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

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

A DELUSION, A CRIME, AN APOSTASY!

The declaration Dignitatis humanæ on religious freedom, the inevitable preamble to the “opening” of the Church to the modern world, is the conciliar charter of their mutual “reconciliation”: without the recognition of every man’s social right to religious freedom, no “dialogue” is possible. « This document is essential », Pope Paul VI said to Mgr De Smedt, the reporter of the schema on 30 September 1965, at a crucial moment of the conciliar debates. « It determines the attitude of the Church for several centuries. The world is waiting for it. » This world that the Council promised to please...

For the first time in her history, the Catholic Church relinquishes her truth, her dignity and her law in order to recognise that man and states have the freedom that they claimed for two centuries. She thus hoped to cooperate in a great “harmony” and lasting “peace” within “the human family”. To build up a fraternal world with the participation of all human religions and ideologies, without discrimination, such was the chimera that our Father, the Abbé de Nantes, denounced even before the closing of the Council:

« Such is the city under construction, whose docile instrument the Church is supposed to become; such is the modern world, which the Church is expected to accept. The grand project is for the Church to abandon Her old title of Catholic Church and to replace it by the more evocative initials MASDU: Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy – a Christianity decatholicised, the friend of men! » ¹

TWO IMPLACABLE PARTIES

From the preparatory period on, in the spring of 1962, the debate on religious freedom was the cause of a terrible confrontation between Cardinal Ottaviani, chairman of the Theological Committee, and Cardinal Béa, from the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians.

« The Theological Committee’s text De Ecclesia confined itself to the strategy established by the vigorously anti-modern position of the Catholic Church since the French Revolution. The text of the Secretariat echoed the numerous efforts carried out to find other ways allowing the Church to fulfil its redemptive task in an irremediablely transformed world. » ² Would the conspiracy hatched by liberal Catholics since the XIX^th century finally succeed, after having attempted in vain to introduce their doctrine into the Church and constantly been thwarted by the Magisterium?

When De Ecclesia was rejected during the first session, only the text drawn up by the Secretariat for Unity remained under consideration. The Bishop of Bruges, Mgr De Smedt, presented it to the Fathers on 19 November 1963.

The first version of what was only then a chapter of the schema on ecumenism was the object of heated discussion in the aula, from 23 to 28 September 1964. On one side were Cardinals Ruffini, Ottaviani and Browne. The Spanish episcopate and still at that time the Italian episcopate joined forces with them. On the other side were the progressivists and the ecumenists, whose numbers were reinforced by the large group of bishops from the United States; they were eager to extend their “American model” to the Universal Church. By adopting this new right, the Church would be forced to adopt a modern philosophy that makes man an absolute subject of rights and freedom.

Abbé Berto, Mgr Lefebvre’s private theologian, for his part wrote to Mgr Carli concerning the De Libertate that the Secretariat proposed: « It is no longer a question of doctrine of justice, of Catholic tradition. It is a question of introducing, of imposing, under the pretext of aggiornamento, a substantial change in Catholicism. »

The new theory was so formally heretical, its arguments so unconvincing, that the defenders of the Faith implored the Holy Father to intervene. He appointed a Commission of four trustworthy theologians responsible for informing him, but there was a general outcry in the conciliar assembly. The Pope yielded. Béa and his Secretariat remained in control. They were soon joined by the American Jesuit John Courtney Murray, who would, along with Mgr Pavan, be the main instigator of the final schema.

From Maison Saint-Joseph where our Father attentively followed the evolution of the conciliar discussions, he announced: « This dramatic debate can only lead to catastrophes.… To say that it is violent for the Church to demand for herself what she refuses to others is to lead minds astray, it is to renounce the true God, the true Faith, the unique Church of Jesus Christ so as to no longer judge things except from the point of view of Man, autonomous and absolute, who has taken God’s place, free to believe and to act without restriction! The conscience and its rights are exalted, but let us be careful not to unleash, under this mask, the human beast! Undoubtedly the conciliar project was reviewed and partially amended, but world opinion heard the Church renounce her intransigence and exalt liberty as a fundamental human right. It will be difficult to come back to Wisdom. » ³

The amended schema was once more presented to the Fathers on 11 November, but the traditionalist opposition was so confident and pugnacious that the Pope, although in favour of the novelty, understood that a vote could not be taken on religious freedom in 1964, as the Innovators were vociferously demanding for the centenary of the Syllabus, which they loathed. Paul VI seemed to side with the opponents by deferring the vote to the following session.

The Abbé de Nantes was the only one who understood the manoeuvre. He compared the Pope to a racing driver who slows down in order to negotiate a difficult bend better. Subsequent events would confirm this analysis. The progressivists’ « black week » in reality saved the Reform in progress, in particular religious freedom. It was a « providential deferment », Alberigo noted. ⁴

BRIGANDAGE AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY

From the opening of the fourth session on 15 September 1965 the heated discussions resumed, but little by little the ranks of the “glorious minority” dwindled. When Cardinal Urbani, the Archbishop of Venice whom Paul VI had appointed president of the Italian episcopal conference, rallied, this led the bishops of Venetia-Lombardy, among whom was Mgr Luciani, also to rally. This made a breach in the front of Latin countries that were firmly opposed to the schema.

Nevertheless, as soon as the “traditional School” made itself heard, submitting the project to the irrepressible requirements of the Faith, experience and reason, it was the rout of the “new School”. A hundred twenty-five Fathers asked the Pope to remove the project from the Secretariat, whose incompetence was an acknowledged fact.

In reality, it was impossible to make the novelty compatible with the traditional doctrine of the Church!

