He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

DECREE ON THE EASTERN CHURCHES

Orientalium Ecclesiarum

On Friday, 1 February 2008, the Pope received the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic bishops for an ad limina visit. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, also called the “Uniate Church”, came into being at the Synod of Union of Brest Litovsk in 1595, which united the dioceses of Ukraine and Byelorussia to Rome. The Ukrainian Catholics conserved the rites and customs of the Orthodox Church, e.g., the Divine Liturgy, the canons, while recognising the Pope as head of the Church (Georges de Nantes, Russia before and after 1983, CCR 153, December 1982, pp. 24-25).

The ad limina visit takes place every five years. The Ukrainian bishops have been prevented from making theirs since 1937 because of persecution. After having analysed the bishops’ reports on the situation of their exarchates and eparchies, Benedict XVI encouraged them « constantly to promote, consolidate and verify unity and collaboration within their communities in order to be able to accept together the challenges that concern them as pastors, and that are at the forefront of their preoccupations and their pastoral programmes »: commitment to ecumenism, formation of priests and laymen, collaboration with the Latin Church while respecting differences.

Concerning ecumenism, the Pope declared: « In Ukraine, for centuries, the Orthodox and Catholics have attempted to open a daily humble and serene dialogue, which covers numerous aspects of life. » Benedict XVI does not seem to know that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church found itself exposed, from its beginning, to the Orthodox Churches and principally to those subject to the patriarchate of Moscow, which considered the “Uniates” renegades. Since 1946, their martyrs can be counted in the millions, their deportees in the tens of millions. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, « the Vatican ignores this tragedy », Cardinal Josef Slipyi, a survivor of the Soviet penal colonies, exclaimed before the Synod of 1971 in Rome.

The blueprint of this betrayal, which has only worsened during the pontificate of John Paul II, is the Decree of Second Vatican Council on the Eastern Catholic Churches, “ Orientalium Ecclesiarum ”, which was promulgated on 21 November 1964.

Our Father commented on it in his “Auto-da-fe”. We print these hitherto unpublished pages that were written in 1996.

I continue my cursory reading of the Acts of Vatican II by studying the Decree concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, or the Catholic patriarchates of the Eastern rite, because it is published as a sort of twelve-page addendum to the Decree on ecumenism, which itself fills thirty pages, seven of which concern the Eastern schismatics.

This Decree seems to be a discourse of consolation, a diplomatic act to make good to Catholic brothers who have been appalled by the small importance accorded them in the planned negotiations with the Eastern schismatics. « You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs »; the small, poor, persecuted Uniate Churches have ample grounds for thinking that perhaps union will come about between the two powers, but at the cost of their own disappearance.

Thus, they are given consolation: praises, promises, privileges, legal guarantees; nothing is missing except frankness throughout. Everything inadvertently crumbles when this little flock that is being conducted towards a marvellous future reads with horror a sign that had been forgotten there: “Slaughterhouse”. It is written in black and white in § 30:

Read first this finale; it is horrible!

« 30. The Sacred Council feels great (!) joy in the fruitful (ah!) zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares (hem!): All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation (which we can guess…) till such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity. »

Then, in the next paragraph, the discourse raises the veil on the very near future by these words that are vivid with sadism: « Meanwhile, however, all Christians, Eastern as well as Western (here the Uniates are lost in the schismatic mass!), are earnestly (of course, my little bunny!) asked to pray to God fervently (obviously) and assiduously (for we are in a hurry), nay, indeed daily (it is thus a question of days?), that, with the aid of the most holy Mother of God (this is for local colour), all may become one. Let them pray also that the strength and the consolation of the Holy Spirit may descend copiously upon all those many Christians of whatsoever church they be who endure suffering and deprivations for their unwavering avowal of the name of Christ… » The suffering of those who will have been sacrificed, they and their venerable Churches on the altar of the new undivided world-wide Church!

« … that the strength and the consolation of the Holy Spirit may descend copiously »

How cynical the Council is! It always chooses in the dictionary of biblical quotations a fine end after this meal of cannibals: « Love one another (the eaters and the eaten) with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honour. » (Rm 12.10)

INTRODUCTION.

