves the original reality of which was no longer perceptible. The dyke between the history of Jesus and these inspired writings was far too wide for us to find them still credible. So, for a century, everyone has been dating, remodelling and interpreting the Gospels in his own scientific fashion. The devil of a scholar! Then he reconstructed the history and the dogma from what he was prepared to keep or rediscover therein. » These lines written by the Abbé de Nantes twenty-five years ago have not become outdated. They are taken from a review of the book of the Anglican bishop John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, and its abridgement published in French under the title Peut-on se fier au Nouveau Testament? Our Father praised Robinson « for his conservative, or rather reactionary, stance » that followed those of his book Honest to God, « praised to the skies by the French modernists for its daring, its scandalous immanentism, its total subjectivism, its lack of dogma and morality. »

Robinson, the modernist turncoat, was immediately ostracised by the progressivist intelligentsia, and his book fell into a black hole. The intellectual terrorism of our modern science and of our post-conciliar Church had gotten the better of him, but it has to contend with a stronger opponent in the book of the Sovereign Pontiff, a bestseller that has already surpassed Harry Potter!

A GREATER MOSES

A very “Johannine” introduction leads us straightaway into the heart of the « mystery » of Jesus by a handrail that will guide us throughout our reading: Jesus is a new Moses. The Pope explains in what sense: Moses conversed with God like a friend with a friend, Jesus like a Son with His Father. The Face to Face of Jesus, Son of God, with God His Father, thus fulfilled the promise of Moses: « Yahweh your God will raise up for you a Prophet like myself, from among yourselves, from your own brothers; to Him you must listen. » (Dt 18.15)

As Moses spent forty days on Mount Sinai before receiving the word of God, the sacred tables of the Covenant, Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights in the desert (p. 49).

Like Moses, Jesus « climbed the mountain » in order to teach the throng (Mt 5.1-2) What “mountain”? What mountain of Galilee? The Evangelist does not say, « but because it is a question of Jesus’ discourse, it is simply “the mountain”, the new Sinai » where Jesus was seated « like a greater Moses, who extended the Covenant to all the peoples » (p. 87).

The difference, however, does not lie only in the scale of the Covenant sealed by Jesus:

« The power of the revelation on Sinai had frightened the people to such an extent that they said to Moses: “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we shall die” (Ex 20.19) Now God speaks very near to us; He is a man who speaks to men […]. “The Sermon on the mount” is the new Torah brought by Jesus. »

We read in the Book of Numbers that « Moses was the most humble of men, the humblest man on earth » (Nb 12.3). Commenting on the second Beatitude: « Happy the meek (the lowly): they shall possess the promised land » (Mt 5.5), the Pope exclaims: « In this context, how can we not think of the words of Jesus: “Shoulder My yoke and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Mt 11.29)? Christ is the new Moses, the true Moses; this is the fundamental thought that traverses the entire Sermon on the mount. » (p. 101) This is why it traverses the entire book of Benedict XVI (cf. pp. 122, 124, and passim).

Moses had promised: « Yahweh your God will raise up for you a Prophet like myself, from among yourselves, from your own brothers; to Him you must listen. » (Dt 18.15) The Pope writes: « The promise of Moses is more than granted; it is kept in the unbounded manner with which God has the habit of giving. He who came is more than Moses; He is more than a prophet. He is the Son. » (p. 263)

« Moses gave the manna; he gave the bread come down from heaven. But it was still earthly “bread”. The manna is a promise. The new Moses will once again give bread » but of a different sort, “heavenly” and more substantial, a “bread” truly come down from Heaven (p. 267; cf. pp. 291-293).

THE ANOINTING OF THE KING

The Pope’s entire book unfolds between the two public manifestations of this Face to Face of God the Son with God the Father that are the baptism of Jesus and His transfiguration.

The first chapter is dedicated to the baptism that was the enthroning of Jesus Christ as King. St. Luke indicated its date « with solemnity and precision: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of the lands of Ituraea and Trachonitis, Lysanias tetrarch of Abiline, during the pontificate of Annas and Caiaphas…” (Lk 3.1-2) »

After the reference to « the Emperor Augustus » (Lk 2.1) from the account of the Nativity, « this renewed reference to the Roman emperor situates Jesus in the time of universal history: the activity of Jesus must not belong to some mythical time, able to mean both always and never. It is a precisely dated historical event, with all the genuineness of an historical, human reality, something unique, for which the manner of being present in all times considerably exceeds the timelessness of myth. » (p. 31)

The Jewish context of the event was revealed to us by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and the ruins of Qumrân. What a happy surprise to read from the pen of the Pope the value that he attaches to it! « We are touched by the seriousness and the faith to which these writings bear witness. It seems that John the Baptist, but also perhaps Jesus and His family were close to this community. »

Nevertheless, despite the numerous links that can be made between the doctrine that emerges from the Dead Sea scrolls and the Gospel, the baptism of John « remains something radically new […]. Great things are on the way. »

Benedict XVI never calls Modernism by its name – except to mention the « Catholic modernist (sic!) Alfred Loisy » (p. 69) – but he perfectly summarises and refutes the thesis according to which the baptism of Jesus would have been a « disquieting experience » from which would have emerged in Him « the consciousness of a particular relationship with God and with His religious mission ». The Pope simply points out that the texts say nothing of the sort. This is why, « whatever erudition with which this conception is adorned, it is more like a novelistic genre on Jesus than a real exegesis of the texts ».

The descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus in the waters of the Jordan enthrones Him as Christ the King, and invests him with His royal and priestly office. How does Christ exercise His royalty?

THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND THE ANTICHRIST

The three synoptic Gospels relate, « to our surprise » the Pope stresses, that the first disposition of the Spirit was to lead Jesus to the desert « in order to be tempted by the Devil ». The brief account of St. Mark shows us Jesus there restoring through His obedience the earthly Paradise that was lost by the disobedience of Adam: Jesus « was with beasts, and the angels ministered to him ».