It was Paul VI who once again saved the schema by imposing a procedural vote, which allowed forcing the Assembly to endorse the principle of religious liberty. Two hundred twenty-four Fathers refused. In normal circumstances, such an opposition would have necessitated the deferment and abandoning of a novelty that divided the Church, but the Pope intended to carry his plan through to completion. On 4 October 1965, before the Assembly of the United Nations, he praised « the fundamental rights and duties of man that are proclaimed here, his dignity, his freedom, and in particular, that of religious liberty »

« This then is the Church rallying to the philosophy of Liberty in general terms in the form of a political speech pronounced by the Pope, speaking as an “expert in humanity” and as a “pilgrim of peace” addressing an assembly foreign to our Faith, before it has ever been the subject of any decision of the Magisterium, solemn or ordinary! » ⁵

During the last weeks, in order to rally the last opponents, vehement professions of Catholic orthodoxy were introduced into the middle of the heretical text. Two hundred fifty-four Fathers, however, still voted non placet on 25 October, but two days later Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, abandoned the fight, heartsick, out of obedience to the Pope. At the last vote, on 7 December, there were still seventy Fathers to refuse the impious Act that opened the door to apostasy in the Church. In order to diminish their number, the Pope resorted to a new subterfuge. First he had the vote taken then, without communicating its result, which was contrary to the Council regulations, he had the text of the Decree circulated for the Fathers to sign, after having first appended his signature, in order to show clearly that the case was settled. Consequently, forty opponents, among whom was Mgr Lefebvre himself! rallied. The other thirty who maintained their refusal did not dare to come forward.

AUTO-DA-FE

Only one man had the courage to rise publicly, the Abbé de Nantes. He it was who warned six months earlier that the council would never be able to proclaim such a heresy infallibly: « I protest with my whole orthodox Catholic Faith that it is the impossible that it is already criminal to envisage. It is not we, it is the supreme Magisterium who will say to the heretics of our time and, beyond them, to the Tempter: Non possumus! This doctrine is insane; reason proves it. This doctrine is not Catholic; the Council or the Pope will reject it. » ⁶

Since then, in numerous writings and public lectures, he has always maintained his refusal on this capital point, denouncing in it the ruin of the Church and the loss of souls. The devastating effects that this baneful novelty caused in families, schools, Catholic nations and in the whole world, is ample proof that he was right. During his forced exile in Switzerland, as a « free man » exercising this true « religious freedom » that the full Catholic Faith procures, he made the following literal commentary of the Acts of the Council, entitled: Auto-da-fe.

We present below the decisive, previously unpublished pages concerning the Declaration Dignitatis Humanæ.

UNDER THE SCALPEL OF A “FREE MAN”
Critical analysis of the declaration Dignitatis humanæ

1. « A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man… »

The principle or initial definition from which the Council professed to derive the right for each man or society to social and civic freedom in matters of religion is « the dignity of the human person » What is this dignity? What is it based on? With what article of the Creed, what dogma, what law or moral virtue is it connected? We are told nothing about all this, but a trend of opinion is invoked about it in favour of a « reality of consciousness » impressed with increasing depth. How odd it is! An interior feeling felt collectively…

a) Emerging from this feeling is the increasingly widespread demand, a demand that is undoubtedly powerful in world public opinion, that men, each man, be able « to act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty ».

When presented in this manner as a social, political claim of a revolutionary, romantic or reformist kind, this demand has apparently nothing so extravagant. If it is for the good, fine! If the demand is that each person must be left free in accord with his consciousness of his duty, very well! The person who only thinks of doing good prefers freedom to constraint.

b) The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set « to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom (honestæ libertatis) of the person and of associations. »

This demand has nothing extravagant or revolutionary either. In our modern societies, the methods of surveillance, control, organisation, meddling, collectivisation are such that States – even (and above all) democratic ones! – tend to abuse their power. Such abuse is to the detriment “of the (traditional) freedoms” that are progressively stifled despite the protest of right-wing legitimists, and also to the detriment of “the freedom” demanded by the revolutionary left.

This demand in itself does not have any pernicious character either. Where there is a danger of excess, it is good that there exist a counterbalance. Against any slide of authority towards State autocratism or Socialism, pressure in favour of the freedoms that are reduced, of the people that are oppressed, of public opinion that is stifled, cannot be condemned a priori; indeed it should be supported.

c) The Council ignores the last advance of these modern demands, the application of them not only in the domain of material life, work, family happiness, property, leisure, etc., but also and above all the application of the “goods of the human soul”, those goods that are called “cultural” today. The Council’s aim was to go to these spiritual goods, which were still at the time considered supreme and sovereign: the convictions and practice of religion.

On this point, which was even more sensitive than the others, this demand for freedom appears quite normal to everyone who demands it for himself and for his own religion, his own Church or religious community! What in him is most intimate and most sacred is not negotiable at all. Death before apostasy.

One need not make an enormous effort to admit for others what he claims for himself, for his own religion, for his own Church. On the contrary, it seems logical: one cannot prohibit others to exercise a right that he professes that he possesses and on which he would not compromise in any way.

So, long live total religious, social and political freedom; long live, too, intellectual and moral freedom!

This is the final stage of a slow process of becoming aware of the basic demands of this “dignity of man”. This dignity distinguishes him from the animals and cannot bear being denied, being socially and politically annihilated in slavery and other situations of the same kind, which are universally condemned today.

SHAKY FOUNDATIONS

This all seems so clear, so true, so just that, in order to make up for the Roman Church’s enormous lagging behind these various movements of public opinion, the Council hastens to declare the full convergence of these desires with its own faith and its own morality:

« It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old. »

The Council forestalls the fears, the astonishment, and the suspicions that may be occasioned by declaring its Catholic Faith straightaway: « First, the Council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. »

It is known that this important passage and other shorter ones were inserted into the text at the last minute that preceded the final vote. This happened because a strong traditionalist minority made it a non-negotiable condition for its vote. Belief in the « one true religion » is recalled, the religion that « subsists [sic! Why this strange word? Why not say clearly that this unique and true religion is that of the one Catholic Church?] in the Catholic Church », as well as the mission of converting « all men » that was given to the Apostles.

The reference given is Matthew 28.19-20 rather than Mark, which is too clear: « Go out to the whole world; proclaim the Good News to all creation. He who believes and is baptised will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned. » (Mk 16.16)

It is undoubtedly too strong a wine for new wine skins… The result is apparently correct, and cold, but it is inhuman: here is divine blessedness, if you do not want it… you are free to chose!

Then this confession of faith in the Church who preaches the true religion is counterbalanced by a confident appeal to « all men », reminding them that they are « bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know – just like that, it is done quickly? – and to hold fast to it. »

The error was to blend these two convictions together, one of which is solid, the other insubstantial, in order to infer from them a solution to the problem in question, a solution which, in fact, had been desperately supported, then obviously abandoned… but which its supporters undoubtedly wanted to make a point of honour to maintain.

