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!

OUR LADY OF FATIMA CAMP 2007

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

ECUMENISM (2)

(DECREE : « UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO »)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES 

Re-read this “confession”, which is as sincere as it can be. I will condemn the Council for possession of stolen goods and misuse of the supreme common good: God. It is grand simony, very big “racket”, but that is what it is! – and the main thing is to succeed. At all costs, succeed. This § 12 is, in fact, the conclusion of the entire theoretical and practical study of the ways of ecumenism by the Council.

Now, the first part of this study opened a Hegelian-type synthesis; thus it was very idealistic, unreal and characterised by its subjective will or sentiments. The thesis is Catholic truth, which offers no other solution than the conversion of non-Catholics. The antithesis sets out the equal value of the various Churches and their conceptions; one must find among these conceptions a manner of co-existence, of imperfect union: ecumenism holds the field pending an improbable, inconceivable synthesis.

The second part is Marxist: this dialectical synthesis must be implemented, and it will come about as we advance. It is easy; the history of divisions is detailed without analysing their dogmatic causes and great events; they are like trains that travel in convoy on parallel tracks: we could jump tracks and substitute love for hatred, dialogue and sympathetic cooperation for wars, for trials of the Inquisition. Whatever the theological differences may be, we will get along better.

All the more will this be so because with frequent repetition the idea is forced on us that the world is uniting, that it is moving away from religions, and that soon their outdated mosaic will come to an end, like that of nations, sects and cultures. Then it will be the Spirit, who governs the universe, who will do us the grace of shaking us and forcing us to make a success of ecumenism, by reducing these 360 sects to one single « Christian » religion.

He will help men to construct the new city by giving it highly human principles, like the model of the « civilisation of love », whose innermost mainspring in the hearts of Christians will be faith in Christ and in His love.

There remains to be considered our partners, in this perspective of “professional winegrowers.” In order to survive, they are forced to seek a basis, common ground, and to make an effort for everyone to sacrifice to it his own particular interests. The goal is to seal a solid, salutary agreement among the three blocks: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, all three of which have decided to negotiate and to make this work. Now, it is high time to note that it is the Church alone who built up this project of a viable ecumenism. The Church is sovereign and armed with her “notes” or eminent properties of unity, holiness, Catholicity and apostolicity; she could have yielded nothing but points of detail and demanded a fundamental conversion by her partners, either through individual returns or community returns, without a decree, coercion, or collective pressure. The Church did not do so because a different will prevailed.

We have been unable not to notice that – undoubtedly out of kindness and in order to achieve success! – in everything and at all times, the Council posed as the prosecutor, the accuser, or at least the caustic critic of the Catholic Church. It counted on a « permanent reform » that would improve her in its eyes and before the world, which has been justly scandalised by her many faults! This would as though necessarily satisfy the other interested parties. No effort is demanded from the latter; no criticism is directed at them. They are not studied, nor are they living and speaking. The longer this silence lasts, the more the Council anticipates claims or supposed desires. In the end, these inscrutable human blocks have not budged. It is impressive; the Church has descended incrementally so far from her original lofty position that she will end up converting in order to become Anglican or to merge with this “Church” that is so close, that it will no longer surprise anyone.

Then, the Council thought it would be good to speak well of these future reunited brothers. The bride will never be too beautiful for her wedding day! Likewise, the ecumaniacs decided to entice us, to appeal to us by means of the perfections of these heresies and schisms, taking care – out of charity or out of necessity? – to remain silent about the rest, which is all the truth, alas! the reality about them that God, the Church and His saints always abhor.

When this last chapter is analysed, something will seem obvious to us: the way that our Holy Church of yesterday, in days of old and of always was betrayed by a band of swindlers who work for the World, for honours, and the goods of the earth, at the high price of damning souls and incurring the Wrath of God.

CHAPTER III

Under the title “Churches and Ecclesial Communities Separated from the Roman Apostolic See”, here is an

APPEALING PRESENTATION OF HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC SECTS

13. « We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division (the word is gentle and insignificant; the true term is “schism”, and the result of a schism is called a « sect ») as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. » The presentation of them here is of such evasive generality that it borders on saying nothing at all. You will be no further forward when the text will have evoked historical persons, but without names, without dates, without any mention of their condemnations or their attempts at union, and you are told:

« These various divisions differ greatly from one another not only by reason of their origin, place and time, but especially (well, well!) in the nature and seriousness of questions bearing on faith and the structure of the Church. »

Now, so far we know nothing about these two serious files, since we have been too occupied in probing the serious stains and infirmities of our Church in order to remedy them boldly. Will we know nothing else, nothing except that the beauties and virtues of our separated brothers tend to excuse them for the differences with and oppositions to our tradition? This would make their own tradition undoubtedly different but equal, and even superior on certain points.

I. ON THE EASTERN CHURCHES

It is an unabashed apology…

14. Their tradition is as ancient as ours, without a break of continuity:

« Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the Apostles themselves. »

Let us not forget either the treasures, « of the liturgy, the spiritual tradition and law », that our West owes to this privileged East. The Second Vatican Council rightly recalls that the first ecumenical Councils were held in the East, but this was in the time of the undivided Church.

« The heritage handed down by the Apostles was received with differences of form and manner, so that from the earliest times of the Church it was explained variously in different places, owing to diversities of genius and conditions of life. »

This is a vagueness that hides immense passions. We will know nothing further, in order to excuse better the West at the expense of Rome:

« All these reasons (unstated), quite apart from external causes, arising also from a lack of charity and mutual understanding gave rise to the separations. »

The truth is that Rome saved unity for a thousand years, as they coped with Eastern Patriarchs who were sycophants of their emperors, and with them longed to take away from Rome her title of Sovereign Mother and Teacher of all the Churches. The pride of the patriarchs of Constantinople! As for the doctrinal divisions, they set the rationalist tradition of Antioch and through it, of Constantinople against the mystical tradition of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cappadocia. I laugh when the eastern mysticism of the Greek Church is set against Roman rationalism. The Byzantine monks and patriarchs, who were increasingly rebellious against Rome, only contributed the word “Byzantinism” – which designates them admirably – to the Latins’ treasures of theology.

But the Council only wants to utter praise so that the Church will have « pour Rodrigue les yeux de Chimène » (“Le Cid” Corneille):

« For this reason the Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the hoped for restoration of full communion (and if they devote themselves, you can count on them to impose on us all the sacrifices necessary to reach their ends),… to form an equitable judgement on all these points.. »

THE LITURGICAL AND SPIRITUAL TRADITION OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.

It is unabashed praise.

15. « Everyone also knows with what great love the Christians of the East celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the Eucharistic celebration, source of the Church’s life and pledge of future glory, in which the faithful, united with their bishop, have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh, who died and has been glorified, and so, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they enter into communion with the Most Holy Trinity, being made “sharers of the divine nature” (2 Pt 1.4) », etc.

