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!

FORTY YEARS AGO, THE COUNCIL

VII. CHRISTIAN FREEDOM

AN IMPIOUS AND SUICIDAL ACT

In our seventh “session” on the Council at the “Permanence”, we tackled the second part of Vatican II: the relations of the Church with the world of the present time. At the origin of the “updating” carried out forty years ago, can be found the recognition by the Catholic Church of the right of man to social freedom in matters of religion, more generally called religious freedom. This recognition constitutes the charter of her reconciliation with the World.

The declaration “Dignitatis Humanæ Personæ” is the main grounds for the Abbé de Nantes’ opposition to the disastrous Second Vatican Council. His opposition was loyal and unreserved from the beginning. On 1 October 1964, when a bitter discussion concerning this text was getting underway, he wrote:

« This dramatic debate can only lead to catastrophes. It was necessary to avoid recalling truths too austere if the men of the Church were too feeble to shoulder the burden, or to proclaim them proudly and paternally in the face of the modern World, which does not accept them and dies for want of them. But discuss them, never! The Church cannot stray from them without disavowal and apostasy. » (Letter to my Friends n^o 185)

On the eve of the last session, the Abbé de Nantes, seeing that this theory of religious freedom was going to be proclaimed by the Council, declared in conscience that he could never come round to it, and that the Church herself could never infallibly define this novelty so contrary to her ancient teaching:

« I protest with all my orthodox Catholic faith that it is impossible, that it is already criminal to consider it. 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. » Such a masterly and decisive lesson followed, that it cannot be denied that this opposition was loyally made known and clearly founded (Letter n^o 209, 22 July 1965).

The Declaration Dignitatis Humanæ was, nevertheless promulgated on 7 December 1965, on the eve of the closing of the Council, but without having any character of infallibility, and this vote was accompanied by such a robbery that it is legitimate to challenge, even today, such a Conciliar Act.

« In the debates from September 15 to 21, 1965, there were from 225 to 250 opponents, an unusual number in this flock of dumbfounded bishops, against the same number of passionate partisans of the novelty. To win over, at all costs, the minority, vehement protestations of Catholic orthodoxy were inserted into this heretical text. (n^o 1). There were still 249 opponents on 19 November and 70 on 7 December, during a public session, in the presence of the Pope who, nevertheless, proclaimed this impious Act. Moreover, in the meantime, on 4 October, when the debate was still quite heated, Paul VI had accepted the invitation of the UN and in his discourse to this World Assembly of Free Masons, he already mentioned “the fundamental rights and duties of man, his dignity, his freedom and above all, his religious freedom”, ascribing to “human wisdom” (UN and totally Masonic), a “sacred character”. If there is heresy, then it is Paul VI speaking to the UN who is guilty of it before God and before the Church. I say that there was robbery and malfeasance. I regret that no one had left the Council to cleanse themselves of all complicity with the heresy thus proclaimed. » (CCR n^o 28)

Lets come back now to the very principle of this grave error, imposed today on the entire world as though inspired by the Holy Spirit to the Council, and presented by Pope John Paul II as the necessary and sufficient condition for the establishment of peace in the world. Just what is it?

A STRANGE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHOSE FOUNDATION CANNOT BE FOUND

The numbers 1 to 4 of the conciliar Declaration affirms the internal and external right, of individuals and of society to full religious freedom, without coercion of any sort that prevents or restricts its exercise, that restrains or solicits it in any manner.

« 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 is denied in society. » (n^o 3) And: « Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honour the Supreme Being in public worship [sic!], assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles. » (n^o 4)

The foundation of such a right lies « in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself » (n^o 2). This is at least what the conciliar text claims. But Father Congar himself admitted: « The precise point of religious freedom such as our Declaration uses it is not found as such in Sacred Scripture. » (Unam sanctam n^o 60, p. 13) We needed to know!

As for the argument of human reason, the author of the text, Mgr Pavan, had to branch off into the natural right and moral duty of all men « to seek truth » in order to justify absolute liberty of thought and action in matters religious. How could such a sophism have been accepted by the Council?

The consequences of this theory are incalculable: « This Council dismissed God from its sessions to listen to man, to idolise him and to define its new religion, its pastoral approach, on the basis of the cult of man in lieu of the cult of God. » This is the main accusation made forty years ago by the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century.