St. Luke and St. Matthew show Jesus very really prey to three temptations. When explaining them, Benedict XVI, has a talent for putting us on our guard: « If you are the Son of God… » So we are also, through baptism! « In this world, we must withstand the illusions of false philosophies and recognise that we do not live on bread alone, but first on obedience to the word of God. It is only where this obedience is lived that the sentiments that also permit us to procure bread for all are born and grow. » (p. 54)

After having refused to change the stones into bread, Jesus in the end multiplied bread in the desert to feed the throng that had followed Him. « Why carry out an act now that he had refused to do beforehand as a temptation? » the Pope asks before answering: « People had come to hear the word of God and, in order to do this, they had left all the rest. Thus, as persons who had opened their hearts to God, then to each other, they can receive bread as is right and proper. » (p. 52)

The Pope observes that by reversing this order of priorities, humanitarian organisations « believed that they could change stones into bread, but they gave stones in the place of bread » (p. 53).

Yet, humanitarian organisations should not be the only ones called into question. Has Benedict XVI forgotten that on 2 June 1980, Pope John Paul II parodied the answer of Jesus to the Devil by openly proclaiming at UNESCO headquarters: « Man does not live by bread alone, but also by culture. »? By replacing « all the words that proceed from the mouth of God » (Mt 4.4) by culture, John Paul II showed that his “religion” was reduced to a cultural accessory.

Thus Benedict XVI brings us back from culture to worship of Jesus the Eucharist, « the permanent miracle of Jesus over bread » through which He makes Himself our bread, « and this multiplication of bread will last in an unending manner until the end of time ».

THE DEVIL PLAYS THE EXEGETE.

The Pope then came to the second temptation. It is a masterly refutation of Modernist exegesis in which the Devil himself becomes an exegete. It is brilliant! « In order to lure Jesus into his snare, the Devil quotes Holy Scripture: Psalm 91 (90), which evokes the protection that God grants to the faithful man: “He commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.”

« The Devil reveals himself to be a connoisseur of Scripture; he is able to quote the psalm with precision. The entire dialogue of the second temptation is presented as a debate between two experts of Holy Scripture: in it the Devil appears as a theologian.

« Vladimir Soloviev took up this theme in his Short Tale of the Antichrist: the Antichrist is conferred the degree of doctor of theology honoris causa of the University of Tübingen; he is a great expert of the Bible. Thus Soloviev wanted to explain in a radical fashion, his scepticism towards a certain type of scholarly exegesis of his time. It was not a refusal of the scientific interpretation of the Bible as such, but a particularly necessary and salutary warning in the face of its possible wanderings. The interpretation of the Bible can effectively become an instrument of the Antichrist. It is not Soloviev alone who says so; it is what the account of the temptations implicitly affirms. The worst books that destroy the figure of Jesus, that destroy the Faith, were written with alleged results of exegesis. »

By condemning them under the name of « Modernism », St. Pius X foretold that the next offensive of the Antichrist would plunge us into atheism. A hundred years later, it is in fact what Pope Benedict XVI sees:

« In our days, the Bible is subject among many to the criteria of the alleged modern vision of the world [within the Catholic Church herself, Most Holy Father! by virtue of “openness to the world” in force since the Second Vatican Council], the fundamental dogma of which is that God can in no way whatever act in history, and that, consequently, all that concerns Him is relegated to the sphere of the subjective. Thus the Bible no longer speaks about God, about the living God, but about ourselves alone, who speak and determine what God can do and what we want to or must do. The Antichrist, presenting himself as a great scholar, then tells us that an exegesis that reads the Bible in the perspective of faith in the living God, paying attention to Him, is the product of a fundamentalist attitude. »

This is in fact what we are generally accused of. Thus, the Pope defends us… Marvellous! He continues: « The theological debate between Jesus and the Devil is a dispute that concerns every time and aims to interpret the Bible correctly, the fundamental hermeneutical question of which is the image of God. The dispute over interpretation is in the end a discussion that revolves around who God is » and not only over His existence. « This discussion over the image of God, which is in question in the dispute over the correct interpretation of Scripture, finds its concrete expression in the image of Christ: is He who remained without earthly power really the Son of the living God? » (p. 56)

A DETHRONED CHRIST.

According to Benedict XVI, this Jesus whom in his preceding chapter he has just shown received anointing as king and priest in the waters of the Jordan, this Christ the King has, however, « remained without earthly power » until today! This thought dominates the whole book: « Christ did not throw Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple. He did not jump into the abyss. He did not put God to the test. Rather, He descended into the abyss of death, into the night of abandon; He exposed Himself as a defenceless being. » Then… is that all? Yes! « He dared to make this jump as an act of love of God for men. Thus He knew that by jumping He could fall finally into the merciful hands of the Father. »

Our disappointment really begins with this chapter, and we are unfortunately going to have to use the freedom to criticise accorded by the Holy Father. « Jesus, how little-known you are! » The sorrowful complaint of the Abbé de Nantes (opposite) irresistibly comes to mind upon reading the following explanations of Joseph Ratzinger. First, in his eagerness to portray Jesus as an “advocate of non-violence”, he forgets one thing: the context of the quotation that Jesus takes from Deuteronomy (cf. Ex 17.8-16). The rebellion of the people against God was expressed by a rebellion against Moses. God replied to the popular “defiance” by two dazzling miracles, confirming that He, God, was there, in their midst, acting powerfully by the hand of Moses. The first of these miracles consisted in making fresh water flow from the rock of Horeb. The second consisted in “mimicking” in advance the mystery of the Cross: more specifically, it was not a leap into space but a resounding victory over the enemy, Amalek.