Would the Council have such formulas for the pontifical Masses of the ancient Roman rite that Mgr Lefebvre celebrated? Why must it be a question of the schismatic “Orthodox” for our western theologians to think about exalting the Mass as something other than a meal, sharing, and brotherhood!

By dint of this excessiveness, some troubled souls went over from Catholicism to the Orthodox schism, even ignoring that there exist deserving eastern rite patriarchal Churches that are perfectly Roman, which are referred to by an offensive sounding word that has become pejorative: the “Uniates” – for example, in Ukraine.

« In this liturgical worship, the Christians of the East pay high tribute, in beautiful hymns of praise, to Mary ever Virgin, whom the ecumenical Council of Ephesus solemnly proclaimed to be the holy Mother of God ».

No mention is made, however, of the paranoiac and obstinate refusal of the schismatic Greeks to accept the titles and privileges that the Roman Church has infallibly recognised to the Immaculate Virgin. Too much flattery will only intensify their pride.

The Council then forges ahead along the way of confusing the Churches in opposition to the most certain Roman tradition, which forbids it, in order to allow, authorise, and advocate “communicatio in sacris”. The schismatics puff themselves up to see the eagerness of Christian Europeans to go into ecstasies over their holy liturgy and to receive Communion in their way under the two species. I quote:

« These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true Sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy (come on!). Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances (?) and the approval of Church authority (which authority? Ours here, or that of the places where this whimsical infidelity causes a scandal?), is not only possible but to be encouraged. »

So, is it also possible with Lefebvre? Is it desirable?! The bandits!

Again the « spiritual traditions » are commended, and then comes the conclusion: « Catholics therefore are earnestly (!) recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers that lift up the whole man (really!) to the contemplation of the divine mysteries. » Even so, a distinction could have been made between the mystical authors from the era known as “the undivided Church”, and those who composed their works in the anti-Roman schism, and not ignore the appreciable works – but swept under the carpet – of the ever so deserving Uniates!

Enough is enough. I stick to my duty in order to continue to the end, yet so overweening is this praise that to me it seems pure marketing… Read the conclusion of this paragraph concerning eastern mystical literature. It is “grand”, and it is grotesque:

« All must recognise that it is of supreme importance to know (!), venerate (!), preserve (!), and develop (!) the very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches in order to preserve faithfully the fullness of Christian tradition (sic), and to bring about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians. »

But, of course, bunny! as Léon Daudet used to shout out to silence Aristide Briand. Well! I ask you, have you seen, since the Council, a group of bishops, or even ten, or three bishops write this, which is in the same spirit; read it closely and tell me:

« All must recognise that it is of supreme importance to know, venerate, preserve, and develop the very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of our Western Church in order to preserve faithfully the fullness of Catholic, Christian tradition, and to bring about reconciliation between Catholic traditionalists and conciliar Catholics. »

It is demonstrative, isn’t it!

SPECIAL DISCIPLINE OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.

There is unconditional praise…

The Eastern Churches have an ecclesiastical organisation that is age-old and is particular to them. Fair enough… But the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council are absolutely thoughtless and give us a surprising lesson:

16. « Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, they proclaim seriously, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendour, and is of great help in carrying out her mission. »

So it is truth in the East and sin in the West? For, in the end we see traditions and customs foolishly destroyed by our liturgical commissions – a massacre! – in order to substitute for them the inventions of the moment, to impose them tyrannically on all the parish priests of all the parishes of the world and to founder soon into an abominably vulgar anarchy! Really, we feel like fleeing Notre-Dame, crossing the Seine and entering into Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre, which is of the Eastern rite but perfectly Catholic… Yet it would rather be necessary to leave them their church and to restore in our Mother, the Latin Church, her destroyed treasures.

Here is another reflection on this discipline, which is proper to them. The Council takes us to task: « To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East (schismatics and Uniates together), while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church (oh! oh!), have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. »

Then the following is added; in cauda venenum, because this venom is instilled as the conclusion of an enormous falsehood that is made against our Church, and against our papacy, principally.

« The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed (No! This is an outrageous lie.) carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity. »

For Rome to regret, to accuse herself is an unconditional surrender before the schismatics, which was demanded in Saint Peter’s by the entire episcopal college (without any favourable vote by the eastern “Uniate” patriarchs, I hope). And St Gregory VII, who is buried in this very aula, did not lift up his tombstone to anathematise all of them?

For here is the truth in a nutshell.

What explains the Eastern schism is the pathological pride of the patriarchs of Constantinople, who were urged on by their basileus. The latter claimed to be universal emperor, in his new Rome, the former followed close on his heels or preceded him, claiming to be the Pope, Sovereign Pontiff of the whole earth as a veritable successor of St. Peter. There resulted a series of breaks, reconciliations, new rebellions, from Photius to Michael Cerularius These upheavals only affected the upper hierarchy, but little by little an evil, anti-Roman disposition spread; it was encouraged by the deep contempt that these eastern peoples had towards the Western Barbarians who were camped on the ruins of the empire…

We notice that our Decree does not breathe a word on this criminal break; they remain the dispositions of the great majority of present-day “Orthodox”. It is a lie by omission, all the more so because in this § 16, it states that these Eastern Churches have a ecclesiastical discipline that « is not at all contrary to the unity of the Church ». When speaking about a considerable part of the Body of Christ that violently separated itself from its Roman Head, it is more than a daring gesture; it is a lie that will embolden the Easterners!

The Council distracts us from this important matter by praising this conduct, this atmosphere of government that is so characteristic, that we would say a “counsel”, with a hint of mystery and wonder if we speak of “koinônia” in Greek, and of “sobornost” in Muscovite. But the results are more than disappointing. Only Roman order and authoritarian discipline maintain unity such as Christ instituted it. In Greek or Russian, these nice counsels multiply the ruling heads, and pride incites them to compensate for the weaknesses of the system by a tyranny that has been passively endured for centuries. The autocephaly of the national Churches is an irrefutable proof of this.

This explains the more than regrettable character of this flattering discourse coming from Rome for dying Churches that were stuck yesterday between Russian Communism and Arab Islam, and that since the Council dare to make zany verbal aggressions that are piously hushed up here so as not to worry us.

DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS.

The bootlicking continues, and there is no reason for it.

17. « What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in matters of worship and discipline must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. »

I admire this conciliar petty officiousness! It proceeds by diktat. Here, the « lawful variety » of « differences in theological expression of doctrine must be » accepted. It must be! On the hypothesis that it is a matter of some seriousness… Here is the reason why: « It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other (one must obviously think: by the Greeks better than the Latins), or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions must (ah! no, this is going too far! I finish my sentence and I explain) be considered often (idem) as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. »

We are prepared to examine whether there is an absolute contradiction, or difficulty, or even compatibility. But it is crazy for the Council to dictate to us what we must think before having examined anything. Obviously, they are bootlickers who have gotten out of the habit of being proofread and corrected by intelligent secretaries.