We have been unable to find a better comparison of these two religions that fight one another within the unique and holy Church other than this commentary made by our Father, in January 1986, of an article of Mgr Pavan himself. Father Gitton, at the time when he was chaplain of Montmartre, said about these two pages: « They are irrefutable. » Here is the summary, in the form of a dialogue, a “dialogue” that never took place!

GOD AND JESUS CHRIST DISMISSED

Mgr Pavan : Rights like duties adhere in concrete persons and not in values. Truth, justice, beauty are values not persons. Consequently, truth has no “right” to freedom, but only the individual who, even in error, does not lose his rights.

The Abbé de Nantes: – The supreme Truth is Christ; he is our Justice, our good and our supreme Beauty. Now, Jesus Christ is a Person, divine Person incarnate, and therefore the incomparable “subject” of the most extensive social “rights”. The Council only recognises “persons”, that is to say: men who recognise within themselves certain highly subjective “values”, and who will not only admit purely empirical social relationships between themselves, relationships for the good life in common as “bons vivants” each keeping his own ideas, his own morality, his own metaphysics, his own “values” for himself, without bothering the others. Thus God is dismissed from among men.

Mgr Pavan: – The conciliar text expresses two distinct affirmations: no one can be constrained to accept a faith, nor can anyone be prevented from giving expression to his own faith, unless it injures other people...

The Abbé de Nantes: – And if that “other person” was our gentle Saviour Jesus Christ, or the Person of His Father, our Father in Heaven, or the divine Person of their Holy Spirit, greatly “injured” by men’s idolatries and irreligion. Mgr Pavan does not think of this? For him, and for the Council, society is a collection of human persons in an association of perfect freedom, equality and fraternity.

Mgr Pavan: – Yes, each person is responsible for his relationship with God, and must always be able to remain himself.

The Abbé de Nantes: – That is a total inversion of the natural and divine order. It is no longer God who is “in charge”, that is to say the sovereign legislator, of his relationship with man and, therefore, of the being, and of the rights and duties of each person. It is man who is the author and free legislator of his relationship with God in an absolute autonomy. Man who declares himself God has banished God from his world, has banished his Creator and the Son of God made man, become his Lord and Master, his Saviour and king.

Mgr Pavan: – For the Church the person must be at the centre of everything.

The Abbé de Nantes: – What person?

Mgr Pavan: – Well! The person of every man, of course, whoever he may be! The person of the poor, the outcast, the oppressed…

The Abbé de Nantes: – And the person of Jesus Christ, our king and Sovereign Legislator?

Mgr Pavan: – Ah no, that is excluded. With Him at the centre, all the others will be his subjects. With him at the head all the others will be his members... »

The conclusion of our Father: « Man at the centre can only mean one thing: Neither God nor Jesus Christ, nor the Church at the centre, but Man. Rebellious man, and at his centre, the conqueror Satan… And this is where we see the fundamental, absolute, irreparable contradiction between the Catholic religion and the new religion of Man imposed at the Second Vatican Council. » (cf. CCR n^o 186, pp. 3-4)

THE CONSEQUENCES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

In number 5 of Dignitatis Humanæ, liberty is recognised to families « to freely live their own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents » The Council did not dare to go against the natural right of parents to give to their children the education and religious training of their choice. But Mgr Pavan admitted: «There is no doubt that the proclamation of freedom in matters religious, a fundamental human right, postulates that within the family as well, parents cannot impose religious faith on their children. » (Unam sanctam, p. 158)

Go on! May 68 will pass that way and will break down all the barriers.