« Likewise again, the Council declares that this twofold duty concerns man’s conscience and binds him, and that the truth can only be imposed by the force of the truth itself that enters the mind with as much gentleness as force. Now, because religious freedom, which man claims in the fulfilment of his duty of giving worship to God, concerns his immunity from all constraint in civil society, it is in no way detrimental to the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of man and associations with regard to the true religion and the unique Church of Christ. »

Because this tangle of truth and freedom, of the duty to seek the former and the right to benefit from the other is unpalatable, the Council shuts the mouths of the scoffers by invoking the small number of major authorities in twenty centuries of dogmatic teaching that it can line up here:

« Over and above all this, the Council intends to develop [oh!] the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society. »

This was to announce surreptitiously, the overwhelming, crushing, definitive argument that the Council finally dared to bring out to the astonishment of the whole world.

What was horrendous in it? This ingratiating presentation of the matter – it is not in the least disturbing, and so “liberating”! – was due to the writers’ cleverness or cunning.

GENERAL DOCTRINE ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2. « This Vatican Council declares [in its own name, that is to say, it has no value!] that the human person has a right to religious freedom. » In order for a subject to enjoy a right, a society in which this right is exercised is required, an authority whose recognised power grants rights, by means of laws respect for which it guarantees and breaches of which it penalises.

GOD OFFENDED AND HIS COVENANT VIOLATED.

The legislator in question well and truly exists. He is the almighty Creator, our God I am-Jesus. This God, with whom the Council seems to be unfamiliar, wanted men to adore Him, pray to Him, serve Him, and love Him in order to gain Life, eternal Blessedness. From this, we can, we must deduce that He makes it a duty for every man to adhere freely to this Covenant, with the sacred right of adhering to it by himself, without constraint or impediment. As for the other religions and irreligions, how can this infinitely holy God do anything other than hate them as snares of Satan and forbid their very public or private existence as a major offence against His glory and a harmful obstacle to the salvation of all men?

The Council thus « declares » something that is totally offensive to its God and Saviour, and totally contrary to its own mission of universal salvation.

There is nothing better, more divine, more full of promise but also more indispensable than to become a member of the Catholic Church in order to merit eternal life. So, no coercion of any sort, familial, social or political, can exert itself against the full freedom of being a member of Jesus Christ without crime. This exterior freedom can be supposed in children by their parents; to baptise them is not coercion, but an assistance of charity that is granted to them: so true this is that they will be in agreement.

As for the other religions and irreligions, the Church of Jesus Christ cannot recognise any right to them; it deplores their vested interests or the tolerance that has been left to them. Of course, the Church forces no one to work out his salvation against his erroneous, deceived conscience, but she is entitled to fight and forbid in the public domain all the manifestations of these diabolical errors, and to impose all that is consonant with Catholic Faith and morality, on all the subjects of a Catholic State.

It was his « intense love » for the Church that caused our Father to be snatched from our community in 1996 by Mgr Daucourt, the Bishop of Troyes at the time. During his exile in the Cistercian Abbey of Hauterive, in Switzerland, he restudied the Acts of Vatican II. « The cause of the Church’s ruin is here, under my scalpel, and it has to be eradicated. » He filled three notebooks under the provocative title of Vatican II, Auto-da-fe.

It is necessary to recall here what is denied throughout the world: all power comes from God, from the only and true God, holy and Almighty, I am-Jesus. Thus every person who is designated to reign is invested with His authority by our God. This very real relationship leads God to help this leader in his temporal work, just as in return, this prince must procure the temporal good of his subjects, but also assist with all his political power the moral and religious good of his country. Political authority is not an entity distinct from the man who exercises it, allowing him to live in the Covenant of His God in his private life, and publicly to ignore Him when pursuing a line of politics that does not acknowledge Him. This is nevertheless the universal rule of our modern world.

A NEW RIGHT WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

After having proclaimed this “religious freedom”, after having divested it of the authority and the will of I am-Jesus, our apostate Council seeks an authority on which this right, which is still “up in the air” can depend. God, the living God, is dismissed. Who can give force of law, in the name of what can it be given to this immense, supreme freedom of liberty now granted to billions of individual human beings? We know the answer: the right to religious freedom is founded on the very dignity of the human person.

In advance, in order to have it believed that the thing is solidly based, the following is said in passing: the dignity of the human person « that is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself » (the note references Mgr Pavan’s calamitous encyclical that John XXIII signed, Pacem in Terris). The Council then makes it a duty for all legal authorities of the planet – but in whose name, good heavens! – to recognise this right to religious freedom: « thus it is to become a civil right ». In fact, all the peoples obeyed!

Paradoxically, this declaration of exterior freedom calls for a series of dictatorial-like recommendations that are made to all men « to seek the truth… They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. » It is impressive, but it is the worst kind of rhetoric. First, because it is an interior coercion, well…! Second, because the Council that enacts all these laws has no power and no intention to supervise their execution. Finally, because it is nothing but an argument to bring us back to the obsession for freedom of religion in the social order:

« However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. »

This is the reasoning of an imbecile: in order for men to discharge these grandiose impulses of their nature and of their conscience, they must be totally freed from their chains, and they must enjoy a total « psychological freedom » and likewise « immunity », I almost said… parliamentary. Basically, this is what it is: may the sovereign people enjoy the same immunities as those that their elected representatives gave themselves, in order for everyone to act virtuously without a trace of external coercion.

The realistic objection was made a hundred times: even parliamentary immunity can be withdrawn in serious cases when the representative of the people who no longer listens to his conscience and even the profound instinct of his nature, behaves like a brigand. Well then, if billions of men are free but are still coerced in their soul and conscience to seek, to find, to adopt the only true religion, the Christian religion… if they take advantage of their freedom to turn their backs on all truth, what will be done? With their back to the wall, the answer is superb:

« The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very nature of the person. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, (provided that just public order be observed). » I put a concessive or restrictive clause between parentheses, because it has nothing to do with the matter… other than to submit these outbursts of ecclesiastical rhetoric to the examination and authorisation of the prefect of police.

Here is the result of the operation: you cease to forbid murder, you publish a text of a high moral tone to awaken the consciences of bandits. It is perfect! Then, what will you do when you are presented with a horrible recidivist? Will you say to him: Come now, my friend, you are lucky. Society no longer considers it a crime, but I appeal to your conscience, while respecting in accordance with the new law your dignity as a human person and your immunity as a murderer? This is what Vatican II says.