Furthermore, in his interpretation of the third temptation, Benedict XVI explains:

« The Devil leads the Lord in a vision onto a high mountain. He shows Him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour, and he offers to Him domination over the world. Is this not precisely the mission of the Messiah? Must He not be the King of the world who will reunite the entire earth into a great kingdom of peace and well-being? »

Yet he forgets to quote the condition laid down by the Devil: « If you fall at my feet and worship me. » To which Jesus replies: « Be gone Satan! For Scripture says : You must worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone » (Mt 4.10)

This “dialogue” is tragically topical ever since Paul VI proclaimed “the cult of man” in Saint Peter’s on 7 December 1965, at the end of the Second Vatican Council. Everything takes place as though the Pope instinctively avoided quoting Jesus’ answer for fear of proving the Abbé de Nantes right when he accuses Paul VI and John Paul II, his “venerable predecessors”, of prostrating themselves before man, behind whom Satan hides, in order to render a cult to him: “the cult of man”.

Consequently, Benedict XVI continues: « As the temptation of the bread has two remarkable parallels in the history of Jesus, the multiplication of loaves and the Last Supper, it is the same here. »

After having refused to receive power on the “high mountain” where the Devil had transported Him, « the resurrected Lord gathered His own “on the mountain” (Mt 28.16). At that moment, He indeed said: “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” » This time, however, « Jesus has this authority as One risen, which means that this authority presupposes the Cross, presupposes His death. It presupposes the other mountain – Golgotha – where He died, hung on the Cross, mocked by men and abandoned by His own. »

Thus, what is, once and for all, the « true content » of this third temptation? The Pope observes that, « in history, it continually takes a new form ». The very first form was that of « the Christian Empire… » To our sorrowful surprise, the Holy Father adopts the overused accusation of “Constantinism”, and of “triumphalism” levelled at the Council against Christendom: « The Christian Empire sought very early to transform the Faith into a political factor for the unity of the Empire. »

The Abbé de Nantes denounced with what « incendiary rage » this thought that held sway at the Council: « Everything is said to have begun with St. Sylvester, the pope whose “shameful” reign coincided with that of Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor. The Church rallied to the temporal authorities! Constantinism found its extension in “political Augustinism” the venomous fruits of which are named the temporal power of the popes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the trial of the Knights Templar, Caesaropapism… » (The Church of Christ, a Holy Utopia, a Permanent Miracle, CRC n^o 155, July 1980, p. 9)

Let us not, however, be surprised to find this thought in Benedict XVI, since it already held sway in the Council… on the initiative of Joseph Ratzinger! In fact, it was he who advised Cardinal Frings, a member of the central preparatory commission of the Council, to vote “non placet” to Chapter IX, “The Religious Duties of Civil Authorities”, drawn up by Cardinal Ottaviani for the schema “De Ecclesia”, during the last session of this commission in June 1962: « To me, the mode of arguing in paragraph 3 of this chapter seems very disturbing on all counts, the Abbé Ratzinger wrote, in particular this: “Cultui... publico ab Ecclesia prćstito Civitas sese associare debet non tantum per cives, sed etiam per illos, qui auctoritate prćditi Societatem civilem reprćsentant.” (The State ought join in the public worship that the Church renders; this worship ought be rendered not only by citizens but also by those who are endowed with authority and represent civil society.) »

« What disturbs me also is the association of paragraphs 2 and 3: “The State as State ought profess its adherence to the Catholic Faith.” It is this also that makes the affirmation so dangerous: “the civil Authority” (“Potestas civilis…”) can recognise Catholic truth. Now, such worship and such Faith cannot exist. The just man who believes is necessarily a person… The Potestas civilis can thus in no way have the Faith and practice a religion… The idea of a State religion, such as it appears concretely here, is not only unreal but inappropriate, by virtue of the content of the Christian Faith… » (Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings, 1887-1978, Vol. 2, His Action in Favour of the Universal Church and the Last Years of his Episcopate, Schöningh éd., 2005, p. 292)

DEFENSE OF CHRISTENDOM

Such an affirmation is absolutely revolutionary. It amounts to mistaking the motto of St. Pius X, Omnia instaurare in Christo, with the third temptation of Jesus in the desert! In accord with this, « the reign of Christ should thus take, Benedict XVI writes today, the form of a political kingdom and its splendour. The weakness of the Faith, the earthly weakness of Jesus Christ should be supported by the political and military authority. »

Yet this is what was seen in France, during the reign of the Capetians, in the kingdom of Louis IX, King of France… St. Louis! It was also the mission of Joan of Arc, under the Valois, to have the king of France crowned as the lieutenant of the King of Heaven…

« Throughout the centuries, this temptation – to establish the Faith by power – continually came back, under various forms, and the Faith always ran the risk of being smothered in the embrace of power. The combat for the liberty of the Church [meaning: the “liberty of the Church” against the most Christian kings! against Salazar, against Franco, against Pétain!], a combat because the Kingdom of Jesus cannot be identified with any political structure, has had to be waged throughout the centuries. For confusing the Faith and political power always has a price: the Faith places itself in the service of power and is obliged to submit to its criteria. » (pp. 58-59)

Of course, it is true that « the Faith has (often) run the risk of being smothered in the embrace of power ». An example occurred in the reign of Otto I across the Rhine.  The Bishop of Ostia anointed him, and then Pope John XII crowned him in Rome in 962, a quarter of a century before Adalberon anointed Hugues Capet in Rheims on 3 July 987. But, more specifically, of these two kings, both of whom received religious anointing and ecclesiastical investiture, the former endeavoured to efface the mark, to defy the fidelity he owed it and challenge the donor who granted it. John XII would be deposed and threatened with death by Otto I the year after his anointing in 963.

In France, on the other hand, Hugues Capet let himself be penetrated by divine grace to the point of forgetting, of effacing the other principles of his power, force, blood, law, election, « remaining conspicuously penetrated by the sentiment of his anointing, of the sacramental unction as a new essence substituted in him for the old one » the Abbé de Nantes wrote (CRC n^o 198, p. 17).