1. Once again, here is a grandiose page that is worthy of an anthology. I think that in this smoke of incense, I can see the the steel of swords gleaming. Am I seeing things?

“Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches” This is the title. It is clear. But the first two words of this magnificent and ample introduction have lost the third one on the way: “Orientalium Ecclesiarum”. Has “Catholicarum” been forgotten? No… but very consciously, voluntarily omitted. The proof of this is that the admirably balanced sentence separates the words Eastern Churches, from the Catholic Church, and from Christian life. Read it:

« The (Western?) Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life (here the word is rich with a major ambiguity; where “Catholic” would have made things clear, and this is precisely what they did not want) of the Eastern Churches. »

Which ones? These two words are used in the title of the Decree, since they are the first in the Latin phrasing.

As the text unfolds, the reader wends his way through a maze of compliments and good wishes to the “Eastern Churches” for their health and prosperity, as it repeats what was already stated plainly in the Decree on ecumenism to the schismatic Churches. (§§ 14-15, supra, pp. 8-9). There will not be a single word to change on the day of Anschluss, the day when the small Eastern Churches faithful to Rome are handed over by her and swallowed up by their persecutors, Byzantium and its ilk.

THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES OR RITES.

2. The discourse does not cease to be magnificent; the Council will not cease being repetitious in order to lose us in the great mysteries that we already know, in order to beguile us,. Certain fishbones cannot be swallowed so easily all by themselves. So, singing the marvels of Catholic unity, Vatican II categorically states: « Between these separate Churches or Rites, there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it. » Then it repeats: « For it is the mind (propositum) of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire. » But, there is a but, in order not to be soon accused of an act of treachery: « She likewise wants (oh! likewise? Which of the two wills will prevail?) to adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.

We know the story! Nothing will escape.

So, here is a thought. Today, we who are only Catholics from the West, of the Latin rite, envy the Maronites and the Ukrainians for having been thus solemnly « safeguarded » from all Modernism by the Council… but we learned from bitter experience what Roman oaths are worth. So, we venture to give a piece of advice among persecuted brethren: when you read the Roman rescript resist the flatteries, promises, solemn guarantees that it contains; may the Uniates ignore all that, and continue, with or without conciliar or papal permission, what they have always had the right and the joy of doing for centuries of living tradition!

3. The following paragraph uses the carrot and stick approach. Forgive the vulgarity of the expression, but it is rich. The carrot is the recognition that all these particular Churches enjoy absolute equality in dignity and thus, especially, the right and freedom to conserve their rites, doctrinal heritage, and ecclesiastical discipline. There is nothing abnormal in this condition… Yet, nowadays, it is as threatening as the carrot was pleasant to swallow: « They are entrusted to the pastoral (of course!) government of the Roman Pontiff... » and all, « under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff. »

I repeat Orwell’s saying: « When all are equal, there can always be found some who are more equal than the others. » Equal in law? Divine law? Democratic law? You make me laugh… Ecclesiastical law? Conciliar law? That, then, is something different: You make me weep.

4. « Means should be taken therefore in every part of the world… » It is the imperator style of the Council. Who should take the means? Everyone, and all will go well, as though no one in the past has ever done anything well, not in this field any more than in the others about which the Council preoccupied itself. « Without prejudice to the right […] of recourse to the Apostolic See, the latter, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations (suprema relationum interecclesialium arbitra, sic!), will, acting itself or through other authorities (Oh! The UN, the WCC, or the Patriarch of Constantinople!?), meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit (Oh! Oh! This purposely chosen word smacks of the slaughterhouse), by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts. »

With these “interchurch” overtures, everything is conceivable; it is all a dream, except for the reality of the anarchical novelty that will emerge from this organisation of disorder.

THE PRESERVATION OF THE PATRIMONY OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.
[the Catholic ones and the others].