“THE GOD”, GUARANTOR OF FREEDOM

§ 3 speaks of God, but which God? Of I am- Jesus, the God of our Fathers who established an exclusive Covenant with Israel, then, in the Water and Blood of Jesus crucified, with His new people, His one and holy Spouse, the Church outside of which there is no salvation? No! This God is absent from this sort of metaphysics or rational theology that, now, as an afterthought, the Council provides as the basis and confirmation of its anthropology, which is copied from modern philosophies, and is barely deist.

The Council evokes a God who is a universal legislator, « who governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community », which we call universal orthodromy. Then this vague theodicy is amalgamated with the personalist anthropology that alone is in vogue today: « under the gentle disposition », divine Providence is called upon to guarantee the dignity, the value, the effectiveness of the thought and conscience of each man in the search for truth. “Thanks to God”, one might say, this religious Kantism works! The morality of duty, without obligation or sanction, is embedded in concrete on the pedestal of the God of Aristotle and Plato.

The Council incidentally enriches its theory with the contribution of Paul VI in Ecclesiam suam (6 August 1964), concerning the « free inquiry into truth ». In order to democratise it, romanticise it, relativise it: « We go to the truth with our whole soul », Marc Sangnier used to say following Plato; we go to it through dialogue, a dialogue in which each person confronts his “part of the truth” and his part of error with everyone else. With Paul VI, dialogue had no goal, and the Church surrenders her arms to Freemasonry by dragging out this « quest for truth ». This « quest » favours fraternal exchange and communion in the same quest and is conducted to the detriment of discovering the truth and professing it with certainty. Actually discovering the truth and professing it becomes something worthy of blame because it puts an end to the dialogue to the advantage of some against others: it puts an end to liberty!

I admit that one must be very able if he is going to build dream castles in the air in this way; these castles please the eye but are the product of illusions. Only mystical souls will rise up passionately against this caricature of God, a carnival Jupiter that the Council places on its float in order to have him applauded; it makes him its big success.

The rest is the same cheap counterfeit: in appearance it is gold, in reality, it is cardboard. Listen to this story. Man perceives in his conscience the commands of « the divine law », and by following them he « may come to God, the end and purpose of life ». This itinerary, « of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God… »

I interrupt in order to point out that, as the cause that the Reformers are treating requires, they say anything that they need, and soon afterwards say its opposite. Thus, our reforming liturgists wail that religion is essentially public, communitarian, ceremonial, in order to lay down the law. Those who demand religious freedom, however, affirm that religion is very intimate, personal, charismatic, in order to conclude according to their view: « No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. »

It is true that they immediately make up for it by saying that this religion that originates in the recesses of the conscience where « the Supreme Being » speaks, then manifests the very strong need, by virtue of man’s « social nature », for « external expression », in such a manner « that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community ». This excursus from the private realm to the public is frankly unexpected…, but it prepares for what follows. The Council pushes its audacity a little further and utters:

« Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion (sic) is denied in society, provided just public order is observed. »

Submission to the State in order to guarantee maintaining public order is one thing; it is nonetheless necessary to affirm religious freedom with respect to the State. The Council wants it and demonstrates in its own fashion:

« The religious acts, it explains, whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend (I underline) by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favour, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious. »

We must interrupt here, for my reader, as myself, after thirty or more readings of this insane verbiage, we are lost. It does not suffice to exclaim: « This language belongs to Freemasons! » Its incompatibility with reason, good sense and the Catholic Faith must be expounded.

NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS

Let us speak frankly. Here we speak not of “our truth”, but the Truth:

1. There are the two paths that contemporary public opinion has transformed into two parties raised up one against the other in an apocalyptic battle, called “the right” and “the left”. The left has made it its cause to affirm the dignity of man, his imprescriptable rights, and, in particular his right to freedom, and above all his right to religious freedom, or freedom “in religious matters”. The right has opposed them.

Yet, the left respects nothing; when it comes to power it has always displayed inhuman despotism. The right has often risen up against the left’s despotism out of respect for traditional “liberties”. The left is obsessed with the “right to education”, freed from all Catholic religious influence. Even though Catholic teaching was forbidden by the left in power, the Church responded by opening “denominational schools”, despite the illegality of so doing!

These vicissitudes of the struggle do not obscure these undeniable facts: the left wants « neither God nor master »; the right is Catholic. The cause of the right is to serve God, the Church, the Homeland, and the poor with all its generosity, according to its traditions, and with respect for the two powers, the religious and the political. The right wants these two powers to be « in happy concert », for the public good and the salvation of souls: the Pope and the King under the aegis of the Immaculate Virgin, Our Lady of France and everywhere.

2. The Council cheats by presenting these diametrically opposed claims and demands as “signs of the times”, a spontaneous, innocent movement of public opinion that is devoid of fighting or ulterior motives. Obviously this is a new attack of a type proper to the Freemasonry and its allies, the Protestants in particular; they are frenzied enemies of the Latin monarchies and the Catholic Church. The Council made itself the accomplice of this revolution, which it was going to justify and accomplish by its own means and by its sovereign force.

Lying on « truth and justice » and even more seriously on « the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church », it presents this revolutionary manifesto as a novelty, but one drawn from the primary source of divine Revelation and in constant agreement with Catholic doctrine.

3. We know how the Catholic minority of the Council repeated hundreds of times, to the fury of the progressivist majority, that since the Catholic religion is the unique and true way of salvation, it alone received authority from God, from I am-Jesus, all the freedoms, rights and powers to fulfil its mission. The Church’s entire being, all her value, her whole life are based on the almighty Will of the true God. It follows that all men have the right and the duty to work out their salvation and that they must be given the power to know the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world. It is the primary and ultimate work for their will; this work must not be coerced, but it must be assisted, out of charity for their souls, which are threatened with Hell.

It is with distressing cunning that the Council starts its progressivist heresy with a reminder of these Catholic truths. First, it gives us to believe that the Church always forbade all freedom of conscience, that she preached coercion in order to bring people to convert as well as to prevent all contrary action by the enemies of her faith or by perverted false brethren. Thus, in the past everything, whether interior and exterior would have been subject to coercion, which is an enormous falsehood, and now everything is freedom, social and political freedom as well as freedom of conscience and spiritual wishes.