« A sentiment so strong in Hugues Capet and in all, I indeed say in all his successors, our Father also wrote, that it passed on from him or traced back to him and from them unanimously to the nation, bishops, feudal lords and people, transfiguring a national corporation that was beginning into an effective mystical communion. »

So much was this the case that « the Kingdom of Jesus » becomes incontestably identified with the kingdom of the fleur-de-lis, with all due respect to our Holy Father the pope! On the other hand, the « combat » waged to dissolve this alliance, to break this « happy collaboration of Church and State », as St. Pius X used to say, this « combat » dear to Benedict XVI is called… « revolution ». The French Republic was Satanic in its essence.

Now, note well that after having objected to the kingdom of St. Louis, of Joan of Arc and of St. Michael, and thus of the Christian communities of Algeria or Angola, and proclaimed religious liberty as a right of the human person, except for the necessities of public order, the Second Vatican Council precisely put the Church of France in the service of the Republic and its secularising « criteria ».

Benedict XVI is blind to all these truths. Yet he almost reaches them when he writes that, « in the account of the Passion of the Lord, it is Barabbas, a sort of “resistance fighter” », who embodies the third temptation, the supreme temptation: « Between a messiah who is the head of a combat, who promises liberty and his own kingdom, and this mysterious Jesus who proclaims losing oneself in order to find the road to life », the Pope asks: « Is it surprising that the crowds preferred Barabbas? »

In a masterly page, Benedict XVI shows that not only would we have done likewise, but we are not doing otherwise today!

« The tempter does not have the uncouthness to encourage us directly to worship the Devil. He only urges us to choose what is rational, to give priority to a planned and organised world in which God as a private matter can have a place, without, however, having the right to be involved in our essential matters. » (p. 61)

Such is in fact the « charter of secularism » and of « religious liberty » under which we live today, the respective spawn of the « resistance », that is to say, the Revolution of 1944 and the Second Vatican Council.

Now, this revolution had been foreseen by Soloviev, and Benedict XVI quotes him! « Soloviev attibutes a book to the Antichrist, The Public Road to the Peace and Well-Being of the World, a book that becomes as it were the new Bible, the true contents of which are the worship of well-being and reasonable planning. »

Here is the application:

« Today, the Pope acknowledges, the Christian Empire or the temporal papacy no longer constitute a temptation, but to see in Christianity a recipe leading to progress and to recognise common well-being as the true end of all religion, and thus also of the Christian religion, such is the new form of this temptation. » (p. 62)

He is certainly correct, but his utopia of a Christianity disincarnated from political society prevents him from seeing the cause and effect relationship between the Council and the secularisation of society. After all, it is indeed to this third temptation that the Second Vatican Council succumbed with Gaudium et spes, as well as Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Populorum progressio, which our Father called the Mein Kampf of the Antichrist: « It involves building a human community where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination on account of race, religion or nationality. » (P.P., n^o 47).

Now, to this temptation Jesus replies as He did to St. Peter: « “Get behind Me Satan! You are an obstacle in My path, because the way you think is not God’s way but man’s. (Mt 16.23)”. »

By means of what miracle will the successor of Peter recover the thoughts of God? Let us pray, let us pray for the Holy Father. Nothing is more urgent.

THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD

« Recently the word Gospel has been translated by the expression “good News”, the Pope writes. It sounds good to the ear », but remains well short of echoing the original expression. In the repertory of the Roman emperors who considered themselves as the masters of the world, its saviours and redeemers, « the underlying idea was that what issues from the emperor is a saving message, not a simple piece of news, but a world transformation in the good sense. » (pp. 67-68)

Thus, when St. Mark writes: « Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God » (Mk 1.1), he means that Jesus Christ, and not the emperor, has the power to save the world: « A break then took place in time; something new was being fulfilled. » What? The Kingdom of God.

In this connection, the Pope evokes « the now famous sentence of the Catholic Modernist (sic!) Alfred Loisy: “Jesus announced the Kingdom, and it is the Church that came.” » (p. 69) Then he writes: « It may be said that before the Council, ecclesiocentrism reigned: the Church would then have been presented as the centre of Christianity. Then we passed on to Christocentrism, presenting Christ as the centre of everything. It may be added, however, that not only the Church divides, Christ does also, He who belongs to Christians alone. Thus from Christocentrism we passed on to theocentrism, approaching somewhat more, in this fashion, the community of religions. We will not be nearing our goal for all that, because God Himself is a possible element of division between religions and between men. » (p. 74)

One could not describe better the sequence of the different phases of the denial that has led the Catholic Church to transform herself into a Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy (Masdu). It was already the programme of the « Greater Sillon », which St. Pius X condemned in 1910. Benedict XVI does not hesitate in turn to describe this « new vision of Christianity, of religions and of history in general », as « utopian prattling without real content », the outcome of which « is that God has disappeared and man alone acts » (p. 75).

Like St. Pius X, Benedict XVI wants to come back « to the Gospel, to the authentic Jesus », who is Himself « the Kingdom ». The Sermon on the Mount is the « charter » for the Kingdom; by the same token, it presents a portrait of the very Person of its divine founder.

Two years before the opening of the Council, the Abbé de Nantes wrote: « I accuse progressivism of separating us from Jesus Christ Our Lord, of constructing a wall between Him and us, and of painting thereon a vulgar, ugly, hurtful image, which they give us to worship and which it calls “the Christ”. » (Letter to My Friends n° 77, November 1960) Does the book of the Pope knock down this wall?