5. There is an avalanche of complements (nothing can be found in the Acts of the Council that corresponds to it relative to our ancient Roman, Latin Church of the West), and a guaranteed promise of autonomy of governance: « For this reason the Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West (I would like to see that we would have the tenth of their independence without there being cries to Rome of “Gallicanism”, “Jansenism”, or Josephism!), have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines » They should be aware of it, for fear that it be forgotten! Read on:

6. « All members of the Eastern Rite (both schismatics and the Uniates, it is only too clear! but it is not without imprudence, for the schismatics are not so orthodox or so Catholic that we can make them such promises!) should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their discipline... » Here is the customary but; it is more cunning than usual here because it first intensifies the no in order to better allow a yes as thin as a passage for a cat in a half-opened door: « …and that these may not be altered (imperator style) except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement (liberator style) », etc. There is no interest in what follows, which aspires to formulate what is needed for the betterment of the Eastern world.

THE EASTERN PATRIARCHS.

7. Honours and rights are showered on the Eastern Patriarchs, including those who do not recognise (not yet!) the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. They will grant so much to them that perhaps they will get them all to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Above all they aim to win the subjection of those who compare their shabby, present-day, “autocephalous” sovereignty to his. Following an innovation of Paul VI, the patriarchate has been enriched with the dignity of cardinal, with extraordinary advancement in importance to international notoriety, and with wealth and real influence over their Churches, which are clogged with their ancestral mess.

So, what a temptation! Read on:

8-9. « By the most ancient tradition of the Church the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches are to be accorded special honour, seeing that each is set over his patriarchate as father and head. »

Now, let me laugh about the imbecilic, foul snub on the cheek of our prestigious Western “Princes of the Church”, some of whom are canonised, others not, next to whom… hem! in short, the Eastern Patriarchs have never been their equals.

Only in the East there is a system of government that a recent craze has transfigured into a mystical mystery. At the same time propaganda made us believe that it was the model of our democracies or parliamentary monarchies, just as the constitution of the United States should be the immortal model of all our Masonic Republics of the past and the future. Would this be the system of the Pope and his Synod (?), of the bishop and his presbyterium… and of the King and his Council? No, it is something else that is ineffable and divine: in Greek koinônia, « communion », in Slavic « sobornost », it is untranslatable.

It is divinely permanent democracy.

This craze contributed to the organisation of an aberrant parliamentarianism in the whole Church, but the reference to the Eastern Churches earned them a success of passing prestige, of which only this text subsists. Referring to the patriarchs it had just stated that « each is set over his patriarchate as father and head ». Then, « This Sacred Council, therefore, determines that their rights and privileges should be re-established in accordance with the ancient tradition of each of the Churches and the decrees of the ecumenical councils (that sounds very impressive, go see what it is: so much fuss about precedence, vanity, ambitions). The rights and privileges in question are those that obtained in the time of union between East and West (do not go to see it!); though they should be adapted somewhat to modern conditions (ouch! All the ill-feelings are going to be roused!). »

But it speaks a language that appeals to the conciliar bishops, who are all liberal, democratic, eager to transform their poor, laborious governance of a diocese that has been bled white into a comfortable mandate as a deputy or a senator of a European ecclesiastical Parliament, or of a permanent Council. Then, the diocese itself would structure itself into a “sobornost”, in which the “president” bishop of his little presbyterium would govern as father and head. Oh, the sweet dream in which all the difficulties smooth themselves out in koinônia! Let us dream then with the Council of 1964:

« The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases. »

This is how one stirs up the wind for the mirages that it forms in the clouds.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS.

12. « The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the Sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it. »

Very well… this conservatism is refreshing.

13-14. The same is said for the Sacrament of Confirmation.

15. Thus, there follows a reminder that « the faithful are bound to take part on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy or, according to the regulations or custom of their own rite ».

16. Thus for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance the power of confessing is very broadly extended to priests « of any rite », at least Catholic – I imagine! – without being reassured by any point of clarification.

17. « In order that the ancient established practice of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Eastern Churches may flourish again, this Sacred Council ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored. »

That is all, and it is tantamount to reclosing the wound without having touched the malignant tumour, because after all, several thorny questions, that have been resolved in doctrine and discipline with us by the Council of Trent, remain unresolved in these Churches with a poor, uneducated, and married clergy, without counting the problems of the episcopate. What would a permanent diaconate add? An additional wound, that we have not known for more than a thousand years and that is returning?!