In the last lines of § 1, the result is that a reconciliation is effected and demonstrated by means of a false truism: the claim to one’s full social and personal freedom, in particular with respect to secular powers…, is in perfect consonance with the aspiration and the claim of the present masses in this same matter. The problem is that, these masses, who are more honest and generous, to be sure, demand for everyone what the Church claims only for herself and her faithful.

Thus, there would be a religious freedom that was well or ill experienced until yesterday, while from outside, vociferously, the prophets of the future demanded that all men and all the religions of all the gods participate in the same privileges that had been jealously reserved for Catholics alone to the advantage and glory of the one Church of Jesus Christ alone, Son of the true God, Creator of the world and universal Lord.

The Council hides the complete difference and absolute opposition that exists between Catholic freedom and democratic or Masonic liberty…

4. Oddly enough, it dismisses every supernatural light and any rational demonstration. It affirms as a premise, which it accepts and imposes on us as a new “right”. It assures us that this “right: has « its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself ». Thereupon, putting reason aside and disregarding the revealed word of God, it launches itself into creating a whole system of natural law that is increasingly utopian and improper. We have seen the truth of this statement. What we did not say, however, is this: the cornerstone of this system is not God at all; (…) the principle and foundation of this new right is Man, Man as a totality, or every man; it is his dignity. This dignity bears the whole system of the world to come and is equivalent to divinising man, absolutising, rendering a cult to man. Without this, all this new way of life would founder into anarchy, corruption, violence and death.

Did the Council forget Jesus’ word in the desert, in answer to the Tempter at his third suggestion: « It is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, and to Him alone shall you render worship.” (Lk 4.8)

It is, nevertheless, in this excessively secular cult that the Council finds itself somewhat too exposed. The unshakable atheism of the godless, their new “brethren” required that the successors of the Apostles invoke the name of God upon this Temple.

Here again it is a scandal. The Council speaks about God, His Providence, His plans for the human community. We learn, without any reference to Holy Scripture or to any recommendable person, that this God or « Supreme Being » (no 4) specifically willed all this constitutional architecture of individual and social human freedom, a grand construction in which all religions, irreligions and anti-religions will have their lodges, without discrimination, inequality, fanaticism or violence. Thus, as in the days of Assisi and Brussels, and elsewhere, under the benevolent eye of the « Supreme Being », the God of the Council, all the gods, goddesses, demons and sacred animals will see themselves adored, prayed and listened to with equal fervour.

I ask: where is I am-Jesus, our one and true God in Three Persons? Is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and Our Father one of the gods of this world Pantheon, placed in subjection by the Council and constrained to get along with all the gods of the devil?

I only have one word left to say, a single word. The Supreme Being that the Council invokes here, its cold, inhuman, faceless, lifeless “God”, a sort of theorem or digit, who is the designer of all the divinities, of their religions, of their dogmas, of their laws and their destinies in the world is not our God! Absit! He is, however, Someone and this Someone governs the world today… and if not the whole Church, at least her Roman head, her grand Council. So, who is the Prince of this world invoked by the Council as the Thinker and the Creator of the new Universal Order? Well, courage, say it yourself:

– Satan?

It is you who have said it!

FREEDOM FOR ALL

4. The remainder is only the application, the generalisation, of what was defined, i.e., that man, all men, are gods, absolutely free to create gods, to found religions and to preach them to the whole world, under the protective, slightly sardonic gaze of the Prince of this world, Lucifer.

So, it follows naturally that rights are granted to groups or associations: « The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious that is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognised as their right when they act in community. » Among the rights recognised to these human groups is that of « honouring the Supreme Being in public worship ».

Judge for yourself! The Council gives everything, permits everything to religious movements, whatever they are: « to assist their members in the practice of the religious life, to strengthen them by instruction, and to promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles, etc. » We have here the same restriction already encountered twice: not to impede the State in its function of maintaining public order. The bishops of that time were more impressed by the prestige and the power of their historic leaders like Churchill, de Gaulle, Andreotti, than by the power and glory of our Heavenly Father, and of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, King of kings and Lord of lords…

It must be said that this § 4 draws up the list of all the freedoms that for a century the Church had demanded from the Freemasons everywhere in power without obtaining anything. So, these gullible fools imagined that if they claimed and demanded these rights, i.e., their legitimate rights, rights vital for the Church, under the aegis of the Supreme Being and the label of the UN, if they stood shoulder to shoulder with the united left-wing from the Bastille to the Republic, they would perhaps obtain them. But where the reasoning of the bishops stops for want of enlightenment, the facts keep moving straight for Hell. Thus, apostasy descended from the heights of the Vatican to the humble cottages of our countryside, announcing without qualms the death of our old Christian communities. The new ones are not worth speaking about.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE FAMILY

In § 5, it is a question of the education of children. The family has « its own original right, has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life... » It is off to a good start. The text continues: « under the guidance of parents ». It is a catastrophe! The ten lines that elaborate upon this right of parents are as old as the world, in Christendom! To recognise and write into laws the right of the parents over their children, their education, their religious instruction, their morality, is the intrepid defence of the soul, the body and the heart of their children, before the State, schools and the despicable. In short, it is salvation. Only, this system gives parents such rights by the sacred delegation of the authority of the Heavenly Father, of Jesus our King and of the Virgin Mary, our divine Mother. Thus, by obeying their parents, they obey God, Jesus, and Mary. It is marvellous!

The Council, however, does not know all these people. Today, it is no longer I am-Jesus who commands, it is the “ego”. The father can say concerning his children: « I want… » The child now replies: « Well, that is too bad, because I am free, and I want it otherwise. » Bishops, you have rejected your God; now God leaves you naked, without dignity, power, or courage, in the face of almighty Lucifer!

EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FREEDOM OF ALL

§ 6 deals with “responsibility”. One must be careful not to restrict in the slightest either the liberty or the “responsibility” that modern man claims for his acts. Let no one meddle in his business! Pulchre, recte, optime... Who will judge this criminal, who is proudly « free and responsible » for his acts, if he turns his back on the truth, on law, on good, if he invokes his conscience to support his crimes, or if he denies that the individual conscience exists at all any more than God the Creator of the world? Who will sanction his wrongdoings? Who will pay the damages and interest?