As for Schools, the Council, in an attached Declaration on “Christian Education”, quite liberal in conception, took another step towards apostasy. « In the past, everything came from God, resumes our Father, through the natural and supernatural institutions that participated in his authority and in his rights. This Council of apostates inverts this divine order so as to make everyone kneel, on all fours, at the feet of the child-king, the child-god, the modern idol... All must work together towards his service in view of the development of his personality. »

Lastly, the State, whose profile is drawn by Vatican II, democratic and neutral, indifferent to God and servant of individual freedom: it is no longer a question of recognising in it a divine legitimacy, and even less a religious mission, as given to the King of France consecrated at Reims. « However, the Council gives to the State with one hand what it takes away with the other: it makes it the repressor of religious anarchy! It takes religion away from the State from the point of view of the truth, but it gives it back to him from the point of view of public order! And no one seems to realise that this subjugates religion to the State!... After all is said and done, it succeeded in freeing individual and social man from the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, in order to cruelly abandon him to the tyranny of police States. It is a disgrace and an apostasy. » (CCR n^o 28)

LIES ABOUT REVELATION AND TRADITION

After having proclaimed the new dogmas of Religious Freedom, in answer to the requirements of the Modern World, the text of the Council attempts to justify it by Scripture and Tradition. « A wasted effort, explained the Abbé de Nantes: this theory is unknown to Scripture which is its divine contradiction and its eternal condemnation. »

The only verse quoted in support of this new thesis, not by the conciliar text, but by its commentators, is that of Sirach, according to which « God left man in the hand of his counsel » (Si 15.14). It is on this sole verse that reposes the weight of the temple of the freedom of man! Now, Brother Bruno has done a scholarly exegetical commentary on this verse (cf. CCR n^o 264, pp. 9-11). Replaced into its context, it signifies that after his fall, in chastisement of his rebellion, God abandoned man (Adam) to the malice of his counsel and to his perverse designs. All of his descendants inherited this ill-will, unless he is freed by the grace of He who said:

« If you abide in My Word, you will indeed be my disciples. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. » (Jn 8.31-32)

The Council therefore blinds itself when it states:

« In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognises and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. » (n^o 12) It is to use cunning with the Gospels and the apostolic Epistles, mixing the interior and intimate liberty of consciences, which no one has the power to compel, and social liberty, which is folly.

The text goes a step further, at n^o 12 once again: « Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognise their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free from all manner of coercion in matters religious. »

Thus, thanks to the Council, the Church is supposed to have discovered among the free masons and the atheists, as a Gospel leaven, the doctrine that nineteen centuries of Catholic tradition had prevented her from bringing to fruition. That is a bit much! And here is the blackmail:

« It is plain that men of the present day want to be able to profess their religion freely in private and in public. Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognised in international documents. » (n^o 15)

Therefore, if modern man and contemporary States recognise it, the Church can only concede defeat, renounce her truth, her law, so as to satisfy the demands of the World, hoping to contribute in this way to the concord and peace of the entire human family, founded not on the worship of Jesus and Mary, but on the assistance of all human religions and ideologies, fraternally associated in a Movement for the Spiritual Animation of World Democracy, Masdu! From this fatal moment on, Satan reigns in the Church.

THE FREEDOM OF CHRISTIANS AND OF THE CHURCH

When Vatican III wishes to come back to the true conception of the freedom of Christians and the Church, divine in its source and its measure, it will only have to take up what our Father wrote in October 1964, before the end of the third session of the Council in the heat of the controversy that still held error in check, for the imperishable reasons outlined here:

« Freedom comes from God alone. Perfect human freedom belongs to Jesus Christ alone and, in the divine gift that He made of it, to the Catholic Church. She alone is the true religion and the perfect society whose rights dominate all powers and all created individuals. It is by virtue of their membership in this divine and true Church that all Catholics have the full freedom of worship and apostolate in all nations and in all states. It is the foundation of a family, social, political international law, absolute and sacred. The other religions, being deprived of all historical proofs and of all supernatural marks of truth, have no specific authority and those who practice them, even sincere persons, have no special right other than that of natural morality. Neither the Church nor States should recognise such religions, nor grant them the slightest social right, for error founds no real right. Only the requirements for common good and peace can bring about a certain tolerance, which, however broad it may be, will be no more than a lesser evil, always dangerous for the true faith, for the supernatural good of societies and for the salvation of souls.

« One must not speak, therefore, of freedom except concerning private consciences, which cannot be forced: no one can be compelled to practice a religion that his conscience rejects as being irrefutably bad; but it does not follow that this religion may act exteriorly according to its error. Furthermore, society must expend all its efforts to bring it to the truth and redress it according to the good to which God calls it.

