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

RELATIONS (CONDUCT) OF THE CHURCH
WITH NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

(DECREE :  « NOSTRA ÆTATE »)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES 

This simple “Declaration” is ever so slim a text: seven pages, five paragraphs; for such an immense subject concerning millions of human beings, it is surprising. It was a very new, very daring, and very modern or modernist subject of study; hence there arose manifestations of opposition, of threatening antagonism, not within the Aula, but at the ends of the earth where the Christian missions and the religions involved clashed. All the more was this so because two totally different subjects were treated as a unit: explosive Judaism, which had been unable to find its ideal place among the chapters of the Decree on Christian ecumenism; it was really too much for our Uniate brethren, the Christian Arabs! No one wanted to dedicate a special decree to it any more than to the Blessed Virgin Mary!... So, as in the case of the Virgin, they agreed to attach it as a caboose onto the Act that dealt with non-Christian religions: this totally negative name is rather insulting. It is like being thrown into the basket of unsold articles at the end of the business day…

As for the second subject: the ensemble of all the non-Christian religions other than Judaism, which have been the object of uncountable studies throughout the centuries, it is very much the fact that the Church had never, apart from a few daring innovators – heresiarchs or those bordering on heresy –, treated this subject, at least in this manner, in this light. This is the source of its enormous twofold, threefold audacity:

1° to renew this subject, which had been forbidden until then, by ignoring all the Scriptural and ecclesiastical tradition with its glaringly obvious conclusions, which are today rejected;

2° to pass abruptly from a certain view of the world that was universally accepted to another that is absolutely revolutionary, « from anathema to dialogue »;

3° to integrate all the peoples of every religion, including the Jews and the Christians, into a single plan of God and a single grandiose progression of humanity towards its unique and universal destiny.

I have said in passing that this question of the « non-Christian and non-Jewish » did not exist in Catholic tradition and for the following good, undisputed reasons. First, the pagans were considered outside the Church, and were lost for the most part, although the law may suffer thousands or millions of exceptions. Yet they awaited Catholic preaching, in other words « missions », to which the Church appointed her best apostles in virtue of Jesus’ order, which does not admit of discussion (Mk 16.15-16; Mt 28.18-20).

Then, Fr. Van Straelen courageously and magnificently developed a critique of the theory of his confrere, Fr. Rahner, the theory of « anonymous Christians ». He did so because the mystery of the salvation of the infidel is not a “problem”; it is a secret that God reserves for Himself; He did not reveal it or let it be resolved by Rahner or by some Council. What is not in the Deposit of the Faith is not the object of revealed knowledge, even indirectly. At the most it could be a brilliant imagination, a daring opinion of Rahner’s, or an unwarranted supposition of a Council that was little concerned with the tragic character of our ignorance regarding the eternal fate of billions of our human brethren.

This text that was promulgated on 28 October 1965 in the course of the last session after last minute discussions that were conducted like a forced march. This text is, then, of capital importance for the new beginning of Catholic missionary work in the world, if it has been invested with the slightest authority. But, since it was only a declaration of opinion, a declaration that was formulated by a Council in a rush to be done with it, a declaration that advanced uncertain conclusions based on an interesting hypothesis, for the signatories themselves it was only spadework, nothing more, even with the intention of going into action. But for us, it is the radical destruction of an immense chapter of the Catholic Faith, which had in this way been unbalanced and exposed to a sudden ruin of what is left hanging… without anything remaining solid.

So, what do these seven pages reveal to us? What is new? What is old? Alas! Neither one nor the other! They introduce us into a world as God could have created it, one among all the “possibilities” of His infinite knowledge and liberty. It is a case of substituting the dream for reality. Before studying it, permit me to remind you of a text:

« Before God and before Christ Jesus who is to be judge of the living and the dead, I put this duty to you, in the name of His Appearing and of His Kingdom: proclaim the Word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfil your ministry. » (2 Tm 4.1-5)

« O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge. By professing it, some people have deviated from the Faith. Grace be with you. » (1 Tm 6.20-21)

PREAMBLE.
CONDITIONING, MAXIMUM BRAINWASHING

Point-blank, a false truism is asserted as a fact. It is an object of media obsession that is presented as visible, tangible, held by everyone, a category quite apart from every divine Word and any supernatural light or inspiration:

1. « In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together… » I interrupt to point out that this enormous news is presented here as part of a rhetorical period, as an indisputed and indisputable truth whose main clause will receive part of its strength « … and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger… » This has the same value as another portion of the rhetorical period. It contributes to hammering into our minds and calling them to consent, under the oppression of this fact, to the urgent and unavoidable consequence, whether we want it or not: « … the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions ».

But this is only the announcement, the wise, prudent, serene preparation of our minds for the decision that will unavoidably result from this new state of the world, that will result in her “behaviour” towards the other religions. I prefer the word conduct to translate the Latin « habitudo » to that of « relations », a less encompassing word, less rich and complete than « behaviour », in good French: conduite or comportement.

Note also that the first of the “Catholic Principles on Ecumenism” was based on an “obvious fact” of the same nature and origin, i.e., from the propaganda of the means of social communication (He is Risen, n^o 66, March 2008, pp. 3-6)

Not so long ago, the tendency – roused by whom? – was to separatism, to emancipating peoples. Then it totally changed in inspiration, and union got the upper hand to become an obsession, a value, a self-justifying, devouring passion. The passion then was for great combinations: it was the hour for ecumenism among Christians, and in the same movement it became the hour for globalisation. The inspiration is the same, the dream is the same, and it is on a growing scale: first European, then Western, finally global. The Council enthusiastically immerses itself in this great river, without even hesitating before letting itself be carried off towards its delta to the immense ocean: it is a cosmic necessity.

One last ironic remark and, as such, it is very, very explosive. Beware of the fallout! Some think that the means of global social communication are governed by high finance. That is secondary; but Freemasonry inspires its orders at the same time as its money. Now, one of its maxims is expressed in two impressive, enigmatic, but terrifying words: Solve et coagula. Freemasonry has fomented all sorts of revolutions, terrorism, nationalism, anti-colonialism. The Church – as a benevolent and idealistic collaborator – helped it. Then the same organisation, in a second stage, cemented the pulverulent masses into great units, increasingly vast and built into one another like a nest of tables or Russian dolls. The Council went along with it with the same enthusiastic good will.

Here is another remark that comes to my mind when insisting on linking the two projects of limited ecumenism, one among Christians and one with other religions that is coming and that has the same orientation and same spirit. Here it is: « the Church examines » Which Church? You would think: the Roman Catholic Church. Of course. But I notice something odd: in these five paragraphs, I counted five times the expressions « Church of Christ », « the faithful of Christ », or « Christians », once the name « Catholic Church », but fifteen times « Church ». This count corresponds to the general thinking, which seems to me to be this: no longer must any difference be made among the Christian brethren who are separated but who are on the way to being reunited, when it is a question of deciding on their obviously concerted, corroborating comportment towards other religions!