The Council’s answer is honeyed. We are familiar with it: « Injury therefore is done to the human person » if we dare ask for explanations. It is so stupid that they call the police force in as reinforcements: « provided just public order is observed ».

I have the honour of indicating to all jurists – be they freemasons, bishops or Council periti – that here there is a legal loophole, which is a vice as well as a loophole. For in theory you declare your human person free and responsible, in a utopian definition or idolatrous vision of his personhood, but this freedom does not receive from any qualified authority, from any competent tribunal, from any regular or secular arm the slightest definition of good and evil, of order and disorder, of justice or injustice, on the basis of which his “responsibility” can be qualified, measured, sanctioned with honours or punishment before God and before the state. The Council murmurs to us its lone answer: « Adore, and be silent. »

One would think that he was coming back to something concrete because this § 6 concerns « common welfare ». But no, the captive balloon, freed from its last moorings, bounds into the stratosphere: common welfare « chiefly (!) consisting in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person », can only be the sum of the freedoms and rights of all the persons belonging to the community being considered – including the immigrant, the political refugee, the victims of exclusion and the marginalised… thus all find themselves in a position « to achieve their own perfection in a certain fullness of measure and also with some relative ease ».

It is sheer madness, idolatrous lunacy!

« Certain that it is inspired, the Council admonishes States to get involved: « The protection and promotion of the inviolable (sic) rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government ». I summarise. The Church mothers the peoples; she leaves it up to the civil powers to father them; it is touching! Thus, they must be full of concern for « religious life », in such a manner that society itself may enjoy in its sphere the side-effects of « religion ». Which religion? All of them, of course, including irreligion, which is a form of religious freedom, of equal value or perhaps superior to the others.

The Council protests against all discrimination in favour of a religion that is on its way to becoming even the “state religion”, or official religion of the Prince, as in times past, because of the side-effects of such a protection and exaltation by the Catholic State, of the Catholic religion become the religion of a whole people.

In the atmosphere of the Church “in a state of Council”, no one imagined for one second that the Church would reprimand the Stalinist state, the popular democracies where Communism was the State irreligion, or any of the Muslims states either, being convinced of the excellence of their Qur’anic theocracy where the two powers – temporal and spiritual – are but one, or all the societies of the world… The exceptions were the really Catholic nations, the Portugal of Salazar, the Spain of Franco, the Vietnam of the Catholic president Diem, where freedom of religion was reserved to the one true and holy religion of God, I am-Jesus, and the Roman Catholic Church of Christ. To all the other religions these states of Christian, and thus superior, civilisation offered various forms of presence, of life, of cooperation, according to concordats of tolerance and not of right… The Council rejects them with indignation – the rejection and indignation are shared by Freemasonry – as acts of discrimination that are prejudicial to the dignity, freedom, and, in sum, the cult of man, the universal and definitive religion of Christ and Satan reconciled.

Hence, we come to the last paragraph, which defines very well the rights and duties of the political power towards the lone revealed religion that presently exists:

« It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. »

The misfortune is that the Council does not want to make this programme binding on the lone Church that has a right to it and a capacity for it. But the Council acts generous, is blind to all the other religions, and wishes that they enjoy such considerable privileges over which she will not be jealous.

LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

7. The Council concludes its purely naturalistic, secular, legal study by making Man into a sort of divinity that freely and sovereignly creates its own religion, morality and life, by seeking to moderate such a right to freedom and thus to « subject its exercise to certain regulatory norms. »

First, it is reassuring – but it does not reassure us! – when it links this assertion to another that relates it to the « rights of others ». Then it concludes too rapidly for the lesson to have any effect; moreover, how could it have an effect! « Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility. »

There remains a last chance… to appeal to Caesar! Yes, the Church has preached freedom so well and its respect by everyone towards everyone else, yet she finally realises that « possible abuses [could be] committed on the pretext of freedom of religion ». She looks for who would have « the right to defend society against possible abuses ». The astonishing answer is given immediately: « It is the special [I admire this “special” uttered by the holy Church!] duty of government to provide this protection. » Thereupon, having found the recourse that it was urgent to legitimate for performing this reactionary work that the Church was abandoning, the Council addresses to the civil authorities its advice, counsel and recommendations… so that they may succeed in restoring order without forbidding disorder, and in coming to reason without bringing into question the revolutionary delirium.

All of this, in the style of John XXIII in Pacem in terris, is a logorrhea that is littered with grand words. We do not know what meaning, value or dream they convey: « juridical norms… objective moral order... effective safeguard of the rights… peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights… genuine public peace… life lived (sic) together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality. » Here is a programme that the Church, Mater et magistra, who has given up all her powers in order to act the fool, orders governments to learn from her and to apply. One would think that after having passed on the work to the police and to customs officials, the Church would support their efforts – but not at all! Now she has a scapegoat in the democratic chaos that the Council triggered: it would be up to the government, the army and to the police to be the last “guardians of order”, and to receive blows and insults from everyone, under the cold and critical gaze of priests.

This astounding paragraph ends with praise of the broadest possible freedom, « as far as possible »! « and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary (oh!) ». In the field, this means that every policeman confronted with a party of armed men will only have the right to shoot when he is mortally wounded.

Read, re-read it: where do you see in these pages the slightest word of the Lord, or even a quotation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, or quite simply the slightest allusion to God, to our God, to Jesus Christ, to religion in its dogmas and moral laws? There is nothing. The Council advises this state without any Christian identity, without any fundamental truth. It is all good for the UN. Our bishops have completely lost the Faith. It was they who in the past invoked the Christian Democrats’ « primacy of the spiritual » against the « politics first! » of the right. Is this not already the shift from the religion of St. Pius X with his motto: « To restore all things in Christ » to this “sacred Synod” with its new motto: To restore all things on Man, on his dignity, thus on his religious freedom, the source of all his other rights, under the guarantee of « the Supreme Being », the creator and organiser of the new world.

TRAINING IN FREEDOM

This first humanist, rationalist, Gnostic – let us say Masonic – part, is concluded by an exhortation of the sort that our last conciliar popes were fond of: « Men, be men! » (Paul VI)

The Council suddenly points out that the human individual is really a « reed », as Blaise Pascal used to say, a thinking reed, he specified, without, however, affirming that he thinks by himself, this unfortunate man who is idolised in order to better manipulate him and reduce him to the slavery of the Devil and his legions!