Once again there are extreme praises to the Eastern Churches for their « authentic traditions », but who is the judge of this authenticity? Is it the Council? The schismatic Eastern Churches would rebel. If it is them, it must be known that in the bundle there are some that the Church could never “authenticate” with her seal. It does not matter; the Council is more inclined to eulogy when it is a question of rebels against the Authority of Peter than when it is a question of its close and ardent faithful. It concludes: « Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life (?) and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth. » The expression is repeated from § 15. This is a conditioned reflex, like Pavlov’s dog that salivated when the bell rang. In the West, it is very elegant and even mystical to evoke the East and its “contemplatives”. Here in the West it is subway, work!

Ah, Patmos!

To conclude, it is necessary to bring everyone to agreement, including those who are always forgotten. This makes a fine sentence, more balanced than is the truth, and the sad reality. But it is, alas, a constant fact of our great international assemblies and meetings that they choose with a miraculous intuition the bad person in order to make him better and exclude from their assistance, advice and help, the person who is good, sure, faithful, the friend who does not dare to ask for anything and fears the worst if international attention turns towards him:

« We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage (they forget to say that it is marvellous, mystical, etc.), and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives (no! to express it as they expressed it for centuries, i.e., simply and without being concerned about perfecting it!), are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West… »

I stop, because there is an « already » that intrigues me or rather warns me that something is being hatched.

– What is it, prophet of gloom?

– Well! They are already integrated into the Church for centuries. They belong to another Council! So, when we are going to make a new Eastern Church with all the separated brethren reconciled, they are going to be quite embarrassing… and I pity them in advance!

– Come now! Let us read on, then:

« All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. »

It is like de Gaulle: « While I am alive, Algeria will remain French! » Ah! the promises and the oaths of the “great”! Even the “greatest” Council of all time – I mean quantitatively – really betrayed us, the civilised Latin and Latinised Catholics, swearing to us earnestly that our treasures would be preserved, and they chucked them all out. My God! My God! What liars they are! What a pity! Now the Uniates are going to understand their suffering!

But all is not lost, as we will soon see.

II. THE SEPARATED CHURCHES
 AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE WEST

« THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THESE COMMUNITIES ».

The new introduction (§ 19) that we are going to read is not more precise or enlightening that the previous one (§ 13). They begin by effacing the well-known reasons and causes for what the Church used to call the Protestant « heresies », and which were one of the two or three catastrophes of our History of Christianity. Faithful to its liberalism, the Council keeps what is positive without warning that it erases the entire essence of the implied drama. Charity? Dissimulation! Falsehood!

19. « In the great upheaval that began in the West toward the end of the Middle Ages, and in later times too, Churches and ecclesial Communities came to be separated (sic) from the Apostolic See of Rome. Yet they have retained a particularly close affinity (well, well!) with the Catholic Church (this is paradoxical!) as a result of the long centuries in which all Christendom lived together in ecclesiastical communion. »

It is like the wife and the mistress: they have so much intimacy with the same object of their love that we can very well speak of them as very close friends who have more affinity than disagreements!

Aside from that, it is astounding that these communities are so different « in their origins, their doctrine, and their spiritual life » that it is « extremely difficult to describe them; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here. »

It is an incredible abdication! This timidity to object is strange. Notwithstanding, this Act of a solemn Ecumenical Council fills page after page with observations that are doctrinal, moral, social and cultural and whose aim is to express its judgement on them and decide the Church’s attitude towards this 359-headed monster!

Here there is a sidestepping interlude, a jet of lukewarm water on the Assembly: « Although the ecumenical movement and the desire for peace with the Catholic Church have not yet (not yet!) taken hold everywhere, it is our hope that ecumenical feeling and mutual esteem may gradually increase among all men. » Our esteem for an indefinable thingamajig! Ugh!

Did you say “indefinable”? You lied about it, because here it is:

« It must however (ah!) be admitted (ah! ah!) that in between these Churches and ecclesial Communities (they use long and beautiful formulas that are acts of usurpation because they are indefinable in their generic form!) and the Catholic Church, there exist important differences … » Ah! In § 19 of a text that will come to an end three numbers further on, they make a confession, finally, under duress, like Foucauld who was forced to admit before the colonel that the “Viscountess de Foucauld” who had debarked with the regiment in Sétif is (“it must be admitted that…”) a dancer from the Paris Opera? Then, immediate dismissal of the delegates from the Thingamajig and their conniving conciliar experts…?! As for the girl, and the resignation of Foucauld, the first step towards conversion and the march to martyrdom…

Well, no! After the admission of what has been known by the whole world for four hundred and fifty years: « …there exist important differences not only of an historical, sociological, psychological and cultural character (phew! but at last, they are going to come to the point), but especially in the interpretation of revealed truth. » Notice how the hypocrisy progresses down a level from the heights, because the admission is concealed under a deceitful expedient: the Council, the authentic Magisterium of the Church, with full complement, situates the « important differences », not in the faith of the ones and the others, here the Catholic Faith imposed by the Councils, the Popes, and the tradition of the entire Church and, opposite them, this unmentionable thingamajig, whose common denominator is the refusal to believe in this Revelation, but in « the interpretation » of a « revealed Truth » commonly accepted.

Nevertheless, after pages and pages of affected court language that oozes with (unilateral) admiration and complements, it is going to become serious: it is a question of ever so slight obstacles, does it not! Heresy, which broke Christianity into two irreconcilable blocks, with torrents of blood, conflagrations, immense acts of destruction, the extension of this dreadful war of religions to the entire planet. This is the subject to be treated. Masks will have to fall, and a section of the Catholic Church that is already too involved in the betrayal will have to go or be expelled if we want, as we should, that heresy not spread to the entire Church of the Truth.

Its affair arranged, well prepared, the Council regains its confidence in order to announce the programme: « To make easier (!) the ecumenical dialogue in spite of these differences (which is still thought to exist between the sects, and not between them and the Church), we wish (sic) to set down some considerations which can, and indeed should, serve as a basis and encouragement for such dialogue. »

We shall see. The fight is going to be fierce.

FIRST DODGE, FIRST LIE ON THE ESSENTIAL.

Under the title “Faith in Christ”, it is a classic. The style is grandiose, biblical, with a sumptuous richness of evocation of all our Christian mysteries… or at least almost all. The « important differences » concern revealed Catholic truths, but which are omitted by the Council… because one can obviously not say everything!