Let us advance into this futuristic, very revealing text:

« In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she (the conciliar Church) considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship » It is hair-raising. I really have the impression of entering into the Congress of an American sect. 1o « Her task [is] promoting unity among men, indeed among nations », and we have learned that the task was entering the general movement that is carrying humanity along. Just who gave the « Church » this « task »? The thoughtless Council did not even bat an eyelid at this monstrosity, for « unity », here, replaces the word truth that one would expect. The Church must make the whole world come to divine Truth and, through it, to divine grace from which brotherly love will be born into hearts. These three treasures that come from God through the Church awaken faith, hope, and then theological charity, which will bear the fruits of joy, concord, mutual forgiveness between persons and peoples. Without divine Truth, without the Catholic Faith, there will never be union of souls. « Without Me, you can do nothing », said Jesus, our common, sovereign Master (Jn 15.5)

Without any comment that recalls more or less their own religion, the conciliar Fathers, believing that all mankind was listening to them, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings, begin a rapid search for all that unites men and incites them to progress towards this union. On that score it is a magma of heteroclite ideas, without there being for one instant the feeling that it is the exact description of the world of yesterday and today. Let us read on, staring wide-eyed:

« One is the community of all peoples. » The falseness of this affirmation is patent; a single animal species, yes, undoubtedly monogenic, but sharing the same thoughts, morals, cultures, having given rise to relationships and agreements among them all? Never!

« One their origin… » I am scientifically and theologically in agreement, but scientists are predominantly against it, due to a scientific, atheistic a priori, and « the peoples » could care less about it.

« … for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth (the paralogism is obvious and does not come from St. Paul but from the Council). One also is their final goal, God… »

Here, I stop! This sudden shift to « God » takes my breath away. Is this a reading in sociology, theology or philosophy? I conclude, at least, from this that before carrying out their « task of promoting unity », the conciliar Fathers should, then, first have taught « the last ends » that the catechism teaches: Heaven or Hell… But for establishing a link among peoples this word « God » does not make sense.

The Council gets carried away and believes that it transports humanity to seventh heaven! « His providence, it says, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men (it is not obvious, it seems to me, that it is either to all or for all!), until that time when the elect (who are they, and where do they come from?) will be united in the Holy City (with small letters [in the French translation], but the official text reads, Civitas Sancta, honestly!), the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light » (reference to Apocalypse 21.23 sq.).

Here is a typical example of the magma or the gibberish that is repeated over and over again to the children in catechism and to adults at Sunday Masses, and the more it is repeated, the less they understand. It is unintelligible. Read it, re-read it. I have laboriously studied these free-flowing phantasmagoria and have isolated the main theme, which is not a Creed but a “gnosis”, or a surrealist knowledge. It consists of, according to my way of expressing it, a “naturalising of the supernatural”, and on the other hand, of a “surpernaturalising of the natural”, which is not its opposite, but its complement. There is no way of unravelling its effect!

No, in philosophical or theological terms, it is impossible! In “pastoral” and “charismatic” terms, however, one can guess; it is the spinal column of the conciliar religion, which is accessible to all and made to please everyone. It is the Creed of their generalised ecumenism. It is thus right in its place here, cobbled together, taken from one religion or another, in order to open a great conference of all the loftiest representatives of every religion, who will see themselves quite satisfied to hear themselves being praised, them and their doctrines, without anything being criticised in them.

Re-read this Creed, slowly. « God » created the human family, he attended to its extension throughout the world, to its progress in all fields, including religion, so that « His saving design » reunite them all « in a Holy City » to come that will fulfil their dreams. Thus, the bishops, who reunite all religious men on this common platform, once they ease their fate, lull their anguish, resolve their disputes, will have carried out their « task » well: they will turn their back on Jesus Christ, who, above all, is not even mentioned here. They have modified their religion in order to inspire human beings with the supreme idea of love among all in view of the happiness of everyone here below, with a dream of eternal bliss.

I point out that I am not tormented by the idea of the infallibility of the Church… On that day the Council decided to make merry and dismiss the Holy Spirit in order to be entirely free. So, they were able “to open the Church to the world”, as one says of a religion that prostitutes itself.

How is the “party” going to be organised? It is very clever; it is well constructed, but their “tricks” can only be discovered – that is my trade – by suspecting the worst, and still we are surprised at the cleverness of their perfidy. Thus, I have only just understood, right at this moment, the reason for this bizarre paragraph that I have just quoted entirely. It is like the table of contents of our old catechisms. Nasty but ingenuous as I am, I said to myself: after such a show of questions, they are going to answer with the truth of the Catholic Faith… Then everyone else will be trapped. Otherwise I do not see how, after having advanced so far on the road of the Truth, they are going to be able to turn their back on it in order to run in the opposite direction of Unity! Well! I will let you guess, but I will tell you immediately afterwards. Again, if my impatience does not upset me to the extent that I cannot stand it longer.

Here it is… the tone is solemn; the eloquence is incisive and rather restrictive. It is an examination, upon my word! in which all the false religions that have been sent a notification of an examination will find themselves caught out, yeah. Read on; one would think that he was listening to Maître Petit Jean in a court hearing written by Racine: When I see…

« Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgement and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going? »

There it is! So, I view it as though I were a professional cameraman. The bishop is in the parish church. The first three pews are filled with the First Communion children who must receive Confirmation from him the following day on condition, of course, that they know their catechism… word-perfect. He surveys the faces of the boys, of the girls. Then, he questions each of these poor wretches – except the three sons of so-and-so who know everything by heart and understand so well (they are integrists, Your Lordship; you must not question them or let them speak, it would be a catastrophe!). So, the poor children give monstrous answers, and the bishop smiles kindly, adorns the monstrosity with a little corrective garment, which gives it a human shape, even Christian, nay Catholic… It is amusing for a moment, then ridiculous, odious, and finally harrowing. Yet everyone must be accepted. It is a difficult exercise: everything that the parish priest, the bishop, and the lady catechists take into consideration is fair and covered with corrective praises. Everything that is totally false, scandalous, or totally unacceptable is immersed in a hubbub that allows the examiners not to hear. I will not lengthen my parable that has been experienced time and time again. Have you at least understood the lesson?

Well! The Council, knowing that a job is never so well done as when you do it yourself, after speaking in an authoritarian tone for the examination, substitutes itself for the children – pardon me! for the representatives of the other religions – to remind itself (the Council) of everything that is found in them, that one might think that he could find in them, or that he might hope to find in them. Without revealing anything about what everyone knows, their horrors, their acts of impiety, the Council has nothing but praise for all religions. One alone is forgotten: the Catholic religion. Ah! How fine is the « charity » that our bishops manifest in their zeal to promote « unity » through « charitable understanding »! So fine is it that « the Church » is resolved to exercise this « charity » from now on towards all the religions of the world!