18. Finally, for marriage, the conditions of liceity and validity are broadened and simplified to circumvent the inextricable uncertainties of marriages « with baptised Eastern non-Catholics »: the Catholic « canonical form » is no longer required and, « for their validity the presence of a sacred minister is sufficient », without specifying his status of Catholic or schismatic.

It is tantamount to going against the drastic tightening of the conditions of liceity and validity of marriage that was imperatively decreed by the Council of Trent, and to entering into the broad path that leads to the mixing of the Catholic and schismatic Churches.

DIVINE WORSHIP.

19. Several agreements of secondary importance are then outlined concerning the setting of common days for feasts that are « common to all the Eastern Churches », non-Catholic included? We will never know! I am swayed towards the extension to schismatics for the very simple reason that, for the Council, the separation no longer exists, or will soon no longer exist; they were just as well to print the texts that will not need to be re-edited soon for such a slight correction of terms.

20. It was the occasion, it was thought in numerous circles: scientific, educational, touristic… and even religious, to fix a universal date for Easter. The question is evoked here, the Council encourages, awaiting a general solution: « It is left to the patriarchs or supreme authorities of a place to come to an agreement by the unanimous consent and combined counsel of those affected to celebrate the feast of Easter on the same Sunday ».

Here the editors revealed themselves! Other than the Catholic patriarchs, there are no “supreme authorities” other than their Orthodox homologues. The matter was dropped. Do not ask me my opinion. I do have one, but it is not so very serious on the surface to be mentioned, and far too serious fundamentally to be taken into consideration by our generations of animal-machines. Do you want to know what it is? This irregularity gave each year an unpredictable arrangement for the common herd, which left room for the unexpected, for memories that varied according to the years. Finally, the poetry, the charm, early or late vacations… long or short semesters. I put an end to the fantasy, which only asks us to waltz, when serious work (is it so certain?) awaits us.

21. Let us overlook this obvious compromise, but one that the Council does not make a duty: the faithful dwelling outside the area or territory of their own rite may follow completely the established custom of the place where they live… But here comes the fairy that I just threw out; now it waves at the window. If one day I had the misfortune of being exiled with my family very, very far from home, among peoples of other rites, I would apply myself to preserving everything from home so as not to become a man without a country. This is an aspect of our Armenian or Lebanese Catholic brethren that makes their persons and families so likable to us: they are jealous to preserve the treasure of their religion and their ancestral customs. Since they are allowed, I think that it must be so for us!

It is indeed the spirit of §§ 22-23, which do not concern us.

From this, we return to the ecumenical obsession, which is stronger than everything!

24. « The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome (here for the first time their true title is expressed fully, but it is out of necessity for the mission with which the Council declares that they are charged) have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, etc. », by all the means indicated by the Decree on ecumenism. I summarise and only quote the last two means that were indicated to them by the Decree, namely « a greater knowledge of each other » – that makes me laugh! – « and a brotherly regard for objects and men »; this makes me angry.

It is as if in 1940 the French State had recommended to the inhabitants of Alsace and Lorraine to develop especially their knowledge of German culture and virtues in order to be able to become propagandists and agents devoted to borderless collaboration and cohabitation between the French and German peoples. The inhabitants of Alsace and Lorraine would cease to be caught in pincers between the two peoples and would content themselves with being everything at the same time, everything except themselves!

It is hair-raising. Everything, but not that! After more than a thousand years of persecutions, with the only too justified fear of being used as bargaining chips between the East and the West… The Council gives them the job of preparing the feast and sharpening the knives for the sacrifice of the expiatory victim. And you wish them well!

All the more is this so because, being in a hurry to finish with these preparatory phases that delays the year when comes full and effective reconciliation, the Council anticipates and already gives the signal for the tranquil invasion. This prepares for the other invasion and discrete occupation, which itself prepares the genocide of the unshakable minorities.