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

« When carefully reading the text, we realise that the Beatitudes constitute in a veiled way an interior biography of Jesus, a portrait of His Person » (cf. Mt 5.3-12):

« He who has nowhere to lay His Head (cf. Mt 8.20) is the true poor man, who could say of Himself, “Become My disciples, for I am meek and humble of heart” (Mt 11.29), is truly gentle; He is the veritable pure heart who, in virtue of that, contemplates God constantly. He is the peacemaker; He is the one who suffers for the sake of God. The Beatitudes reveal the mystery of Christ Himself. They call upon us to enter into communion with Christ. » (p. 95)

The Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph, the old man Simeon and the prophetess Anna, Zachary and Elisabeth, the parents of St. John the Baptist, the shepherds of Bethlehem were the first to hear this call. They are truly apart, not only from the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but even from the community of Qumrân with which they nevertheless have « a certain spiritual closeness ».

Poverty, real as much as of heart, the first of the beatitudes, will save the world, wrote the Abbé de Nantes shortly after the luminous pontificate of John Paul I. Benedict XVI makes it the condition for the « renewal of the Church » (p. 99).

« Happy are the meek: for they shall possess the promised land. » The second beatitude gives Benedict XVI the opportunity for a strikingly anachronistic commentary in the « conciliar » spirit:

« The land of the King of peace is not a national State; it stretches from “one sea to the other”. The goal of peace is to make borders disappear and to establish a land renewed by peace that comes from God. » (p. 105)

The history of France, which St. Pius X called the « tribe of Judah of the New Covenant », most formally denies, we have said, this internationalist, “globalist” pacifism. Joan of Arc was sent by God to re-establish the borders between France and England.

The history of Israel is itself revised and corrected by Benedict XVI in the false light of the “dialogue” with Jews: « Little by little, through accepting the suffering that intersperse the history of the relations of Israel with God, the notion of land increased in scope and profundity, aiming less and less at the possession of a national territory and more and more at the universality of the law of God over the world. » (p. 104)

As though « the possession of a national territory » would impede « the universality of the law of God on the world ». The truth is that the history of the relations of Israel with God is the chronicle of this people’s constant infidelity, which forced God to punish it to the point of dispersing it over the entire surface of the earth.

It is regrettable also that the Pope does not remark that the third beatitude contradicts the conciliar constitution Gaudium et spes: « Happy are those who mourn: for they shall be comforted. » (Mt 5.5) He only remarks, but quite rightly, that the Old Testament presented it by quoting the prophet Ezekiel: « A man dressed in white linen had to mark a taw », the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, « a sort of cross, on the forehead of all those who “deplore and disapprove of all the filth practiced” in Jerusalem » (Ez 9.4) Those who bear this mark are exempted from the punishment.

This vision of Ezekiel announces the salutary compassion of Mary at the foot of the Cross, shared by Her sister, the wife of Cleopas, Mary Magdalene and John, « the small group of those who remained faithful in a world full of cruelty and cynicism or complicity dictated by fear » (p. 108).

The beatitude of those who « suffer persecution for the sake of justice » is connected to the preceding one. It announced in advance the situation of the Church in a world in which « men do not cease to aspire to free themselves from the will of God in order to follow their own will » (p. 110). By promising us joy, elation and a great reward « if people abuse you and persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you on My account » (Mt 5.11), Jesus reveals to us that He « is no longer a prophet in the traditional sense, the keeper of a message and a mandate conferred by a third party; He Himself is the reference point of the just life; He Himself is the end and centre of all things » (p. 111).

« Happy are those who hunger and thirst after justice: they shall have their fill. » (Mt 5.6) This fourth beatitude is promised to those who are afflicted, and not to those who are happy in this world, subject « to the diktat of the prevailing opinions and habits » (p. 112).

« Happy the pure in heart: they shall see God. » (Mt 5.8) the Psalms are replete with this search for the Face of God. « On the lips of Jesus, however, these words take on a new depth. They are part of His specific nature: to see God, to be Face to Face with Him, to communicate interiorly and continually with Him, in the end, to live the existence of the Son. » It is ours to enter into the « dispositions of Christ », as St. Paul exhorts us (Ph 2.5).

Benedict XVI does not know what to think of the « invectives » with which St. Luke punctuates his Beatitudes. He assures us that they « are not condemnations », but one might suspect him of conciliar bias: « It is not question of condemning, he reassures, but of warning in order to save. » (p. 118)

Very well. To save from what? From Hell.

Now, Benedict XVI never speaks of Hell. Not when he poses the question « of knowing what a saviour of the world must do » (p. 61) Not when he asks: « What did Jesus really bring, if He did not bring peace into the world, well-being for everyone, a better world? What did He bring? » (p. 63)

Formerly, before the Council, a child from catechism would reply: Jesus did not bring us happiness here below, but in the other world.

In his commentary on “the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus” (pp. 236-243; cf. Lk 16.19-31), Benedict XVI affirms: « Jesus confines Himself to the representations current in the Judaism of His time. As such, we must not force this part of the text, for Jesus uses already existing elements full of imagery without formally making it His teaching concerning the beyond. » (p. 240)

What does Jesus teach us concerning the beyond that He calls « the abode of the dead »? That the rich man found himself there « in torments ». What torments? « lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. “Father Abraham, he cried, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this fire! »

The bosom of Abraham is, in fact, the representation current in the Judaism of that time, concerning the beyond. Nevertheless, Most Holy Father, the fire of the abode of the dead is not a « representation » proper to Judaism! It is the physical reality of eternal Hell that Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta saw with their very eyes on 13 July 1917. They even heard the cries of the wicked rich man!

THE POPE AND THE RABBI

At the beginning of his commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark, the Abbé de Nantes imagined a young pagan from Rome, enticed to a Christian meeting and listening for the first time to these accounts from the East, with the soul of a catechumen, of a sympathiser, of a proselyte enticed by some member of this community of Rome, at the time when St. Peter was still living, or perhaps after his martyrdom and the first persecutions of Nero.