THE VARIOUS NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS.

It is the Council that tells us what we must now think, say, and do in encounters with adepts of other religions, as already it had duly lectured us about Christian ecumenism. Paul VI’s encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam (1964), the blueprint of his pontificate, was of a similar Roman egocentrism. Congar criticised him for that: peoples, religions, and irreligions were supposed to form circular, concentric spaces around the Pope, arranging them from the closest to Catholic truth and holiness (he was still at that stage, due to his function!) to the furthest from us, thus the most deprived, unrefined, and ignorant. In any case, graded from zero to twenty, everyone was given a mark. All had certain values and lights that the Pope appreciated – even Stalinism! –; none of them were blamed for any error, wickedness, or corruption…

The waves of the Holy Spirit seemed to spread, cascading from some to others from the summit of the pyramid where Pope Paul VI sat enthroned, to the atheists… Nevertheless, the whole was progressing in human values and aspiring to form the « holy city », without capital letters. The goal was to avoid imposing the Catholic idea, image, myth of Paradise, of the heavenly Jerusalem, to the advantage of a great and strong realism of “men of experience”, who think about the radiant City, about the civilisation of love and freedom for the year 2000, the Christian Democratic realisation of Masdu: Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy.

Let us add another necessary explanation to which we will give full attention later on. Here it is: religions that occupy as it were the terraces or the steps of a gigantic theatre could be assigned a certain degree of perfection. One would be at elementary clarity and values: 1, 2, 3…, others would deserve better: 5, 7…, and Christianity would humbly give itself the mark of 8, 9, 10, as each claimed the maximum mark. How did Paul VI and the episcopates dare to class the other religions, and from the lowest marks?

Here is the unadmitted, but certain secret: in their spiritual perspective where the exterior counts for so little, when God (and they themselves) look into the heart of man, not at his face, and when applying their personalist metaphysics, all human beings receive the same dose of enlightenment and strength from a Holy Spirit who covers the entire surface of the earth. Conclusion: this Indian smoking the peace pipe in Assisi practices a religion that is given the mark of 1 out of 10; one must thus rigorously give it 9 units of divine inspiration with which its one unit of human religious value will match very well. Then, when I meet him I will give him the same esteem and veneration that I give to the Pope himself. Once this principle of God’s undiscriminating egalitarianism is understood, anything goes.

2. « From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power that hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even (etiam) of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. »

Is that all? That is all. It is enough for us not to be worried about their wretched lives, about their anxious state of conscience, or their eternal life… What need is there to go upset their mental and moral state by faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, who was crucified for our sins and raised from the dead for our eternal life?

« Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture (in the bishops’ marking scheme these have made a head start and so get 1 or 2 additional points) have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language (one could not be nicer… or vaguer!). Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. »

The language is becoming quite laudatory, but it is somewhat farcical all the same. Clearly our conciliar bishops have no respect or consideration for this whole exuberant, luxuriant (in every sense of the term!) menagerie of gods and goddesses who are having a wild time, and so the praise is totally feigned, not to say false. Besides, the praises that are addressed to religion belonging to the following degree are going to contradict all this with a stroke of the pen.

These same Hindus, the conciliar Declaration continues « seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition (?) either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. » They seek, our text says. Do they find? It does not seem that it is implied for the first two ways: Hindu asceticism and even « profound meditation ». On the other hand, those who in accord with the third method make « a flight to God with love and trust », have all the happiness of the Christian.

One could levy this criticism: is the true God there under these charming dancing images of all the possible figures of eastern eroticism? Is it Jesus? Ah! No, it is dreadful! Let us pass on…

Too much flattery produces disgust; all the more is this so inasmuch as the Council, quite without realising it, is going to put on the same shelf the very different statues of two enemy religions: Hinduism and Buddhism!

« Again, Buddhism, in its various forms (here are some of these empty words that tell us nothing of what is being spoken about nor even about what those people know who speak about the subject in this way ), realises the radical insufficiency of this changeable world (and in the first place of Hinduism! but shh! don’t give the game away!); it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit (see Hinduism above: love and confidence! You see: they are Christian values, or rather universal ones!), may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. »

What a marvellous insight into Buddhist mysticism on the part of Westerners who are generally closed to these lofty speculations! It is true that the late Fr. de Lubac, who consecrated the better part of his life to them, must have initiated them into these mysteries. What is regrettable is that the Buddhists will never agree to recognise themselves in this explanation, however emphatic it may be. That has nothing to do with it, it is a load of old rubbish… Buddhism, ah! How shall I put it, it is super…

Poor Jesus!

« Likewise, other religions found everywhere (What style! What slovenliness! The Fathers are tired: put all that in the same sack! millions of adepts from here, from there, go on, in they go, and let us be done with them) try (it is nice) to counter the restlessness of the human heart (cf. Blaise Pascal plagiarising St. Augustine; is that so eastern?), each in its own manner (That is interesting! Tell me a bit more… No, no time. Too bad, it is really too bad!), by proposing “ways”, comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. (to find out more about it, wait for the next Council). »

THE CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS TOWARDS THESE VARIOUS RELIGIONS.

There must still exist among our separated brethren some Churches or dissident communities – the Eastern or far-Easterners, and the Anglicans or their like who are rivals of our Missions for the extension of the Gospel and the British Empire – to be absolutely opposed to these tall stories of an ecumenism that verges on indifferentism or religious entropy: the final state of inertia of a system that has completely fallen into the form of basic energy. Then, miraculously, the Council specifies, and here only, speaks this time as the « Catholic Church ». We had forgotten:

« The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (!) in these religions (I had not noticed what precisely was found to be true and holy in them). She regards (here is the great authoritative style) with sincere reverence (Is not today’s “Catholic” Church always sincere?) those ways of conduct and of life (ask the missionaries and converted faithful!), those precepts and teachings (idem) which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth (but she will spare your delicate ears by not mentioning either these absurdities or these base acts in which Satan holds these pagan masses in his slavery), nonetheless (these base acts and absurdities) often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.. »

What platitudes!

« Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14.6), in whom men may find (Latin text: inveniunt, find) the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. »

As a precautionary measure or in a spirit of conciliation, they add: « The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue (!) and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence (!) and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognise, preserve and promote the good things (I stress), spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. »

There it is! The chore is one-third written, not without difficulty! It has nevertheless been ended in a very firm manner. As Paul VI said, with this, the missions must continue more than ever… I know someone who dropped the La Croix newspaper after having read this decree for the first time, and who was as usual – alas! – of a contrary opinion. With that, he murmured, it is the end of Catholic missions in the world! They will be sent theologians dressed in impeccable Roman collars and suits who will have studied at Louvain-la-Neuve and Chantilly-des-Jésuites to teach all the religions of the world their beauty, reason, and virtues, to which they are quite forbidden to be unfaithful, for they are all like the colours of the rainbow, all necessary, all in harmony with the one and universal Divinity.

THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

The eulogy is faultless…

3. « The Church regards with esteem (who, what does she not regard with esteem today? Us, the children of the first Husband) also the Muslims… » Here, we find the ritual list of all that can be gathered and that propaganda has imprinted onto the world conscience without ever recalling that black side of the picture, behind the scenes. I will not do it. One can pass for a friend by outrageously flattering an individual or a group of people, but what the truth obliges one to correct or supplement makes those who draw attention to it appear in the falsest, worst light possible, one coloured by hatred and contempt. Disinformation can go so far today that the holiest of persons and the best intellectuals, even theologians, end up rashly taking a stand in favour of false religion, its terrorism, tortures, backward and barbarian morals, in favour of the hysteria that is joined to its calls to holy war. At the same time these same Catholics accuse their own brethren in the (Catholic!) religion, their own fellow citizens, of vices and diabolical behaviour similar in every respect to those actually done by the false religionists. They even rejoice at the collapse of our own countries and at the martyrdom of our brethren; they are grieved at every form of repression that is only envisaged or implemented for the salvation of all.

So, here is a specimen of conciliar brainwashing; but is it a proper description of the Muslims? « They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of Heaven and earth, (reference to St. Gregory VII, † 1085) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit (it is the supposed meaning of the word mûslim) wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees (this “detail” arouses attention, solicits admiration; it makes a good impression in a defence speech), just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet (but are obliged to kill to the degree they can those who refuse to recite the profession of Muslim faith. Its main article is, “The one God does not have a child”). They also honour Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on Her with devotion (a touching truth so often seen at Our Lady of Africa!). In addition, they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. »

It is beautiful, impressive. It is the positive side of the question, apart from a few ambiguities and embellishments, which are too subtle to be innocent. How then can one explain that since Gregory VII, and later on Peter the Venerable, the impossibility of converting such a noble error to the full truth of Christ? The Council does not seek the explanation. « Let us make a clean sweep of the past » is its order, its method. The fault is on our side, or at the most, it is shared, but it is now time for sure means of reconciling everyone with everyone else: dialogue, cooperation, etc. Read on:

« Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims (imagine the mass of events, words, wars, conquests of an incredible historical complexity since 615 A.D. to the 8 o’clock television news bulletin this evening… that is mentioned in this insignificant adverbial phrase!), this Sacred Synod urges all (600 million Muslims on one side, thus called jointly with 900 million Catholics on the other, without forgetting the 500 million separated brethren) to forget the past (for us it has already been done; for the Muslims it is impossible for anyone who « forgets the past » is nothing but a swine who denies his faith and his ancestors, and I agree with them. To forget the past, this sacred, cruel past that is fraught with tragic warnings for tomorrow!) and to work sincerely (this word virtually exists only on the lips of a liar, so unsure of his partner’s honesty that he tells him that, for once, between out-and-out liars, they could make a loyal pact) for mutual understanding (a Masonic expression manifesting this sort of rare « sincerity » that I have just explained!) and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind (that makes many who are at the service of the whole world, and for what reason?) social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. »

It is up to you to decide if these great planetary objectives brought an increase in the earthly happiness of men since the closing of the Council. The answer is obviously negative. There was an awakening, a progression of Islam, and torrents of blood. Once again I find astonishing how totally disinterested the greatest Council of all time was, and what is more, at the moment that it addresses the Muslim multitudes, who are strongly religious and believe in God, in retribution, in Heaven, and Hell. Yes! The Council displayed its total disinterest in this § 3… for religion, truth, and the salvation of these multitudes through the grace of God and His Precious Blood shed on the Cross. Would Father Charles de Foucauld have died in vain? Absit!

THE JEWISH RELIGION.

There is a unilateral plea on behalf of Judaism, which has the honour of being the highest degree of the religions encircling “the Church of Christ”, although unquestionably inferior to it in all aspects. The “three religions of the Book”, the elite religions because they count on “divine Revelations”, are not on the same level, so long as we are being somewhat serious and that we are not saying just anything. Let me explain by means of two examples.

The first I will relate is as follows; I was there and was more than a witness. At the Institut catholique de Paris, a very distinguished Lebanese Maronite priest, that is to say a Catholic Christian, presented a thesis on “Abraham in the Qur’an”. It was apparently remarkable, and the jury praised it without restriction. Finally, someone asked if the Qur’an mentioned the Covenant, « berith » in Hebrew, a fundamental notion and major reality in our two religions of the Old and New Covenant. No, not one line of the thesis informed us on this point, and the same person intervened to point out how the absence of such a reality in this work tended to contradict the thesis that was being defended. According to the thesis Mohammed was equal to Abraham on all points, and the two religions are almost identical. I conclude that there is no comparison between the Jewish religion and Islam, which inherited much from it, but without any right. The near future will give us blinding lights on this devaluation of a Qur’an totally inspired by our Jewish and later on Christian Bible. This leaves only one possible solution for the “dialogue” with our Muslim brethren: coming to the truth of their own history by getting out of the dead end it is in and returning to its Jewish and Christian sources.

The second example is that of a grand “ecumenical” meeting at Meknès, where Pope John Paul II seemed to want to convince all those listening to him that they all had one and the same God as he, that he had the same God as all of them. He also seemed to want to convince them that since they had the same God, everything else was nothing but differences of tradition, sensitivity, or theological doctrines apparently of very relative importance. I noted the intellectual incapacity of our entire generation to understand the error, even when it is clearly and calmly explained. It is a matter of some importance because it will also call into question Islam and with it, Judaism.

Here, I imagine that I will be understood without having to explain at length what is obvious. We Christians adore the living and true God and His Son Jesus Christ, who Himself is God, Son of God become man. The Father and the Son are but one and the same God with the third Person of the Holy Trinity, who is the Holy Spirit. Such is in all truth our God.

I ask you to think about it realistically, such as our Faith affirms it is, a fact more real than our own existence. The Jews did not accept Jesus’ preaching, and they crucified Him because of the alleged insult that He made to their God, the God of Abraham, the one God. The Jews do not put up with anyone attributing a Son to Him. The Muslims, following close behind, do not admit it either. Understand this well: we all read the Bible and the Qur’an, which both speak about this God – the Creator and His Providence. It is the same God… I concur.

But, at a certain moment, St. John or St. Paul calmly announces: « He is the Father of Jesus Christ. » At that moment, this living and true God in Heaven and everywhere, for He is everywhere, this God of the Old Testament in His living reality, if He is delighted with what St. Paul says, really recognising Himself as the Father of Jesus Christ, is normally very incensed to see the Jews and Muslims refuse Him the right to have a Son, as He does in all truth.