Otherwise, it is a sly text. Here it is:

20. « Our thoughts turn first to those Christians who make open confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the sole Mediator between God and men, to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (mysteries accepted by everyone). We are aware indeed (hem! pay attention) that there exist considerable divergences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning Christ Himself, the Word of God made flesh, the work of redemption, and consequently (well!), concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church (where will they stop?), and the role of Mary in the plan of salvation. »

It is catastrophic! It is irremediable! You never told us all of this! And John XXIII in his ever so optimistic opening speech did not tell us anything of the sort! The conciliar Fathers made a confession this time.

– Are they not overwhelmed?

– No!

– No?

– Not in the least. They are delighted!

– You are mocking!

– I, not in the least, but they are. They mock God about whom St. Paul rightly said: « God is not mocked. » (Ga 6.7) On the other hand, Psalm 2 prophesised it about all those who insult Him and rebel against Him: « He who lives in the heavens laughs (yise§aq Yahweh ). He says: They are grotesque! » (Ps 2.4).

Then the joy of the Council makes me tremble for them, all these « perpetrators of iniquity ». For, after this list of Protestant heresies – which moreover were hidden! – our bishops continue, chained as they are to their ecumaniacal pact to all the heresiarchs of the earth: « But we rejoice to see that our separated brethren look to Christ (not to the Church) as the source and centre of Church unity (and here they are exonerated from all their heresies). Their longing for union with Christ inspires them to seek an ever closer unity (by the Spirit, obviously), and also to bear witness to their faith among the peoples of the earth. »

May anathema be cast on the authors of these lines, anathema on this joy that conspires in the crime of rebellion against the Church! How is this? It is specious, it is true. It must be explained. For the first time, the Council draws up a list – oh, the vaguest of lists and, furthermore, one lacking mention of how the Catholic Faith has been contradicted and what doctrines the infallible Roman Magisterium condemned… Having said it, the Council shrugs its shoulders, and appeals against these trifles, this Catholic pettiness, these controversies that are insulting to Jesus Christ. He is well above all that! And in the heights where He is enthroned in the heavens, where the barriers and the walls of our narrow-mindedness, our inquisitions and our prisons do not reach, there rise towards Him innocent prayers, holy desires and the incense of the Protestant « Churches and communities »; open-minded Catholics, the hope of tomorrow’s universal Church, are fond of joining in their protests against their own Church’s refusals.

Brilliantly the Council jumped over one barrier. Others remain to be overturned.

SECOND DODGE, SECOND SCANDAL ON THE ESSENTIAL.

Basically, I prefer Charles de Foucauld standing up to his colonel, refusing through stupid pride the wise admonitions of the “father of the regiment” and submitting his resignation. Characters like that also know one day their road of Damascus… But this Council! It pursues imperturbably its work of indoctrination. It will go as far as necessary, but it will never abandon its sworn ecumenism even if it should mean denying Jesus Christ.

It attacks a second barrier under the title “Study of Scripture”.

I quote the first four lines. Are they innocent? They apparently are. They are perverse as you are going to see. But what artful lying !

21. « A love and reverence of Sacred Scripture, which might be described as devotion (why yes, go ahead! cult, worship) – leads our brethren to a constant meditative study of the sacred text (that we Catholics have abandoned – as is common knowledge! – for centuries). For the Gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and then to the Greek” (Rm 1.16). »

How can we not be convinced by this admirable text whose base the words of the Apostle consolidate? Is St. Paul wrong?

No, never… Then? The Council speaks about two religions, two different interpretations of the Sacred Book, as though they were similar. Now, since our God instituted the Church in order to interpret the Book, the letter of the holy Gospels in accordance with the Truth and with His Holy Spirit, only the Catholic faithful please Him infinitely, and He produces in them with love and superabundance of graces what St. Paul said to the Romans with enthusiasm.

But this same God, the Unique, the only living and true God refuses to recognise the Gospel of His Son in the interpretations that impudent men introduce on their own authority, which is null and void, and under the cover of an alleged light of the Holy Spirit in them. Even when they speak and explain the Gospels as the Church does, God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Triune, loathe this criminal and disastrous counterfeiting because the divine truth is changed into an idea, an opinion, a reason, an impression, a human persuasion. When in addition these interpretations claim inner lights that come from the Holy Spirit « who has been given to us », pride and illuminism are added to this counterfeit, a pride and illuminism that open the soul to the influences of Satan, to all the urgings of the world, to the whims and aberrations of the flesh.

What the Council finds most praiseworthy in the Protestants is loathed by God, by the Church of all time, and by all the saints. Read again “The History of the Variations of Protestant Churches”, the very remarkable work of our Bénigne Bossuet, and you will be convinced by their diversity, their variations, their oppositions and the ferocious fights that resulted from them, that all these schismatic “gospels” substitute human commentaries, carnal rather than spiritual, and the spirit of darkness, the enemy of the Spirit of God, for the Word of Christ, and for the guarantee of the Holy Spirit from which the Church benefits.

But here the conciliar Fathers themselves confirm the truth of my criticism, with this difference: they say ingenuously that this is really the Protestant “faith”, which is self-confidence and within oneself, confidence in the Paraclete who is enthroned there… But it is very, very, very close to the Catholic Faith. Woe is us!| It is Man, the individual jealous of his infallibility, who substitutes himself for the Church…!

« While invoking the Holy Spirit (but not receiving Him, because they are outside the Church and proudly her competitors), they seek in these very Scriptures God (the expression is typically Masonic when it is question not of a mystical aspiration to the holy union of the soul with the divine will and love, but of an intellectual, intuitive and immediate knowledge. The Council only knows Christians from whatever Church or sect, who « seek God », and woe be to the Catholic who affirms that he has found Him!)... » Thus, they « seek God as it were speaking to them in Christ, whom the prophets foretold, who is the Word of God made flesh for us (if He, the Son of God, wants to tell us His Word, why do we have to make the detour by the Pope, our bishop, and our parish priest!). They contemplate in the Scriptures the life of Christ and what the Divine Master taught and did for our salvation, especially (!) the mysteries of His death and resurrection. »

What is admirable is that this personal contemplation, which is interiorly illuminated, ends up repeating like a parrot the explanations of the local pastor, and above all the enormous misinterpretations, which the Church has denounced and destroyed numerous times, on which the notorious founders whose names are not mentioned by the Council, had built their sect. All this is wretched. But falling step by step ever lower, see what level of abjectness that they reach: the bishops point out the opinion, or rather the various Protestant opinions, that differ from « the Catholic Faith », and the Council settles into this pluralism, dragging us along with it!

« But while the Christians who are separated from us hold the divine authority of the Sacred Books, their opinion (sic) differs from ours (the emphasis is mine) –-some in one way, some in another – regarding the relationship between Scripture and the Church. For, according to Catholic belief, the authentic teaching authority of the Church has a special place in the interpretation and preaching of the written word of God. »

This is a curious way of settling the question of “oral Tradition”, a source of divine Revelation, but one that the Protestants refuse to recognise.