For his part, Pope Benedict XVI, chooses to present a Jewish rabbi, not from the first century but from the twentieth! The anachronism is outrageous, because it concerns a contemporary Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, the author of a book that the Pope follows with undisguised enthusiasm: « The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus, and he withdraws without hatred appearing; and while maintaining the rigour of the truth, he always makes apparent the reconciling force of love. » (p. 126)

Joseph Ratzinger imagines him mingled in a group of disciples, Jewish as well, let us not forget, on the « mountain » in Galilee. While Jesus speaks, « he listens to Jesus, compares His words to those of the Old Testament and the rabbinic traditions such as they are written down in the Mishna and the Talmud ».

What perfection! Benedict XVI, whose motto is “cooperators of the truth”, does not wonder how one can maintain the rigour of the truth, while withdrawing from the Truth…

The crucial question remains that of the Sabbath, today as yesterday: « Even a superficial reading of the Gospels allows us to know that the quarrel concerning what must be done or not during the Sabbath is at the centre of the discussion that Jesus led with the people of Israel of His time. » (p. 128)

Benedict XVI follows Rabbi Neusner with a benevolent bias that would make the Abbé de Nantes jealous, if such were possible… « God rested on the seventh day, the account of the creation tells us. “On that day, we celebrate creation”, Neusner correctly concludes. Then he continues: “Not to work on the Sabbath day is more than accomplishing a rite with scrupulous obedience. It is a way to imitate God. »

Very well! To perform miracles, however, is a more decisive, radical and incontestable « way of imitating God » is it not?

« One Sabbath day He was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who for eighteen years had been possessed by a spirit that left her enfeebled; she was bent double and quite unable to stand upright. When Jesus saw her He called her over and said, “Woman, you are healed of your infirmity.” He laid His hands on her. At once she straightened up, and she glorified God. The synagogue official, however, was indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, and he addressed the people present. “There are six days, when work is to be done. Come and be healed on one of those days and not on the Sabbath!” (Lk 13.10-14)

Neusner speaks like the synagogue official. The Pope sides with him: « We see that, in these discussions, there are fundamental questions concerning man and the good way to honour God that are at stake. » (p. 129)

Jesus’ answer, however, leaves no room for discussion: « The Lord answered him: “Hypocrites! Is there one of you who does not untie his ox or his donkey from the manger on the Sabbath and take it out for watering? This daughter of Abraham whom Satan has held bound these eighteen years –was it not right to untie her bonds on the Sabbath day! » (Lk 13.15-16)

There was nothing that could be said in reply. To these words, St. Luke adds, « all His adversaries were covered with confusion, and all the people were overjoyed at all the wonders He worked. » (Lk 13.17)

Since Pope John XXIII instituted “dialogue” with the adversaries of Jesus, they have found their arrogance again, and joy has deserted the Christian people. For a very simple reason: it is no longer Jesus, Son of God made man, who is “at the centre” but “the man” who makes himself God.

FAITH AND POLITICS

The blindness of rabbi Neusner is extreme. He gets to the stage where he accuses Jesus of contravening the fourth commandment: « Honour your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that Yahweh your God has given to you. » (Ex 20.12)

The Pope replies very well to him: « If we read the Torah at the same time as the totality of the canon of the Old Testament, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Sapiential Books, we perceive then very distinctly something that is also announced thematically in the Torah: Israel does not exist for itself alone, in order to live according to the “eternal” prescriptions of the Law. It is there in order to become the light of nations. » (p. 138)

Now, « faith in the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob welcomed within the new family of Jesus, spread among all peoples and extending beyond their carnal bonds of filiation, such is the fruit of the work of Jesus » (p. 139).

Unfortunately, Benedict XVI adds: « There took place an extremely important event the import of which cannot be fully understood in modern times. » Thus we have waited two thousand years to understand? What then? This: « extending beyond their carnal bonds of filiation », faith in God transcends all peoples, which is true, and is therefore linked to no political or legal structure, which is false!

« Concrete political and social structures have been sent from the immediate sphere of the sacred, from the legislation of divine law, to the liberty of man. » According to Benedict XVI, that was only « understood » at the time of the “Enlightenment”, which the Church condemned up until the Second Vatican Council, which finally “canonised” them. Does this mean that the “Enlightenment” is identified with « the light of the nations »? Alas, no! The Pope recognises it:

« It is true that in the meantime this liberty has been completely stripped of God’s perspective and communion with Jesus. Liberty for universality and thus for the just secularity of the State has transformed itself into something absolutely profane, into “secularism.” » (pp. 141-142)

This idea of a « justifiably secular character of the State » was expressed for the first time by a Pope, to my knowledge, on 17 June 1965, in a homily of Paul VI, given for Corpus Christi celebrated at the e. u. r. of Rome. In it, the Pope proposed to put the Church into the service of the earthly city « without, however, offending in any way against the autonomy or the justifiably secular character of the earthly City, but merely through a silent osmosis of example and spiritual virtue... »

In his “Book of Accusation”, the Abbé de Nantes did not fail to criticise Paul VI for this plan: « You would have the Church make an adulterous use of those heavenly gifts bestowed upon her by her Lord, to be used for Him, and put them into the service of the enterprises invented by Man who would make himself God. » Repeating the closing speech of the Second Vatican Council, given by the same Paul VI on 7 December 1965, the Abbé de Nantes added « “The religion of God made Man” is drawn by you into the service of “the religion – for it is one – of man who makes himself God.” That, however, is a work of Antichrist! »

He announces: « The faith in Jesus Christ, the love of God in the hearts of the faithful, whom you lead astray, will soon turn – by « osmosis » – into faith in man and love of the World!!! » (p. 22)

Forty years have gone by. What the Abbé de Nantes foresaw has come to pass. Benedict XVI laments it: « Liberty for universality and thus for the just secularity of the State has transformed itself into something absolutely profane, into “secularism.” » Not wanting to challenge this secularity, he deprives us of the remedy that would be to give the Church, as St. Pius X had, the only motto of salvation, Omnia instaurare in Christo (Ep 1.10), from which the Council inexplicably strayed in order to adopt another project: invigorating the non-Christian world and leading it to its completion by putting the Church into its service.