If St. Paul has revealed to us the true God, when the Jews and the Arabs refuse Him, “God” becomes for them a word that has ceased to be suited to the reality that it designates.

If, on the other hand, St. Paul lied, God rejoices in seeing the Jews and Muslims defend His integrity, His honour, by dismissing with horror this incongruity of claiming that He has a Son, and moreover, who became man and died crucified! If they are God’s blessed, then our Catholic God is an invention, a blasphemy and before all else a denial of reality.

Conclusion: we do not have the same God.

The Council conceals all this from us under the pretext of the unity that must be promoted out of charity? It is appalling! On the contrary, the first result of this small controversy is the following: from the viewpoint of the divine Covenant with men for their salvation, Islam is a pure plagiarism of the other two religions and cannot be preferred to them… if it is maintained that the true religion has as its first characteristic a true, historical, and holy « Covenant » forged between God and men. In this “World Cup” of the great religions, Islam is eliminated. There remains Judaism from which Christianity came, as it must, true or false; it was inevitable from the moment that Jesus said He was the Son of God and thus obliging the Jews to adore this God, and His Son Jesus, and their Holy Spirit. Otherwise, they would have to remain faithful to the letter to their God and the Mosaic Covenant by falling into rank among the adversaries of Jesus and the deniers of His alleged God-Trinity.

We have thus reached a great crossroad of History as well as the critical period for the Council’s forward march to the future.

The Council has reconciled everything in its generalised ecumenical project – and this was not difficult since the “Christian” religion of the future easily convinced itself of the positive value of all other religions, and since no one contradicted its lofty vision of « unity » in charity. « Unity » in charity is a principle of future « mutual understanding »; we have seen how the Council already made progress in this taking control (this takeover bid, as the managing directors of big modern industry would say!) of other religions. They are praised for all that is found to be good, even excellent, and the agreement is extended by assimilating this excellence to what we already profess. This is how the Council is going to present the « conduct » of the (Christian) Church with Judaism: it is all the more tempting because it corresponds to the course of history. As everyone knows, there was first the Covenant of the one God with Abraham and his descendants, forever. Christianity emerged from it. It would have sufficed for it not to have separated from it for this union to be the most solid pier of the proposed new and universal construction for the year 2000.

Here is this conciliatory demonstration, which has been repeated ad infinitum and has become the framework for hundreds and thousands of attempts to push the conformity of the two religions further along.

4. « As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. »

The first difficulty is encountered when the “problem” is presented. We find a similar idea in a famous speech given by Pius XI, who ventured the unforgettable expression: « Spiritually, we are Semites… »

But to be « of the lineage of Abraham » is a biological fact without any relationship to a spiritual reality. On their side, the « people of the New Testament » are not strictly speaking a people, a nation, an empire, or a confederation. The expression is metaphorical insofar as, similar to the bonds of blood or of « naturalisation » that make a multitude into an organised civil community, the bonds of faith and baptism make a supranational community, which is organised, visible, hierarchical, analogous to a people.

Let us be more specific by revealing the two hinges on which this door is suspended, or the two supports on which a suspension bridge is held by solid stays:

1° the religion of Abraham is reserved by God for his “lineage”, which is mysterious;

2° the « people » that the Council says is « of the New Testament » has as a “substantial bond” (Leibniz’s « vinculum substantiale »), not circumcision, nor place of birth, nor language, nor anything else other than faith in Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world, but who is of the « lineage of David » and who was circumcised, and of the faith of Abraham.

There is no umbilical cord, no carnal genealogy, but the unique encounter – like an “Allenby bridge” between Jews and Arabs, – is found to be Jesus Christ, without whom nothing of the Jewish religion would have passed from the “Hebrews” to the “Greeks”, and nothing of the pagan religions any more than their followers would have come to enrich (!) or contaminate the Jewish religion. Thus, this sentence tells us the “problem” but, as we were able to read, by hiding it under a mask where precisely its solution is invisible. So, all is going well. « We are spiritually Semites », the formula caught on: it threw us body and soul into World War II.

« Thus (that is in application of the thesis of openness according to which we are spiritually born of the loins of Abraham) the Church of Christ (the one of the ecumenism of the future) acknowledges (obviously an emotional acknowledgement) that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets. She professes (Latin text: confitetur; here the word means she proclaims to the Glory of God, as do the Confessions of St. Augustine) that all (the ecumenicals) who believe in Christ – Abraham’s sons according to faith (cf. Gal 3.7) – are included in the vocation of the same Patriarch (and not in his loins), and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously (ah! yes, but why?) foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage (Egypt). »

Let us take advantage of a sunny spell between these clouds to show what is very true in this last “confession”: Abraham biologically bore all the seed of his race, yes! He bore in his soul the blessing that Yahweh granted to him and the promise that the multitudes of all the peoples would inherit from him salvation and « would be blessed in him »… This means that by crossing the Red Sea this people saved his biological heritage, his carnal seed from annihilation, but also at the same time the divine Promises in favour of all nations. The “spiritual” was borne by the “carnal” – Péguy would have been delighted – but without being linked, obviously, except for a time, as are the bearer and the treasure with which he is burdened.

A quotation – always the same – is taken from Chapter 11 of the Epistle to the Romans, but always censured and mutilated, must make us understand the fortune that we have of being spiritually, vitally indebted to the Jewish people:

« The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. (Rm 11.17-24) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself (Rm 11.28-29). »

We ought to forgive the Council, but we must mistrust everything when reading, for it gave itself, as a sovereign power, in its admirable desire to reunify the whole human race, the right and power of indicating and underlining all that is favourable for union, by effacing, by censoring what would harm or hinder that goal. It goes as far as censoring the divine Word and distorting the texts, substituting for divine thought the opposite thinking of the men of today.

Thus, the conciliar text, read with confidence, would lead us to believe that the Jewish people are like an olive tree of quality on which the pagans were grafted as wild shoots in order to receive the sap, life. And now, all is well: Christ made a successful graft, and the two peoples have become but one branch, Jews or pagans mixed; the Jewish people can be proud of the role that it played, and continues to play apparently. This is what St. Paul, quoted in full here, seems to bear out:

« The Church keeps ever in mind (!) the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rm 9.4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. »

The trouble with all these extremes is that it makes very unpleasant every clarification that begins to resemble an inadmissible, conflicting passion. Thus this first presentation of the very glorious and legitimate succession of Christianity to Judaism, which prefigured it, would make one believe in a racist emulation between the Jews and the Greeks, which was not the case. But if it is pleasant for the Jews of today, it leaves in the dark one of the elements of the problem, and precisely all the tragedy of history.