With us Catholics of yesteryear, ah! how they strike their crosier on the pavement of their cathedrals to force us to believe all that they will invent and do! Fall in, four abreast, and forward march! Thus we will admire to see them so small, so modest when they claim – against the Protestants who swear that they have no need of it – a « special place », a foldaway seat, before each of these rebels whose pride Boileau summarised in a few words: « Every Protestant is Pope, a Bible in his hand. » Let us remember that our bishops accept this « opinion that differs from ours » about which they say that it is « according to Catholic belief », an indication of a liberalism that does not yet dare to come out into the open: in the Churches and their various histories, the truth gave rise to a hundred interpretations, each one reacting according to its own opinion. Let us leave it at that, and quickly, let us hurry on to construct a new democracy!

The conclusion is slapdash: « But (!) the Sacred Words provide for the work of dialogue (since Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam on 6 August 1964, “dialogue” is the panacea of all intellectual and spiritual life, even though there is nothing more decadent and degenerate than this mental process of mutual neutralisation of thinking), an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hands of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all men. »

Read it, re-read it! See these « mighty hands of God » who kneads His words in order to bring all men to agreement – no! – but to make them “one”, united on all the rest: love, life, peace, anything! As for the truth: everyone pursues his investigations, will make his own, and the Council is in full agreement.

THIRD DODGE, THIRD SACRILEGE, THE ULTIMATE!

On this chapter treating « the sacramental life », the Council will honestly (?) speak of only Baptism and the Eucharist. This will already be rather difficult. The other Sacraments then! It is better to speak of what unites us rather that what divides us. Of course, my little white bunny!

22. Baptism, when correctly administered is always valid, on the condition, however, that it « be received with the right dispositions ». This is said without insistence, and the Council hastens to celebrate the new and marvellous state of the new Christian: « Man is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life ». A long and powerful quotation of St. Paul is given in support (Col 2.12).

Usefully, the Council recalls that it is only a beginning, « an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. » Once again it is well expressed, and here is the essential point: « It, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith (Catholic, obviously; but the Council cannot say so without undermining the whole ecumenical house), complete incorporation in the system of salvation (undoubtedly the present ecumenical pluralism is implied: everyone is to remain in his Church or sect, since all of them are “ordinary means of salvation” for their members) such as Christ willed it to be (which is to say that His thought and will on this matter was much broader than how the Church conceived Her universalism), and finally complete ingrafting in Eucharistic communion. » That is what I call an end! We have reached the unexpected essential and nonnegotiable element… Is it a marvel of the Catholic Faith? Let us wait and see…

Still, concerning Baptism there already was a very shameful, mean trick but one that avoided many difficulties. I take advantage of the occasion to say something that I never hear recalled, which was and will always remain a constant, to say it honestly obsessive, Catholic truth … a truth that, according to Luther, makes Christians into « anxious souls », whom he – the poor devil – wanted to liberate. Do you understand what I want to speak about? Well, about this detail in the life of a Christian, whoever he may be, that is called the “state of grace”, and that is also “sanctifying grace”. This marvellous gift maintains the soul’s union with God and provides it the fervour of devotions and virtues that revive unceasingly the exchanges of love of God and of His creature, really and mutually. Good!

Nevertheless, it is true that sin, not only grave sin but mortal sin, derives its name from its dreadful effect, namely, breaking these ever so precious bonds and, therefore, losing “sanctifying grace”. In consequence, the Christian in a state of mortal sin can no longer approach any Sacrament, without thereby contracting a new “sacrilege”; the only exception is Penance or “Confession”, which, when received properly, will restore to him all the spiritual goods that he had lost.

Now, no one ever speaks about this. Obviously, since Baptism is an absolute beginning, it makes, without any transition, the sinner into a saint, even out of the worst sinner. The adult Protestant asks for the Protestant baptism either because he knows no other or wants no other. This baptism is valid. He is a saint! So, for him as for every Catholic divine assistance abounds, but also the indissociable requirements of Christ and His Church, and the difficulties begin.

I am not writing a moral treatise here, I am only saying that there is many a slip ’twixt cup and lip. The Council passes over all that in order to justify all these dear, great ecumenists with whom it dialogues. To remind them that it is Jesus the Catholic who baptises and takes charge of the newly baptised would amount to implying that “outside of the Church”, there is no sanctifying grace or salvation, unless it is being prepared in an innocent soul who is on the way. Furthermore, no one can lose the Catholic Faith or, if he was baptised elsewhere, refuse its preaching, without committing a mortal sin and excluding himself from the benefit of the Sacraments received in schism or heresy.

In short, these various difficulties force us to preach the truth: i.e., sin is devouring the world to the extent that most Catholics themselves do not usually live in a state of grace and sacrilegiously receive Communion in such a state. The members of the heretical or schismatic Churches or sects are in a worse state by the very fact that their opposition to the Catholic Faith deprives them of the grace needed for their faithfulness to the divine commandments. Lastly, to speak under these conditions of a « union » of any order to masses of people who live outside of divine grace, who only belong to the « Mystical Body of Christ » as dead members, is a lie, a sacrilegious illusion. It gives the impression of building an ideal, universal « Christian democracy » thanks to the “movement of spiritual animation” established under the name of the « ecumenical movement », not by celebrating the Mystical Body of Christ that is composed of all the baptised or those who desire Baptism (I am in favour of casting the net wide towards the poor, the weak, the humble and the persecuted), but by amassing the cadavers of souls that are already dead without worrying about first giving life back to them.

So, the end of the beautiful conciliar sentence is deceitful when it confuses everything: true and false Churches, true faith and heresy, true charity and schism, and when it thrusts all the baptised from all confessions, directo, from the baptismal fonts to the Communion table… and to what Communion table; it is the crowing piece. This Council manages to establish a sort of equivalence between their Eucharist and ours.

A COUNCIL SACRILEGIOUS IN WORDS, AND THE ACTS FOLLOWED!

It is the last stage of this journey of the perfect Protestant that was just outlined to us in the preceding paragraph as a flawless perfection: we cannot, of course, refuse to them what the Gospel presents as the fulfilment of faithfulness to Christ, otherwise there would be no eternal salvation or life of sanctifying grace, or resurrection of the dead!

So, will we have to cheat? Let us cheat; it will be laborious, but we have nothing to lose, let us begin!