8. « Many pressures are brought to bear upon the men of our day, to the point where the danger arises lest they lose the possibility of acting on their own judgement »

Ah! Here I am interested. That is a problem! Perhaps Vatican II is going to awaken here and plead in favour of the Mater et magistra, this holy Roman Church, in order for her to save humanity struggling against the demons who stupefy and corrupt it? Well! Not a chance! It launches an appeal « to everyone, especially those who are charged with the task of educating others, to do their utmost to form men who… » Need we quote these flat generalities that lack clarity, these discourses of tired and shaky old men, who dream of a world where they might grow old and die without worries?

Here you are: « men who will be obedient [ah! fancy that…] to lawful authority [that of the Pope or that of the president of the UN? that of their parents or that of their teachers? that of their deputy, of their guru?] and who will be lovers of true freedom. »

Here is another: « … men who will come to decisions [which?] on their own judgement and in the light of truth [which truth? the Muslim, the Buddhist, the radical-socialist truth, or the umpteen “truths” of the pseudo-Catholic sects], govern their activities with a sense of responsibility, and strive after what is true and right [what, for example?], willing always to join with others in cooperative effort. »

Do you see? I do not.

The final word of this Masonic text does not surprise me. When a parliamentary assembly comes up against a difficulty, a difficulty that a word recalls to them like a thorn in the flesh, it uses it in every way imaginable, with an air of having mastery of it. No one asks for explanations for fear of appearing stupid.

« Religious freedom therefore ought to have this further purpose and aim, namely, that men may come to act with greater responsibility in fulfilling their duties in community life. » This is a fine conclusion for a speech made on the occasion of being received into the Académie française. But, instead of applauding or laughing, I prefer to think: we showed that before this fragile “thinking reed”, thinking so little! the conciliar Declaration removes all the “leading strings”, all the crutches, the safeguards, in such a manner that everyone is free to act by himself and that the Church also wants him to be free and thus voluntarily held to be responsible for his acts. But after having disported himself in his young freedom, the “consequences of his acts” turn society against him; he is declared responsible for them. God will ask for an explanation; the state, insurance companies, and the victims will demand an accounting. The poor soul will not come out of it alive.

So, let us exhort him to have this lofty sense of his responsibility, but above all let us not explain to him the vengeful and devastating power of this word. For the result will be a galvanizing axiom that catches the Council in the act of criminally lying: Poor man, who are intoxicated with compliments and flattery on the dignity and freedom that are yours, you should know that you are not God any more than you are a genious. In any case, in this world or the next you will have to answer for your acts before all the authorities of this world and the next. You are responsible for your acts, and therefore you were not free –falsehood of Satan! – to commit them. In time those who told you so have vanished; it would be just, however, that they share your punishment, since they fuelled your delirium for freedom for their own benefit.

But interest is mounting, for the Council is going to invoke the Gospel in support of its discourse. Before such authority, we should thus yield, of course, if the proof is honest and irrefutable.

THE IMPOSSIBLE PROOF BY REVELATION

9. This new doctrine must truly be contrary to the divine truth that is the whole of the “deposit of the Faith” for the Council to have to begin by appealing to “the experience” of an increasingly strong and demanding public opinion. Read it for yourself:

« The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. » Such a style, so base a proof makes all criticism unnecessary. Where is God, I am-Jesus, in this allegedly popular emotion?

Well! Here He is called to the rescue:

« What is more, this doctrine… has roots in divine Revelation, and Christians (!) for this reason are bound to respect it all the more in a holy manner. »

What an astonishing remark this is! We are subjected to a doctrine of Freemasonry, and we must not only observe it in a « holy » manner, but what is more, we must find its « roots » in divine Revelation… « for this reason… all the more » they write without trembling at the offence made to God!

The remainder is not any better. It includes several admissions that we will remember. First, it is introduced by the conjunction « although »; this prepares a concession that must be granted to opponents. Here is the enormity: « Revelation does not expressly (sic) affirm the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious ». If nothing explicit can be found on a subject of such importance, over which discussions since 1830 have not ceased to be heated, it is because there is nothing in Revelation, either explicit or implicit, in favour of this pernicious novelty, and there is everything that is explicitly required to anathematise it, as it will be necessary to do in the end.

Not in the least disconcerted, our Council perks up to declare that Revelation « discloses the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions ».

This is talking for the sake of talking, except to announce the various parts of the theological proof, in addition to the Masonic proof.

LIBERTY AND ACT OF FAITH

10. This entire pseudo-morality rests on two a priori that are given as universally accepted: the first is that the ultimate end of human desire lies in winning one’s freedom to think, to love, to do whatever it may be as proof of his dignity. Thus, there must be no coercion, not even in the name of a more far-reaching good affecting a community or a better good that would alienate his own freedom and humiliate his dignity. The second a priori is that “the Supreme Being”, his Creator, cannot do otherwise, does not want to do otherwise, does not think otherwise for man than in accord with the first given and that everyone’s destiny is to exercise his freedom in full responsibility, that is to say, to do absolutely nothing other than what his “conscience” inspires him to do, thus to fulfil himself completely, without being prevented and punished in any way by human authorities or by God here below or in eternity. This is the absurd context in which the Council consecrated the right to freedom, and this is what it intends to find, at least in embryo, or in its “roots”, in Christian Revelation.

« Man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will… » It can be seen here that this is the expression of Catholic truth, since, apart from the inevitable and unique reference to Pacem in Terris, there is at the bottom of the page a list of very good references. The text provides fine proof of the suitability of this freedom, which I do not want to neglect.

« The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Saviour and through Christ Jesus called to be God’s adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father (cf. Jn 6.44), he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. »

The Church has always taught this. But then, without a warning, the Council slides into an improper generalisation: « It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. »

One fine day I realised that this principle, which is strictly limited to baptism, was already false, contrary to the general practice of the Church and diabolically malicious. Because after all – and these progressivists said so to the point of modifying, for their part, a sacred Catholic custom – the baptism of children goes against this principle. In order to respect sacrosanct freedom, it would be necessary to wait until an adult age had been attained at which no social pressure can obstruct freedom… it is logical!