THE LORD’S PRAYER

« The Our Father thus begins with God and it leads us from Him on to the ways of “being man”. » (p. 158) The filial relationship with God “our Father” vanishes in this abstraction. The Devil makes himself forgotten: « To finish, we descend to the ultimate threat for man, for whom the Devil lies in wait. Here, the image of the dragon of the Apocalypse may appear within us. » It is a possibility, a simple likelihood, and, moreover, completely subjective and without any real consequences, since it is only an “image within us”. At any rate, God is always there: « We know that our Father is with us, that He holds us in His hand, that He saves us. »

Thus it is that Hell disappears from our horizon, at the same time as Heaven. Already, we have been warned that in the expression “Kingdom of Heaven”, « the term “heaven” is equivalent to that of “God”, because in Judaism, in observance of the second commandment, the use of this word is avoided out of respect for the divine mystery. » (p. 76)

As for the Lord’s prayer: « Our Father who art in Heaven », it signifies this: « By these words, we do not place God the Father on some far off star (sic!); rather, we express that while we have different earthly fathers, we nevertheless all come from a single Father, who is the measure and the origin of all paternity. »

Thus, the word Heaven does not signify a place but « this other dimension of the majesty of God from where we all come and towards which we must all go. The paternity “in Heaven” refers us to this greater “we” that goes beyond all borders, that tears down all walls, and that creates peace » here below (p. 165).

It is nevertheless written that Jesus raised His eyes to Heaven in order to pray to God His Father (Jn 17.1). Isn’t it?

« Hallowed be Thy Name. »

Quoting the priestly prayer, Benedict XVI writes that « Jesus then presents Himself as the new Moses: “I have made Your name known to men” (Jn 17.6). What began with the Burning Bush in the desert of Sinai is fulfilled with the Burning Bush of the cross. »

What a pity that this surprising image makes us forget another traditional one of unfathomable richness. Is it possible that Joseph Ratzinger is unaware of the mystical thought of the Fathers of the Church sung in the incomparable Gregorian antiphon?

« Rubum quem viderat Moyses incombustum, conservatam agnovimus, tuam laudabilem virginitatem.

« Dei Genitrix, intercede pro nobis ! »

« The Bush that Moses saw not burnt is Your perpetual virginity, the object of our praise.

« O Mother of God, intercede for us! »

For the Fathers of the Church, this bush was so replete with the presence of God that it seemed on fire, without, however, being burnt. It is the figure, not yet of the Cross, but of the virginal womb of Mary, completely filled with the real, physical Presence of the Word taking flesh under the Immaculate Heart of Mary, enflamed with love and burning like the Burning Bush.

Thus, we can apply to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by so many blasphemies, the recommendations of the Pope concerning this first petition of the Pater: « Do I see to it that God with us, in His holiness, is not dragged through the mud; rather, am I attentive that He raises us to the height of His purity and holiness? » (p. 168)

« Thy Kingdom come. »

Knowing that « Jesus is the reign of God in Person », does this petition « mean that we accept that His will be taken as a criterion »; even in institutions and laws? Yes, through the mediation of the heart of the King, according to « the first prayer of Solomon after his ascent to the throne », when he did not ask for long life, riches, or the lives of his enemies, but « a heart to understand how to discern between good and evil in order to govern this people of Yours ». (1 K 3.9).

« Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. »

We know a long while now that, according to Joseph Ratzinger, “Heaven” is not a place other than the “earth”. « Where the will of God is done, there is Heaven », he writes here. Thus, the earth itself become “Heaven” « if and inasmuch as the will of God is done there, whereas it is only “earth”, the pole opposite to Heaven, if and inasmuch as it fails to fulfil the will of God. This is why we ask that on earth it be like in Heaven, that the earth become “Heaven”. » (p. 171) This is how “Heaven”, the only goal of all our works, disappears like a mirage!

As for the « will of God », man knows it spontaneously through « a communion of knowledge with God, deeply inscribed within us, that we call the conscience ». Here the Pope refers to the teaching of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Rm 2.15). Then he continues by writing that this « knowledge », given by the Creator who created us “in his own likeness”, « was buried in history ». There is no reference to St. Paul here, and for good reason! The Apostle teaches something quite different: « For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin » (Rm 3.9) and not only under « serious prejudices within us » (p. 171)

The Apostle hastens to add that Jews and Greeks « are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus » (Rm 3.24).

Benedict XVI translates that « Jesus Himself, in the deepest and most authentic sense, is “Heaven” – He in whom and through whom the will of God is entirely done. By looking towards Him, we discover that we cannot be entirely “righteous” by our own means. » But a little bit, all the same… The dialogue with Neusner obliges, even against the clearest thought of the Apostle: « For, as we see it, a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. » (Rm 3.28)

« The force of gravity of our own will continually moves us away from the will of God and makes us become simple “earth”. He, however, accepts us, draws us towards the heights, to Him, in Him, and in communion with Him, we also learn the will of God. In this third petition of the Our Father, we ask to be able to approach Him more and more so that the will of God may prevail over the force of gravity of our egoism and that He may make us capable of the height to which we are called. » (pp. 173-174) Understand that it is this « height » that is called “Heaven”…

« Give us this day our daily bread. »

« Bread is the “fruit of the earth and the work of men”, but the earth does not bear fruits if it does not receive sunshine and rain from above. This synergy of cosmic forces, that eludes our control, opposes the temptation of our pride to give ourselves life, and that by means of our own capacities. »

The Pope recalls here that the Good God is the master. He makes it to rain and makes the sun to shine, and not us. We tend to forget it.