« Though the ecclesial Communities that are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe that (and though we Catholics have the feeling or the opinion that) they have not retained the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the Sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. »

We do not dare to use this immense muddled circumlocution to accuse the Council of praising and giving value to these Protestant “Lord’s Suppers” that are obviously invalid and sacrilegious mockeries of the Sacrament par excellence of divine Love for His wretched creatures… But if we have kept in mind what this Decree already very daringly said in its § 3, we would have reason to fear sacrilege in the very texts of the Council… We, in fact, read this, under the enticing title “Relations between the Separated Brethren and the Catholic Church”:

« The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion (sic). These most certainly (where does this unverifiable affirmation come from?) can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition (sic!) of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded (in the name of whom and what?) as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. » (§ 3; cf. He is Risen, no 66, March 2008, p. 10)

This text is impious. What comes from Satan cannot be a « sacred action », and to perform mockeries of the Mass cannot give « access to the community of salvation »! But I will point out to you the confirmation of our criticisms in the Council’s overestimation of the “holy Supper” of the Reformed Protestants:

1o The joy of our conciliar Fathers upon seeing the Protestants « look to Christ as the source and centre of Church unity » should be particularly dampened by their contempt for the Sacrament of His Love.

2o The Protestants’ love, veneration, even cult for the Scriptures is wrongly praised when the very words of Christ that institute Holy Orders and the Eucharist are fallaciously “interpreted”. Under the impulse of what Spirit do they do so?

3o Those who gather together resemble one another or will end up resembling one another. The bishops’ offhand way of playing on transubstantiation as an “opinion” leaves a few possibilities and values to the Protestant liturgies and is all we need to show the harmfulness of this entire ecumenical movement, which can only be tolerated by those who are already liberal Christians or by those who are ready and close to becoming so. Thus we will witness, if this game with the Devil continues a while longer, the general apostasy of the Church.

The conclusion of this paragraph on sacramental life is not reassuring: « Therefore (!) the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other Sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue. » This short sentence summarises all of the Council’s abdications:

1o It is a question of the Sacraments, and first of the Eucharist, or the « Lord’s Supper »; it is the mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that is evoked after the baptism that we have in common, and before the « other Sacraments of the Church ». Which Church? It can be deduced, but it is not stated: the undivided Church of old? No, but the undivided Church of the year 2000, in which the “Mass” will finally be one of the particular rites of the « Lord’s Supper »…

2o As for the « other Sacraments », we know how the Protestants eliminated them or violated their sacred laws; the Council certainly dreams more of joining them than the Protestants are determined to return to Catholic Tradition!

3o Likewise, under the general title of « worship », it is the whole of piety, adoration of God, of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, of the Cross, devotion to the Virgin Mary, to the saints, without forgetting the sacramentals, which are mentioned as a file to study under the demanding perspective of ecumenism; will anything be left? Undoubtedly no more than in Anglicanism, at the most.

4o Finally – the Anglican would say: last but not least, and we, in Latin: in cauda venenum. I translate: and to conclude, the head on the block, a big stroke of the axe, St. Thomas More, pray for us! I explain. Seriously, with regards to our absolute antagonisms concerning all these holy things – review the list! – the Council imperatively declares: « Therefore (it…) must ». Why: therefore? Because the Protestants are so convinced that their acts of worship « give (them) access to the community of salvation » that, we Catholics cannot properly leave it at our condemnations and pontifical decrees on the invalidity of these schismatic institutions. This is negative. Our separated brethren and the Catholic ecumenist elite demanded something “constructive”. Thus, all these “highly topical files” had to be made « the subject of the dialogue ».

It is the Council that said so, in the time of Paul VI; he was keen on “dialogue” conceived as a negotiation, but with hand on heart, in love, and not with the knife in the hand as enemies. As is proper in dialoguing, along with the willingness for… conciliation comes the recognition of faults on both sides, each side yielding, fifty-fifty, some of its convictions and interests in view of peace. Thus, the Second Vatican Council leaves the pulpit of Truth in order to hold discussions halfway down the steps with the various Protestant communities in hope that they will rally round a moderate position, in the image and likeness of Anglicanism. I do not go back over the contemptible character of this compromise, which is detestable to God, to Christ, and to His true Church, which annuls the full truth in order to choose among all the false explanations the one that has all the appearances of a half-truth.

I learned the conclusion from a conversation that I overheard despite myself between two ecclesiastics in a “filobus” that was going down towards St. Peter’s basilica during the Council. One was a member of the ecumenical commission and was revealing to the other tomorrow’s truth. In the initial stage, the Council or the Pope would recognise the validity of Anglican ordinations.

The liturgical commission studied this recognition as the basis of an ecumenical agreement for establishing a new “Ordo missæ” to which all the Churches would rally, while the Catholics and “other Christians” would all keep their own theological convictions. This ecclesiastic stated to his confrere that, within a year, it would be done. That was at Easter 1964. With my head buried in my breviary, terribly jostled, I heard the two accomplices already making wishes, bulletins of victory on the matter, and I, in my Oremus! said to God: « No! No! Lord God, it is impossible! You will not let “the gates Hell” prevail against your turtledove, by Jesus and Mary, no, Father! May we be spared this chalice! »

My prayer was answered. The “theoria” is a dead letter. The “praxis”, however, corrodes the fondations of the Catholic edifice, and this text of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism is still the acid to which our enemies unceasingly return to refill their apparatus of corrosion of minds, souls and hearts to the point of annihilating the Mass that the Devil and his armies loathe.

STEREOTYPICAL REPRESENTATION FOR PROTESTANT MARKETING.

23. It is the fireworks at the end of a defence speech. After having given all the reasons for better esteeming Protestantism in its doctrine, institutions, and worship, there remained to speak very highly of the fruits of these magnificent trees, by confirming what the Council guaranteed: all these Churches and fellowships are, it swears, magnificent trees. Furthermore, examine their fruits, examine “Life in Christ”, the subheading of this last paragraph, look at their moral life! The whole world is witness to their morality, which is almost too rigorist, in comparison with the corruption of the Catholic Latin peoples! Here is presented a stereotypical representation, a delicate outline, coloured in halftones, that exudes innocence, naivety, and honesty. You would think you were there, and everyone can find, at least the elderly of my generation, well-known examples that justify the conciliar enthusiasm.

The Council found for this impeccable peroration the conclusion that would obtain a discharge, an acquittal – what am I saying? – the triumph and the glory of its client, thereafter sure of winning the other secondary trials awaiting judgement: « Now, your Honour and public prosecutors, the ecumenical dialogue on the application of Gospel morality can begin. » We can mention all the acceptable and shameful forms of latitude that the various varieties of Protestantism concede to the human animal; they have won with no right of appeal before the supreme court of the Roman Catholic Council, Vatican II.