The parish priests in times gone by knew the good answer, and they compared this “violation of freedom” to another one that is more agonising, and quite secular: on the first day of school, the child in tears does not want to go, and his intrepid mother forcibly takes him there!

In the immense multitude of Catholics, of Christians, of civilised persons there is good morality, tastes and ideas, and there is bad or wicked ones. It is evident that parents give to their child what is good for him before his freedom is awakened. Obvious demands, “permissions” are anticipated. The mother does not wait for her baby who is crying to attain his majority to give him the breast, and the child takes it hungrily without saying thank you… So it is for all things: the child does not hunger for freedom or need it, he requires all the goods of body and soul. His ultimate end is not self-worship; it is the happiness of Paradise. His parents will have him baptised, and they will have him « renew the promises of his baptism » himself when he will be old enough to do so.

Evidence in favour of certain coercions can then be extended to a hundred, to a thousand situations in which they are the only effective means for reasoning with the little animal until he comes to an age more than adult, for maintaining him in his honest commitments that are indispensable for his present and eternal life, because it is for his own good. St. Augustine dared to ask God in a prayer to obtain the grace of virtue with a view to eternal salvation, not to be bothered by his own protests or stopped by them: « Etiam rebelles compelle voluntates. » Ah! For such a motive, o my God, compel even my rebellious will!

Thus it is illegitimate, dangerous, and even vicious to pass from the law of the Church demanding that baptism not be imposed on those who do not want it to the radical condemnation of all coercion in matters religious. In this apparently harmless extension, there is a passage from our faith in God and His blessed eternity to the theory of the modern ungodly person who raises up his faith in man as a sworn adversary of all human order.

But the following treachery is worse:

« In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian Faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life. »

The picture is idyllic. Eat my apple, the Serpent said; you will see; it is great!

The question of the truth is relegated to a position of secondary importance. We only see the advantages inherent in what accompanies our freedom as Catholics, a freedom that is supported by the aspirations to and claims of freedom come from all the children of the world… Is this not what Christ and the Apostles did?

A CORRUPTED GOSPEL

11. At last, we must be put in contact with Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the saints, and the Church of past centuries… to see if this holds together. Obviously, it does not. Yet it does hold, if one does not pull at it too much. It is just good enough to have the Fathers of the Council vote for it on the eve of its closing. They will not have the time to think, to get their breath. The Pope helped it a great deal. Whew! It passed almost unanimously. Then the conspirators themselves recognised that it was indeed not very well-founded and promised to do better the next time.

Must we plunge into this magma of dishonest exegesis? Compared to the five pages of distorted quotations, it is the whole Bible, Tradition, the saints that cries out against the falsehood. Let us try to move against this torrent in order to turn it back. It is a hopeless cause…

Here is the inevitable link between God, about whom they gave the impression of speaking, and Jesus Christ. I point out that it is not I am-Jesus, our heavenly Father, about whom these bishops or Freemason experts speak here; it is « the Supreme Being », who never revealed himself to men whom he would have created for their own grandeur and freedom. Here is this Satanic Creed:

« God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion [No! The Grand Architect of the Freemasons did not create Hell]. God has regard (sic) for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgement and he is to enjoy freedom. »

This final sentence is one of the summits of the conciliar apostasy! God « has regard » for the freedom of man, and if He obliges, it never goes to the point of coercion: man does what he wills and will not be punished for it. God « obliges » knowing full-well that what counts is not that man obey Him, but that man stand up in his full stature… to the glory of his Creator, even if it is to defy Him. This is the God of Vatican II, in whose image it is going to portray « Christ Jesus ».

« This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. » Then an entertaining stroll begins through the Gospel of St. Matthew, from which have been isolated the signs and words of Christ’s goodness, patience, and mercy, which alternate with others that might seem contrary, « indeed… but », immediately another word puts the preceding word into perspective. It is the Jesus of Renan, of Tolstoy even more… or “The Idiot” of Dostoevsky, the non-violent, the friend of men.

We get bogged down in sentimentality, not even being aware of what we want to know, of what they are set against, or of what they want to convince us is Jesus’ conduct…

« He refused to be a political Messiah, ruling by force [this is certain], He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man [an odd incompetence on the part of the periti who do not know the messianic value of this word from the Book of Daniel], who came “to serve and to give His life as a ransom for the many” », which seems to have settled everything, for « in the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion. » He achieved salvation? Salvation from what punishment? For Vatican II, Hell does not exist: salvation by the Cross of Christ saved humanity from it. The positive outcome of Jesus’ sojourn on earth is thus freedom, true freedom. The only thing that is unfortunate is that the Council speaks about the dangerous freedom of doing whatever we think fit… by following – of course! – for the sake of appearances, our upright, honest and well-informed conscience. Yet, the « true freedom » that Jesus came to bring us is the possibility of attaining divine truth, of entering into the grace of God, and of following the inspirations of the Holy Spirit because we have, through faith, submitted all our personal tendencies, whims and tastes to the Gospel. It is in this sense that He solemnly proclaims to the Jews who claimed to be free and who were proud of it, as the Council sees it! – that they are the slaves of their true father, the Devil… and that the Truth alone, which is His divine Word, will make them free, if they convert to it (Jn 8.32).

I do not dare embark in turn on an antithetical commentary on the inane affirmations of Vatican II.

THE TRUE MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL

It would begin by the warning of the Precursor, who announced eternal fire in terms full of imagery (Mt 3.10), a message that Jesus repeated identically: « Unless you repent, you will all perish. » (Lk 13.4)

It would continue by a fundamental remark: at this juncture our conciliar text never speaks of death or of what awaits us in the hereafter. Yet all the parables have as their set context a certain sports ground, or a road, or a boxing ring, where our encounter with the Gospel rings the bell for the first time, and then the second hand sweeps on the dial. Do what you wish; you are free to sleep, to wriggle out of it, to fight, but at the fixed time, there will be another sounding of the bell, a judgement on your score, on your fight, and then you will have to pay for it if you played poorly; you will be happy, honoured and gratified if you won a victory! It is implacable. It is God who judges, and the time of indulgence that the angels announced, that Jesus established, and that the Apostles continued will come to an end.

We will not be judged on our freedom, but on our responsibility.