25. « If any separated Eastern Christian (ah! Well, we see to whom they are referring) should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands (ah! If only we could be reintegrated into the Catholic community at that price!). Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority. »

As Mr. Mitterrand used to say: « They are at home in our home. » It is a superb welcome. It is already a fact that a grand charitable organisation that is quite richly provisioned is offering to use straightaway the considerable funds of Catholic charity to subsidise the poor Orthodox priests who no longer receive KGB allocations. I prefer that you give your hard-earned money to the French Catholic l’Œuvre d’Orient, which, in answer to Leo XIII’s call, has for a century saved our dear Eastern Catholic communities, which everyone still hates today, and which are courageously faithful.

26. Finally, here is the last axe blow that must remove the obstacle that still opposes the invasion of the Orthodox schism everywhere it wants. Behind this obstacle the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite survived and were somewhat protected (although not enough); this obstacle is the prohibition of communicatio in sacris. We came across these words throughout the Decree on ecumenism, in a flood of generosity and permissions that the Council granted to our Protestant brethren. We were indeed told that this common participation in sacred rites was not « to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity », but that, « in order to bear witness to the unity of the Church and share in the means of grace », it could be done… with the bishop’s permission, of course (§ 8, He is Risen, n° 66, March 2008, p. 16).

Further on, it came back to it with much more warmth, this time only considering the question in general, but regarding the schismatic Eastern Churches apart: « 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. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged. » (§ 15, supra, p. 8-9) I have said what I thought about it…

Now here, according to the “yes, but…” technique or the somewhat more disconcerting “no, but yes all the same…”, the Council very firmly reminds us of the absolute ban on any participation in non-Catholic liturgies or worship under pain of excommunication. The honour of God, the truth of Christ, respect for the community of faithful Catholics and lastly the scandal given by such practices were at stake. The Council very firmly recalls this law:

« Communicatio in sacris, which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law. » All is said in few words. We do not see what other human authority could permit what is forbidden by divine law.

Yet the Council, concealing this divine ban from us, takes it for granted in order to put forward its conciliar permissions, as we have just seen…

It is the most remarkable example of reasoning in: no… but yes all the same! Read on:

« Communicatio in sacris […] is forbidden by divine law. On the other hand, pastoral experience (thus there is a divine theory and, its antithesis, pastoral praxis!) shows clearly that there should be taken into consideration the different cases of individuals, where neither the unity of the Church is hurt nor are verified the dangers that must be avoided, but where the needs of the salvation of souls and their spiritual good are impelling motives. »

It is a fine piece of literature, which Pascal would have eagerly quoted in his Provinciales; I am not sure whether he was basically right in his Jansenist controversy against Jesuit laxity. But I am sure that the Council has immense impertinence to recall a divine ban and to reinforce it with all its reasons in order then to demolish the seriousness of each of these reasons in the calculated, selective, coddled case of these good, pious schismatics, and to leave the divine ban isolated, pointless, like a post that can be knocked over and disregarded. It is staggering. One would think that for them God does not exist.

Hereafter, everything can be authorised. “After all, why not?” This is a maxim for all transgressions. The barriers are broken down, liberty is ours. Listen to this triumphant tone: « For that reason the Catholic Church has always adopted and now adopts rather a mild policy, offering to all the means of salvation (what clerical hypocrisy!) and an example of charity among Christians (no, no and no! this transgression of divine law is not an act of charity but an act of pride that insults the divine Majesty), through participation in the Sacraments and in other sacred functions and things. » Phew! Here is their conclusion:

« With this in mind, “lest because of the harshness of our judgement we be an obstacle to those seeking salvation”… » Well, I would like to see the context of these words of St. Basil that are given in the reference: Canonical Epistle to Amphilochus, PG 32, 669 b, for I am absolutely sure that it is a question of an authorisation or act of tolerance concerning an action whose morality is relative, that is to say, variable according to the circumstances. Strictly speaking, active, conscious, and deliberate communicatio in sacris, is an intrinsically evil act, an absolutely mortal sin, whatever the circumstances. Moreover, all the conciliar casuistry that comes to strengthen the violation of this divine law is nothing but straw that a child in catechism could reduce to nothing…

You only have to finish the sentence to reach the ultimate reason for flouting God:

« … and in order more and more to promote union with the Eastern Churches separated from us ».