I will not make the mistake of those who are novices in legal matters or in public controversy; it consists in comparing the vehement, colourful description of the vices of Protestants to the dullness of such a watercolour. The goal is to conclude that they are hypocritical and, by speaking ill, by slandering, end up as with this good lampoonist, who does not mince his words: Yes, the immorality of Catholic peoples has been at odds for centuries with the excellence of their dogmas and the impeccable purity of their mysticism. It is scandalous, but everyone knows it, and at least it is clear-cut! Protestantism, on the other hand, feeling so weak and woolly on truth, doctrine and the Sacraments, and feeling dull on mysticism, intends to affirm its superiority on the human chapters of the Christian religion. Protestantism means to be unbeatable on obedience to God’s commandments, to all the laws of all the authorities – democratic, of course – who govern them, and devoted to humanity in philanthropic, sanitary, hygienic and prophylactic actions: The Red Cross and The Salvation Army. This being so, you can understand that they are like the Pharisees of the Gospel, forced into moral perfection, without the assistance of theological intelligence and tenderness… forced to being saints, or for want of better, appearing to be.

Having said this, the Council Fathers once again worked for the bitter enemies of their own Church who wreck havoc in the missions, in international assemblies and everywhere where there is a power to be infiltrated and controlled, without any self-restraint, embarrassment, or shame. For, after all, I do not have to comment on this praise for you, you will read it if you wish. I warn you that it could be uttered with even better reasons, as praise of the Catholic Church in the immense extension and in the deep truth of her holy people. It cancels the effect of the conciliar plea because this holiness of the faithful in the Catholic Church begins with the profession of a sincere faith, adhering with total confidence to the Creed of Christ’s Church. This holiness is consummated in the purest mysticism that gushes, that overflows from the divine source of the Eucharistic, Holy Sacrifice. I indeed mean that it is by means of the Communion of the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and this comes after a true and sincere confession that we are « poor sinners » – that I am! The wedding garment of our Baptism is restored to us for this heavenly banquet in view of our eternal Nuptials.

Thereupon, by this vibrant and thrilling peroration, I would obtain my victory by ending thus: I cursed all the heresies and schisms, I destroyed their foundations, I excommunicated their founders, their social and ecclesiastical elites of all sorts, the ecumaniacs, who both from the inside and the outside of the Holy Church, make an infernal racket to destroy her to the advantage of their tower of Babel for the year 2000, the anti-Roman, antichrist « Masdu » the victory of the cult of Man over the devotees of Jesus Christ, God made Man.

But what justifies my fury against the ravenous wolves and against the mercenaries who, in concert, devour the flock of their Master Jesus Christ, is the vast multitude of the simple faithful of these false Churches and communities, including among ourselves the conciliar sect and its abominable propaganda, who are kept in ignorance and innocence, far from the Church and her fullness of holiness, truth, charity and perfection. They abhor all that is “ecumenical” in the expectation of the full Revelation of their hope, of Jesus with His adorable Heart, of the Immaculate-Conception with Her merciful Heart, their Mother, Mother of every one of us. We must devote all our efforts to convert them; we only denounce their evil shepherds in order to lead them to the « Fair Pastor » (Jn 10.11-14) of this flock of which they are already, through desire, the newborn lambs, and to His « fair Shepherd Girl » (St. John of the Cross) whom they long to love and pray to because She is the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Fair Love, and already Mother of every one of them and us, forever!

THEIR CONCLUSION AND OURS

1. IN THEIR CONCLUSION THE FALSEHOOD IS BLATANT.

24. « We look to the future »: as « prophets of joy » with John XXIII, they discern the effects of their ecumenical Decree. But first, the faithful must be warned « to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity », in order to reassure worried people and silence the « prophets of gloom ». Thus, their ecumenical action must be « fully and sincerely (sic!) Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth that we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith that the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time. »

Yes! but… Once the tranquiliser has taken effect, they press their advantage without sparing or fearing anything, even if it means doing what they just absolutely forbade:

« It is the urgent (ah!) wish of this Holy Council that the measures undertaken by the sons of the Catholic Church should develop in conjunction with those of our separated brethren so that no obstacle be put in the ways of divine Providence and no preconceived judgements impair the future inspirations of the Holy Spirit. »

Thus, with the separated brethren, never without them and obviously never against them, they charge, without putting obstacles in the way of dreams and imaginations, for « the Spirit blows where He wills »… But the Council delivers its oracle:

« The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective – the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of one and only Church of Christ... »

They do not say: of the one and only Church of Christ, which would obviously be our Catholic Church, the Church, quite simply; This would be turning one’s back on the future and going back on four years of conciliar efforts. It was now a question of stepping forward, by means of the indefinite article « a Church » substituted for the definite article « the one and only Church »: the latter defined, known, aged, must make way for a Church yet to be born from the ecumenical fusion, it is clear, it is audacious.

« … human powers and capacities cannot achieve this ». Why not, after all? Men are capable of everything! After having insulted our holy Mother the Church, and having come to an agreement on remodelling her according to their views by lowering her to the level of the eastern schismatic autocephalies and the heretical Protestant, gnostic, or modernist sects; after having unilaterally and unabashedly praised these Churches and communities for what is authentically Christian in them without mentioning what is earthly in them, entirely inspired by the Prince of this world, their errors, immoralities, ambitions, hypocrisies, a colossal Babel of individual and collective cupidity and pride. After having promised in a thousand ways to the World that their conciliar betrayal was forever and without scruples and affirmed to the faithful of the Church that it was a divine project, a will of Christ, and a « (future!) prompting of the Holy Spirit », I think that they will succeed in building this great world-wide Babylon, the Masdu of their human, Luciferian hope…

That is, unless God sees these men defying him as insolently as the builders of the first tower, is not at all satisfied, and says: « If now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do. Let Us then go down and there confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says! » (Gn 11.6-7) Then it was Babel, that is “confusion”, « and it was from that place that He scattered them all over the earth » (v. 9).

In fact, this apparent avowal of powerlessness, the ultimate hypocrisy of people who defy the Almighty from the first words of this Decree to the last period, is only a conventional statement, a link to recover God before the last word has slipped out. As they are scribes who are learned in the knowledge of Scriptures, it is true that it is beautiful and that it sounds good: « It is because of this (they make the Council say in its sudden humility) that the Council rests all its hope [here, our Father criticises the Decree for the use of the French word: espoir, which although translated hope in English refers to a totally human hope. The context, however, would have required the use of the French word: espérance (also translated hope in English), which refers to the theological virtue of hope] on the prayer of Christ for the Church (which is not this future and ideal Church that they hope to build!), on our Father’s love for us (Give me a break! God’s love for the demolishers of his work!), and on the power of the Holy Spirit (who alas, at the disposal of the Father and the Son, would only want to confuse their languages and leave their tower deserted): “Hope (a quotation from St. Paul who only uses the word “espérance”) does not disappoint, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”(Rm 5.5) ».