It would be necessary to quote in full this eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Perhaps we will do so out of sacred respect for the divine Word and in order to show in all its malice the clever lie of those who mutilate this text. Let us content ourselves with restoring in its entirety the allegory of the olive tree. The Council tells us that « the Church draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles » But this is in Verse 18. The preceding verse told us that « some of the branches had been cut off… » and in Verse 20: « they were cut off because of unbelief… » This would be distressing if St. Paul did not announce in a prophetic manner that, « if they do not remain in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again… »; and the Apostle ends by saying that this will certainly come about: « In respect to the Gospel, they are enemies (these words cannot be removed from Holy Scripture!) on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs, For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable… God has imprisoned all men in their own disobedience only to show mercy to all »; and then, the Apostle sings praises to our great God.

I ask: in order to bring about “unity and charity” is it necessary to strike out this truth that the Jewish people, according to St. Paul, did partially, in large part, cut itself off from faithful Israel, which attached itself to Christ? That is the heart of the matter!

The following quotation has showed us all the riches with which God had showered the Jewish people. Presented in this manner, its condition appears extremely favourable for its salvation even compared to that of Christ’s faithful, the Christians who came from Judaism or from the Gentile peoples, without any difference. By quoting this text, the Council greatly strengthens the confidence that the Jews continue to place in their religious privileges. It seems that it would have been its duty to clarify this flattering passage – and rightly so! – by some other one that would bring out the other aspect of reality… par example, this excerpt from the Epistle of St. Paul again to his dear Philippians, whom dissidents were seeking to win over to the Jewish cause:

« Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, we who worship through the Spirit of God, who boast in Christ Jesus and do not put our confidence in flesh, although I myself have grounds for confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he can be confident in flesh, all the more can I. »

He then repeats all of Israel’s inamissable titles of glory, and which the Council recalled to the glory of the Jews of all times, still today. St. Paul truly claimed this glory for himself, which he shares with all the honourable, converted Jews who had thus passed over to faith in Christ. But here is what should have been cast into full light by the Council instead of going no further than a dangerous praise of Jews as Jews:

« Whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ. More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ… » (Ph 3)

But you know it, and we could dwell on it for a long time. Nevertheless, the Council succeeded through its manipulations of Scripture in making Jewish honour the centre of the present ecumenical prospect. It was necessary to show that it was neither the truth of the Scriptures nor the faith of the Catholic Church. The centre is Christ Jesus, a stumbling block for the Jews.

Let us continue our reading, noticing the care the Council takes not to offend Jewish sensitiveness, not to exasperate its hostility to Jesus, to the extent of not uttering so holy, so sweet, and so consoling a Name as His, and of keeping His Person concealed as much as possible under signs that indirectly evoke Him:

« As Holy Scripture testifies (sic! it is a question of presenting Jesus’ curses on Jerusalem!), Jerusalem did not recognise the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel (whose Gospel?); indeed not a few opposed its spreading (what a strange modern language). Nevertheless, God (their God) holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent (this is a return to the texts that have already been much exploited in the preceding paragraph) of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues – such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve Him shoulder to shoulder” (Zp 3.9). »

Zephaniah is a prophet of the Old Testament, the Lord of whom he speaks is Yahweh, and the yoke to which all the peoples will be submitted is the Jewish law, barring particular specifications. Thus, the Jews can warmly thank the Council for having recognised them as having perfect innocence, honesty, and wisdom in their persistent ignorance until today, of “Jesus of Nazareth”. They are still « cherished by God »; they ignore the Church, who proved herself to be very harsh towards them. They await the dawning of the day of reconciliation of all peoples around them – it is in preparation! –, the verdant olive tree to which will return all the branches detached from it during this affair, now closed, of Jesus’ trial.

The Council truly discovered the tone and manner for this new, enlarged Catholic “ecumenism”. It concludes this first part of unruffled praises of Judaism of all times:

« Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect that is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. »

Must we answer « Amen! »?

Everyone will be very keen to imitate the tact of the most eminent Prefect of the Sacred Congregation, formerly referred to as the Holy Office, who had the large Crucifix removed from the palace of the said Congregation “for the Doctrine of the Faith” in order not to offend the sight of the expected guests and be a living reproach to the welcoming hosts.

THERE REMAIN JESUS AND HIS CROSS, BUT THE COUNCIL IS AT A LOSS TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

Well! All was said and brilliantly concluded. A detail had been forgotten. They returned, without an opening prayer for this mini-session, and without any kind of procedure. The explanation of the fact is dispatched before it is presented:

« True, Jewish authorities… » Already, I am stopped in my drive by a souvenir from that time. The distinguished Roman Latinists who were charged with translating the multinational gibberish of the periti and the Fathers were all, of course, wise and prudent, exact in their scholarly, and then intelligent Catholic Faith. When they drew up their text they wrote: « Auctoritates Judæorum... », and the translations spread throughout the world in this form: « the Jewish authorities ». That raised a storm. I see that the party for movement prevailed. In this matter, one must be minimalist, reductionist.

« True, Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (ref. Jn 19.6)… »

Well done! the greatest Council of all times was able to reduce the account of the greatest trial of universal History to some restlessness in the streets, a few shouts, and that is the end of the matter! It is great rhetoric, and it must still have seemed too much for the opposing party. Opposing? You must be joking. By a divine irony, it is in these recent times that Israeli archaeologists have unearthed, quite accidentally, the necropolis of the family of Caiphas and his own tomb. Caiphas! Jews and “Christians” agreed not to speak about it. The Council did not want to speak either about this high priest about whom Jesus said to Pilate:

« You would have no power over Me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed Me over to you has the greater sin. »

It is obviously Caiphas, the organiser of the crime (Mt 26.3-4), the one who had prophesised that Jesus « should die for His nation… and that it is better for all that one man should die instead of the people » (Jn 11.50). Yes, you will say to me, but the bishops do not have the time to read the Gospel in detail. I beg your pardon! They summarise the whole affair as regards the responsibility of the Jews, by alluding to John 19.6… And the terrible words that fall on Caiphas are in verse 11, three lines below.

Let us continue our very instructive literal analysis:

« … still, what happened (discrete euphemism so as not to wound devout souls, or so as not to exasperate the opposing party?) in His passion cannot be charged (is it a ban, or is it a scientific and objective conslusion?) against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive (obviously), nor against the Jews of today (even more obvious!). »

Even though the barbaric theory of “collective responsibility” has served these days to justify inhuman acts of collective vengeance and hatred, the fact remains that whatever the act, whenever it is committed by notables, leaders, or representatives of a community, if it is peacefully accepted or even applauded by the entirety of its members, it is for their honour or their shame. I leave it to you to find on one side or the other examples of your choice. Yet, the last important word is that it suffices for any member of the society in question to pronounce himself against the general opinion to be exonerated of the shame or, on the contrary, excluded from the honours.