– Ah! Protestant ecumenism, how many crimes are committed in your name!

– But God willed it; this ecumenism is an obvious desire of the Holy Spirit, a miracle of Providence… We must, then, take well in hand the means to accomplish it!

– No, no and no! Your illuminism leads you to transgressing divine laws, in order to advance causes that God has never demanded.

« … the Sacred Council lays down the following policy:

« Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier (do you mean the divine ban or the human permission?), Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith (and you leave them in this erroneous good faith?) from the Catholic Church (whereas your reasoned refusal would have brought them closer to the Light), if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. »

By granting these Sacraments that they desire, you dispense them from making the effort of conversion that would have given these Sacraments their true fruit of eternal salvation.

« Further, Catholics may ask for these same Sacraments (O horror! O putrefaction! O impious burlesque) from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid Sacraments, as often as necessity (?) or a genuine (sic) spiritual (good heavens! what utility is there in this spiritual adultery?) benefit recommends (a necessity, a benefit do not recommend anything, but man, the prankster, the transgressor who says he is forced by these falsely charismatic motives) such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. »

All of these are Satan’s arguments. In the evening of 15 October 1793, after the reading of the sentence that would send her to death, Queen Marie-Antoinette, who was visited by a priest who had taken the oath, and was thus schismatic, refused his services, because she did not want to receive her God from the scandalous hand of an apostate.

Then, when one has transgressed divine law, he slips into indifference, like “dead souls” who no longer have any feelings, and here it is:

28. « Further (what now?), given the same principles (!), common participation by Catholics with their Eastern separated brethren in sacred functions, things and places is allowed for a just cause. » This is stupid and scandalous. Thus, the principles remain given! And in their presence, our bishops grant all the contraventions to the divine law? No! but… « for a just cause »! No, but yes all the same! because everyone is judge in assessing this « just cause ».

So, when we see to what extent a Council can play on « just causes » of time, of place – or of the colour of the sky! – we understand that the divine Catholic law has had it!

Our last hope is the Uniates’ fury at a Decree that is meant to be favourable to them while they await the slaughterhouse, the fury to see that they – “they” are Rome! – are opening the doors of their Churches to ignorant, boastful Orthodox priests, even their altars and confessionals, and their meagre collection plate.

29. « This conciliatory policy (a policy against a divine ban!) with regard to communicatio in sacris with the brethren (the false brethren also!) of the separated Eastern Churches is put into the care and control of the local hierarchs, in order that, by combined counsel among themselves and, if need be (the malice of the style), after consultation also with the hierarchs of the separated churches (!), they may by timely and effective regulations and norms direct the relations among Christians. »

I studied this text twenty years ago; I have nothing before my eyes that allows me to recall what I said about it. When glancing through it, I thought that I would find a good little treaty of agreement between Churches, i.e., of Catholics on both sides, but one Roman, Latin, and western in harmony with these little, touching, fragile and persecuted marvels that are our dear Patriarchal Churches of the Near East on whose behalf our generosity dedicated itself. I therefore took up this text again, and I finish alarmed, without having to re-read what I felt when I read the terrible passage that announces the death sentence that has already been pronounced on those whom they address with so much sycophancy (§ 30, p. 23).

It must be said that the Council spared Communism and counted envoys of the Patriarchate of Moscow, members of the KGB, among its “observers”. So, it is Moscow that is going to devour all of that, and what will remain will be absorbed by Islam. It is the truth of yesterday and tomorrow for Vatican politics. But more than your tons of printed paper, from Vatican II and what followed, I have a divine promise, a small paper to teach me the good road to the only acceptable ecumenism, a small paper on which a child transcribed the promise of the Most Blessed Virgin: « Russia will be converted ». This means that not only will she come back from her Communism but from her schism to the only true Church, who through grace will come back also, and will be converted to the forgotten Catholic Faith!

Brother Georges of Jesus-Mary.