I indeed wish that in you, legitimate Popes and bishops, this inspired Word had been confirmed, and that God the Father of all goods had inundated you with His treasures of gifts and virtues. But the Devil passed that way, as he slithered into Paradise to tempt our first parents. They became proud and, through pride, fell into so many sins, they and their descendents, that all had to be started over again. The same goes for a conciliar assembly like yours when it reaches the point of loving what God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit detest more than anything: Error instead of Truth, hope for the glory that comes from men instead of the hope for the glory that comes from Him alone (Jn 12.34), finally love for evil people who are in the service and slavery of the Prince of this world instead of His holy and virginal Church, His Daughter, His Spouse, His inner Sanctuary, and instead of His dear children, His poor, humble and loving faithful visibly and invisibly scattered throughout the world from the beginning of the world and forever and ever!

II. OUR CONCLUSION, WHERE THE DIVINE TRUTH SHINES.

What can be drawn from this Decree? Nothing. It is like a photo on which all the shadows, the darkness, and even the sad greyness has been effaced, leaving no figures, forms, or models, nothing but an insignificant white. This Decree tells us that the Church of old had nothing but faults, ignorance, biases and that the schisms and heresies, without mentioning those of the past, today in any case are all, everywhere, and always cloaked in light, marvellously endowed by the Holy Spirit with treasures that were formed within themselves, and others that they took with themselves when they left us, saving them from a loss and certain misuse.

What can be concluded from this primary dualism, to which is connected, no event, no name of a heresiarch, a rebel, great Pontiff, or other Councils other than Vatican II, indefinitely and forever, no saint opposed to these monsters that punctuate universal history: Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Photius, Michael Cerularius, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and Elizabeth of England, Lammenais and Sangnier. Ah! Here, you roar, for « à la fin de l’envoi, je touche » (Cyrano de Bergerac) Thus there is concealed under this insipid colourlessness that is enough to make us vomit, a whole world of unavowed passions too shameful to mention.

Ah! If only, you were to confess these heresies, these rebellions, and the names of their cursed inventors and founders that you idolise. Then at least your conciliar Acts would allow us to discern the truth behind your errors! No, nothing!

So, what remains for me to do? Where will I draw all the truth that I promised to say? I do not even have the time to think when already a genius of intelligence, holiness, modesty, piety and love for his flock appears on my terminal: St. Pius X! Yes, but it is a world. I tap away at my mental keyboard, and here it is – it is fantastic! – the genius of the man. Ah! No, here it is the genius of God. Thus, thanks to God, in a second, I unconsciously found the luminous and infinitely rich, fruitful, and exhilarating answer to the sinister sweet talk, written, corrected, repeated, “with much puffing and panting of the water carriers”, during four years of the Council… Yes, yes! I am going to tell you this Mother Truth, and then, all her daughters will present themselves in a perfect, dazzling order.

SAINT PIUS X, DOCTOR OF THE FAITH

Here it is, and I quote from memory: « Protestantism began, Modernism followed, the last step will lead to atheism. » Now, I expound.

Everything began, Il santo said, with Protestantism. Thus, before it, nothing was too serious. Let us understand why. From the first heresies until Protestantism, it was the material object (objectum quod) of the Faith that was in discussion and it provoked explanations, some in a rational sense, some in a Gnostic sense, both condemned by the Church, who defined the Truth of the mystery. One after the other, all the articles of the Creed were examined, discussed and finally defined… Thus the heresies followed one another, the Truth triumphed and, from one storm to the next, the infallible Authority of the Church was extraordinarily strengthened, admired, heeded, to the point that Rome became the great beacon of Christendom, so powerful that even before having wreaked havoc, all new heresies were identified, dealt with, refuted, and condemned.

What about schisms? Precisely, what about the eastern schism that still continues? What about the great schism of the West? Conforming to the thought of Pius X, Il santo! I race to the good answer: it was nothing! Yes, much commotion; but it was over questions of persons, ambitions, pride, family rivalries (in Rome!), rivalries between kings and emperors (German, Anglo-Saxon, but also Spanish and French, I must admit). After reconciliations, there remained only resentment, which provoked new matches… pardon me, conflicts! This is how the eastern schism was born, prospered, died, started again and still lasts today because of the foolishness of the vanity of the patriarchs and theologian monks, supported by the haughty emperors (and empresses!), all of them civilised but decadent, increasingly jealous against the Barbarians of the West who had become the most Catholic, most holy, most intelligent and the strongest. There resulted the eastern schism which in turn suffered a series of others along its perimeter. For example, Moscow claimed to be the “third Rome” and emancipated itself from Byzantium. The latter, which shrank away, persisted in order to hide its total misery, with its betrayals of our crusaders and its sabre rattling, and again yesterday, the insolence of some Greek patriarch or other who declared here in Lourdes, France, then in Zurich, Switzerland, that the primacy of the Pope of Rome had no basis in Holy Scripture or in Tradition. It is grotesque!

Rome patiently seeks to win their hearts!

St. Pius X was right, and John XXIII also. They both thought that they could settle this matter with a little tact. Come on, foolish Patriarch of Constantinople, with your 30,000 faithful; you have been put in a tight corner and mocked by all your colleagues, who are all “autocephalous”… What are you waiting for to join Rome with her 900 million faithful! This was the true thinking of Pius X, and the secret but interior thought of John XXIII, who was nuncio in Constantinople and who did not take long to understand.

For St. Pius X knew everything, eminently and deeply. Thus he taught what I only have to repeat: that the first step in the final rebellion of human pride against the Church began with Luther in this, which is of a gravity never reached before in History: the raving lunatic did not find fault with some article of the Creed, objectum quod, but with the authority of the Church who teaches it, objectum quo, the thing by which the Christian believes… What is new is challenging the guaranteed infallible Authority that comes from God to Christ and from Christ to His Church, who preaches, baptises, teaches and governs by means of a whole apparatus of functions or powers that give the faithful access to the treasure of divine mysteries in the Faith. Instead of this guaranteed medium, Luther all by himself studied the Bible; he had to interpret it. That makes two uncertain intermediaries, for Scripture in itself kills… Moreover, Luther did not have such a luminous intelligence… Thus he added an assistance of the Holy Spirit such that he declare himself inspired by Him to express the divine Truth. On the strength of this « every Protestant is Pope – and more than a Pope, who is only infallible in certain extremely limited and reassuring conditions! – a Bible in his hand »… and the Holy Spirit in his soul.

Thus, all controversy with Johann von Eck, Cajetan, Thomas More was made impossible because Luther knew everything, while the others – these saints! – thought only about repeating the Popes’ “inventions”. The controversy at least brought to light the total difference between the Catholic Faith and Luther’s claim to knowledge by inspiration. As for dialogue, it is the worst thing that can be imagined because by accepting to “converse” (turn tow