Here, the Council abruptly stops before having concluded. As for me, I have no need to take these precautions. Jesus has risen from the dead; His Church has preached this throughout the world. Every member of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and throughout all the centuries, therefore, had the time to take sides. This is why to plead a lack of responsibility implies an “I-don’t-care attitude” on the question. I mean indifference.

– Of the Jews?

– Oh, not at all! They only have peace of mind when, after having weighed up the pros and the cons, they choose their side. But the bishops in a state of Council are indifferent. Their zeal is to construct for the year 2000 the Temple of understanding, where everyone will be in agreement with one another. So, let us leave Jesus sleeping in His tomb.

As this amateurism would be unable to counterbalance the pressure of the Tradition that is fed on the Gospels and the great works of the Fathers of the Church against the Jewish people, the Council undertakes to make all of us sinners the assassins of Our Lord and Saviour. Read on:

« Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures (I throw the argument back to you, my Fathers: you have a colossal nerve to remove such designations from the Jewish people… as though your absolutions « followed from the Holy Scriptures ». For my part, I said above that these judgements of collective culpability were absurd insofar as each one exonerates himself from the crime by condemning it). All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ »

I add: give us the example and we will follow!

« Furthermore… » What now? By dint of defending the Jews, will the Council not produce the opposite effect? Indeed yes, this is what I fear; it is against this that I am powerless, since I am heeded neither by the conciliar tribe nor by the means of social communication, which are unconditionally pro-Semite. Only a Jewish minority sees the mental and moral danger of such a hype:

« Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man (sic), the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews (it is brainwashing!) and moved not by political reasons (why take the trouble to mention insulting suppositions?) but by the Gospel’s spiritual love (in Latin: religiose caritate evangelica, it is macaronic Latin; I infer that is so as not to wound any side, the author had written « religious charity », and that others wanted to specify that conciliar charity is Christian! But this is saying too much not to offend the ears of “non-Christians”; the result is ugly), decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism (I think likewise about the extremes of “Semitism”? such as this shoot-out at Hebron, of evil memory), directed (for or) against Jews at any time and by anyone. »

This would be good, and I am sure that the elite of Judaism and that of Christianity would spontaneously rally to this protestation, such as you have just read it, and as I just spontaneously wrote it, yes! Do not believe me if you do not want to… For the Council shows “discrimination, intolerance and fanaticism”, by going hunting for « anti-Semitism » and the « perpetrators of hatred, persecutions and displays », from all times and origins, which were directed against the Jews alone. Do not the Gypsies have a right to the same protection, and the Palestinians, etc.?

« Furthermore… » This insistence becomes all the more scandalous on the part of the ecumenical – i.e.: universal – Council, because insisting strenuously on the wrongdoings and crimes of anti-Semitism, the authorities of the whole Church united seem to ignore – which is much more than to forget – « the hatred, persecutions, [anti-Christian] displays » that yesterday, today, and certainly tomorrow were and will be directed against Christians.

This “oversight” is equivalent to a cobblestone thrown onto the pan of a pair of scales sending everything flying: pan, tare, weights, and scales! Well! Here is a final argument. I promise, it is the last. Besides, it is impossible to find worse! Yes:

« Besides, as the Church has always held (a rare chance for a Council as daringly innovative as this one!) and holds now (I am curious to learn the ultimate reason that the Council found for putting its weight on the pan of Semitism rather than on the side of anti-Semitism), Christ (a victim of anti-Semitism? Well, of course!) underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore (sic), the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ (about which the Council never really speaks, as we shall see) as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. »

Brainwashing has laws. For example, when the government levies a 10 % tax increase on super on 1 July, the means of social communication throw themselves onto the roads of the Tours de France and insist on the increase in State subsidies for leisure activities and sports that will benefit from this small 10 %! And the ordinary folks have to swallow it all. What is the relationship? This: there is no relationship between gas and the tour de France! There is no more relation between the assassination of the Son of God, which in times past was called deicide, and the sins of decent souls today, whom no one will ever make us accuse of being « deicide »!

Why does the Council invoke the Church of the past? Because the admirable Catechism of the Council of Trent (1563), for the edification of the Catholic multitudes, supplemented its lessons on the horrible Passion and the very painful crucifixion of Jesus which, in that time, provoked very hostile feelings against Jesus’ executioners and their descendents who declared themselves totally approving and supportive, by turning these easy indignations against its Catholic readers… He died, was violently and shamefully killed, yes! but it was for us sinners, because of our sins, with a view to obtaining forgiveness for us. Let us thus turn the knife of indignation and hatred against ourselves and our sins, and the devils who inspired us to them, and let us pierce our own heart with the sword of contrition.

The New Catechism repeated this expedient in order to cut off the road to anti-Semitism, by construing in the Vatican II pro-Semite sense the argument of the Council of Trent that no one at the time had suspected of entering into such a scheme. I believe that I have indicated all this in my book of accusation against the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liber Accusationis III, 13 May 1993, pp. 14-15). I only come back to it in order never to omit to justify each and every one of my affirmations. Here, there are streams of light and truth. The death on the Cross that Jesus Christ the Son of God accepted had as its primary cause, the Will of His heavenly Father (do not make Him out to be an assassin!). It had as its final cause the redemption of the human race (do not make Jesus out to be a suicide!). It had as its material cause the fact of the crucifixion that Jesus accepted as the providential means of His sacrifice (do not accuse Him of sadomasochism!). Finally, and this is where the Council falters, to the point of putting us on our guard against the holy Gospels, which must not always be blindly followed… and to say imprudent things « as if it followed from the Holy Scriptures »! Let us not falter: the material cause was the exequatur that Pilate granted, and the instrumental cause the “special section” of the Roman army charged with the execution (horrible word) of the sentence. The efficient cause was in-dis-pu-ta-bly Caiphas and the Sanhedrin, and the entourage, as it emerges from the ten accounts, all from direct witnesses, to be re-read in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

CONCLUSION

Conciliar, ecclesiastical, pacifist, utopian, literature, and that inspired by the events of May 1968, of the kind “Make love, not war!” will conserve among its lyrical anthologies this conclusion of Nostra ætate bearing this conclusive judgement:

UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD EXCLUDES ALL DISCRIMINATION.

5. « We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all men, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 Jn 4.8). »

Then they add to this axiom a firm condemnation of the offenders, from whatever side they may be, and from whatever horizon they come: « No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. »

Do you follow? Yes? I do not! There is a certain height of principles such that one does not know how they apply in the field. As for me, a “man of experience” (sic!), while they were declaiming, I remembered a funny story. It was the lawyer Mr. Isorni who was the fortunate victim. A certain young Swiss lady had just broken her engagement with a charming suitor, who at the last moment turned out to be an opponent of Dreyfus! Ah! That? Never! The engagement was broken for another better-suited choice: thus a Swiss gentleman would marry our impassioned supporter of Dreyfus, and Mr. Isorni would begin doubtfully from this. At the end of his life he gave clearly ecumenical lectures in which he placed two judicial errors in parallel with a third. The error of condemning Dreyfus was fortunately made up for by Paris’ acquittal, obtained by means of a welcomed dereliction of duty on the part of the Court of Appeal (art. 622 / 2 of the criminal code). The others were the error of condemning Marshal Pétain to life imprisonment on 15 August 1945, and the reconciling error of condemning Jesus of Nazareth to death, a judgement pronounced in total legality but explicable, if not justifiable, by lack of proof.