« Such pride makes us violent and cold. It ends with destroying the earth. »

This is the “ecological” meaning that Benedict XVI gives to this petition of the Pater, in accordance with the preoccupations that he shares with the “green patriarch” Bartholomew I…

« It cannot be otherwise, for it is opposed to the truth, which is that we men are bound to surpass ourselves and that only openness to God allows us to become great and free, to become ourselves. »

It is a return to the cult of man…

Then, coming back to our holy Catholic religion, Benedict XVI points out, as did St. Cyprian, that by asking our Father for our Bread, « we also ask for bread for the others ».

Furthermore, also according to a remark of St. Cyprian, « the one who prays for his daily bread is poor […]. Thus, the request for bread only for today opens perspectives that go beyond indispensable daily food. » It is, moreover, the meaning of « a word in this petition, which in our usual translation appears insignificant: give us this day our “daily” bread », in Greek epiousios, « an unusual and rare  word, to say the least ». Etymology clarifies the meaning of the word, which is translated by the Latin “supersubstantialis”, « meaning the superior substance that the Lord gives us in the Blessed Sacrament as the true bread of our life » (p. 187).

Thus unfolds what Benedict XVI calls « the theme of bread in the message of Jesus, from the temptation in the desert, to the multiplication of the loaves, to the Last Supper. » (p. 179). He will come back to this subject in the chapter on the « great images of John », in the light of the great discourse delivered by Jesus at Capernaum (Jn 6).

« Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. »

It seems, in reading Benedict XVI, that God is inaccessible to offences, but « every sin between men comprises in one way or another a violation of truth and love, and thus opposes God, who is Truth and Love » (p. 181).

This is why « overcoming sin is a central question of all human existence. The history of religions revolves around this question. Sin calls for vengeance, and thus is created an escalation of indebtedness where the evil of sin does not cease to increase and from which it becomes harder and harder to extricate oneself. By this petition, the Lord tells us: sin can only be overcome by Forgiveness, and not by vengeance […]. The theme of Forgiveness pervades the entire Gospel. We encounter it at the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, in the new interpretation of the fifth commandment, when the Lord tells us: “If therefore you are bringing your offering to the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother first, and then come back and present your offering.” (Mt 5.23-24) Anyone who is not reconciled with his brother cannot present himself before God. » (p. 181)

Will the Abbé de Nantes be fortunate enough to benefit from this doctrine, he who suffers unmotivated public condemnation on the part of men of the Church for forty years? Benedict XVI speaks words of wisdom: « Asking forgiveness is more than a moral appeal, which it also is, moreover. As such, it is a daily challenge that is offered to us. » To hear this appeal, however, to accept this challenge, it is necessary to enter into the mystery of the Heart of Jesus, and this is what is lacking according to the Pope himself: « The idea that for the remission of our sin, for healing men from the interior, God had paid the price of the death of His Son has become very alien to us today. » Is this a fruit of the Council? Certainly: « That the Lord had “borne our sufferings, and carried our sorrows”, that He had been “pierced through for our faults, that He was crushed by our sins” and that it is “through His wounds that we are healed” (cf. Is 53.4-5), that is no longer an obvious fact today. » (p. 183)

The Pope, however, magnificently explains it when commenting on the sixth petition.

« And lead us not into temptation. »

« The formulation of this petition seems shocking in the eyes of many people. God surely does not subject us to temptation. » Indeed not! St. James says so in his Epistle: « No one should say when he is tempted, “My temptation comes from God.” God cannot be tempted to do evil and He does not tempt anyone. » (Jm 1.13)

Yet, Jesus Himself, who is God, was subject to temptation, Benedict XVI recalls. How can we understand? « A glance at the Book of Job, where the mystery of Christ already emerges in many respects, can help us to see clearer. » (p. 185)

Satan obtains from God the permission to put Job to the test: « Very discretely, implicitly, there already appears here the mystery of vicarious satisfaction that reaches its fullness in Isaiah 53. The suffering of Job avails the justification of man. »

I have understood! The Abbé de Nantes, on the eve of his exile when he manifested the first symptoms of his illness, was considering making a commentary on the Book of Job. He did better: he is mimicking it; after having explained for forty years all the evils afflicting the Church through « the pride of the reformers », according to the first words of his Letter to Paul VI (CRC n^o 1, October 1967), he enters into the great mystery of expiation through “vicarious” humiliation. I only have to copy the Pope and transpose.

« Through his faith put to the test by suffering, he restores the honour of man [of the Church]. Thus, the suffering of Job is in advance suffering in communion with Christ [in imitation of Him], that restores the honour of everyone before God and that shows us the road, permitting us, in the most profound obscurity, not to lose faith in God. »

« But deliver us from evil. »

« The new translation of the Our Father says “from evil”, without distinguishing between “evil” and “the Evil one”, but in the end, the two are indissociable. Yes, we see before us the dragon about which the Apocalypse speaks (Chap. 12 and 13). John described “the beast that emerged from the sea”, from the sombre abyss of evil, with the attributes of Roman politial power […]. How topical all this is even though the Roman Empire and its ideologies have foundered! »

May Benedict XVI resume the great tradition of the papacy that our Father recalled in his Book of Accusation against Paul VI:

« All your Predecessors teach you as well as us that the Powers of Satan are not satisfied with exerting an influence that is wholly invisible and immaterial, and remains confined to individuals. They become embodied also in certain institutions, carrying out their oppressive, aggressive functions in a visible manner through individuals and organisations whose distinguishing mark is that they are occult. Your Predecessors made every effort to unmask these and anathematise them, identifying them by certain characters: their opposition to the Church, their claim to be tolerant of all views, their supposed search for truth, their frank secularism... When they recognised these marks, your Predecessors knew that they were on the scent of the Evil One and they took every care to protect Catholics from such movements. » (Book of Accusation I, 1973, p. 62) (to be continued)

Brother Bruno of Jesus