What relation does this have with the lofty considerations of the Council? This: at least three men, and I would add today a fourth, are objects of discrimination on the part of all human beings worthy of this name, from which I exclude those whom de Gaulle called « sheep ». He seems to have indiscriminately placed in this category the mass of the French people who are completely brainwashed and disoriented by the means of social communication which, moreover, were in his sole service. These three men are Jesus Christ, Dreyfus, Petain… and the fourth: Touvier (cf. CRC n^o 299, [abridged article in CCR n^o 265, February 1994] and CRC n^o 300, March 1994)

Re-read the conciliar text, but at a low altitude the falsehood of its principles will become quite obvious. Apart from the dubious, the sheep and the autistic, there exists in group A a discrimination that denounces group B for the crime of discrimination against itself. All this, due to one or the other of these four people, « signs of contradiction », each in his own way (Lk 2.34)

Jesus Christ, « a sign of contradiction » can leave no person indifferent, except the dubious, the sheep, and the autistic. I do not know how to categorise the bishops who are “neither for or against, quite to the contrary”, as the Swiss say concerning their own temperament. Apart from these four groups and the Second Vatican Council, there is a fissure, a crevasse, or an ocean between the adorers of Christ and His blasphemers. It is impossible to resolve, for they are like two peoples, and each one of them forms a block. All agree on declaring their attitude towards Jesus’ case non-negotiable.

I will not waste your time explaining to you the pros and cons concerning Dreyfus; it is insoluble. Even Isorni did not resolve it. He believed that he could be of service to his friends, Dreyfus’ supporters, by following the best demonstrations of the opposing party. Alas! Was he not crazy enough to write that there had obviously been dereliction of duty, but that in order to make peace among the French, President Ballot-Beaupré was right to falsify an article of law! The debate then reopened all the more caustic!

For or against Pétain, and in his wake Touvier, there is the same “discrimination”. Books could be written, only to end up with a new and terrible discrimination, which comes to the point of my pen, only to go back up to a superior level in order to get its “pass the proofs for press” from my reason that has reasoned it out. Here it is: since the Second Vatican Council another gap has widened between Catholics. Some are ready to sacrifice everything – I mean everything! – like the bishops of the Council who, in order to carry out their mandate, solemnly announced in the preamble: « In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations », it was quite necessary that they sacrifice everything to this « unity » and this the « Gospel’s, spiritual » « charity » (see above!) that they had sworn to implement in order to impose it on the Church and the world.

Now, in doing so, it subjugated and confederated many people, but leading them to oppose others; from this resulted a new discrimination, the one that I pointed out in the first words of this Declaration: having the task of promoting… with charity, the unity that is set out as a main advantage and sovereign goal of a service to render to society, I am amazed that this abstract transcendental took the place of this other one, which is absolutely the regulator of the concrete and the abstract, of the being and value of truth. Therefore, to hope and pray for unity is to dismiss as obstacles of this ambition all truth and those who are devoted to it.

The particular conclusion limited to Judeo-Christian unity emerges from the form and the content of paragraph 4, which is devoted to it. It is simple: the Church through its hierarchs sought unity in merging the entire Christian family with the Jewish family from which it had emerged; then she concealed the patent novelty, the superiority and the eternity of this « new Covenant », excluding by this very fact that the Jews can one day convert and be grafted onto the Church. On the contrary, there would be great expectation that the Church seriously diminish the importance of Jesus Christ, in the manner of the treatment that the author of the Qur’an gave Him! When all this is said, as though to settle an annoying detail, the Church evokes the death of Christ in watered-down terms, for the sake only of exonerating the Jewish people of all responsibility. Thus, in order no longer to distinguish the Jews from the Christians and the Christians from the Jews, it is now necessary that Jesus and His Cross be reduced to nothing, and quickly end up driving out of the « family of Christians » those who oppose this reducing of Christ and His Cross, and bring the Church back to the Synagogue, so that the Jewish error may banish Christian and Catholic truth to the advantage of the universal Jewish Alliance, from which all discrimination will be banned.

But Jesus’ Cross towers over the moving and disoriented world, and Jesus, in formal disagreement with His conciliar Church, remains the « sign that will be contradicted for the fall and rise of many in Israel » (Lk 2.34-35). He does not want unity, but saving dissension, of which Truth must be the issue. The Council did not work for Him but for His persecutors, until they convert (Lk 12.49-53).

« BUT WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES, WILL HE FIND ANY FAITH ON EARTH? » (Lk 18.8)

Already, the first part of this conclusion went beyond the Jewish problem, while appearing to settle it by a call to higher principles. Already, evading the Catholic Faith, her dogmatics, this conciliar text indulges in Gnostic, Masonic, philanthropic daydreaming. It is still deist, one would say. But it is worse to imagine a god of one’s own making in order to place him as the keystone of our doctrines and as legislator of our morality… That is the case here, and the whole Council would follow this novelty.

God is the Father of all men? No. But only of « those to whom He gave power to become children of God » (Jn 1.12) namely those who believe in Jesus Christ (ibid.). Thus is annulled the following precept that the Council invented, which made it a duty for us « to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God ». This Council laughs at everything by quoting in support of this universal divine paternity four words from the Epistle of St. John… about which everyone knows (?) – one only has to read these six short pages – that the Apostle of love makes his teaching ring out with twenty bursts of fury and excommunication against the false brethren, the antichrists, the renegades whom one must flee at any cost. These perpetual lies about the Scriptures are, moreover, denounced by St. John as worthy of eternal damnation (Ap 22.18-20). One must still be careful!

For falsehood is taking kolossal proportions when they continue by declaring that « due to this (due to the four lines the inanity of which we have just demonstrated!) no foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. » I repeat this paragraph because it reveals one of the hidden principles of this Council. Taken from a false argumentation, the delirious exaggeration that is dealt out to us here is only grotesque. It announces on the part of the Council’s intellectual leaders an unprecedented plan of corruption of intelligences and morals. There are no differences between the innocent and the criminal, between the soul in a state of grace and the one that does not want to come back to it, between him who « scandalises one of these children » and him who protects them from the mire or who pulls them out of it, etc. It is crazy, but it forces minds and laws! to establish equal and universal human dignity at the lowest level of bestiality… As for ecumenism, it is an insult to God to equate all religions an