« 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! Who would not be able to use his conscience as an excuse for shaking off all constraint and all law? 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. » (Letter no185)

As for us, let us remain prudent, protected from the ruses of the Devil, by the grace of the Immaculate who crushes his head and triumphs over all heresies: « You divert our gaze from the seductions of the Serpent. Your secret, finally revealed, is that of a creature forgetful of Herself and preserved for God alone, a creature whom God has magnificently exalted. Your lesson saves us from the mirages of Antichrist, who is the opposite of You in every way. » (Georges de Nantes, Letter n^o 179)

VIII. CATHOLIC EUCUMENISM

Everyone today recognises it: as regards ecumenism, there is a before and an after Vatican II. Our friend Pierre had no trouble demonstrating this, by consulting the internet site of the French bishops:

The youthfulness of the movement: « The ecumenical services of our Churches (Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) gathered together, for a first time, about twenty young people [!] quite at ease with one another within their denominations, for a one-week program of ecumenical training, exchanges and prayer. Between identity withdrawal and denominational confusion, between the fear of being persuaded and the temptation of merging, they attempted to find the path of encounter with others, with frankness, truth and respect. »

Purification of the memory: « In the XVI^th century, the Church was in a sorry state. Many hoped for reforms, the Pope as well. The reform would take place, but outside the Roman Church. It would be, first of all, the work of a German monk: Martin Luther. »

Future prospects: « “Those who would like to return to the situation of the past have not only lost their head but they will be abandoned by the Holy Spirit!” (Cardinal Kasper, Congregation for Unity) “No Church can claim to be, alone, the authentic Church of Jesus Christ as long as unity has not been achieved.” (Mgr Le Bourgeois, Autun) »

A SINGLE LETTER TO BE CHANGED

Let us collect our wits. Forty years ago, when the Council opened its sessions, the majority of the Fathers favoured a sound Catholic ecumenism, designed as a generous and charitable invitation addressed to Christians separated from Rome to come back to the fold, to reintegrate Catholic unity.

An echo of this zeal can be found at number 2 of the conciliar Decree Unitatis redintegratio:

« What the love of God has revealed among us is that the Father has sent into the world His only-begotten Son, so that, being made man, He might by His redemption give new life to the entire human race and unify it. Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar of the cross, Christ prayed to His Father for all who believe in Him: “That they may all be one; just as, Father, You are in Me and I am in You, so that they also may be in Us… So that the world may believe it was You who sent Me.” (Jn 17.21) [...] After being lifted up on the cross and glorified, the Lord Jesus poured forth His Spirit as He had promised, and through the Spirit He has called and gathered together the people of the New Covenant, who are the Church, into a unity of faith, hope and charity, as the Apostle teaches us: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism”. (Ep 4.4-5) [...] The Church, then, is God’s only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it: as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above. This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church... »

After this beautiful, very Catholic introduction, the conciliar text follows other paths. The study of the conciliar debates in the collection Unam Sanctam reveals that the Fathers were tricked by a minority of progressive theologians who imposed a different conception of ecumenism, Protestant in origin, according to which the Church had to renounce her pretensions and enter humbly into the general ecumenical movement of Christian churches. The equivocation between the two concepts was adroitly fostered during the Council, and the final text itself shows signs of this ambiguity. It was a veritable plot, orchestrated by Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat for Christian Unity, which played on a single letter.

For the first chapter of the Decree, entitled “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” became during its successive draftings: “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism”. Father Congar did not conceal it: « The addition of a letter [in Latin: catholicis instead of catholici] allowed a change that had a rather important impact... In the first view, the others are defined and considered with reference to oneself. The ecumenism that was fashioned in the Ecumenical Council was something different. It is designed as a network of relationships contrived without ecclesiological preconditions, without a Church positioning itself at the centre, between the sister-communions speaking as equals. »

« Thus we are warned that, right from the choosing of the title, commented the Abbé de Nantes, the Church becomes one of the Churches or Sects, without claiming to be above or apart from the others, even less unique and sovereign. Is she not therefore bound upon entering the “Ecumenical Movement” of Churches to go back on everything that she stands for? It would seem not, but notice the subterfuge: she continues to proclaim herself to be the unique, the true, the only Holy one... but she professes this from her own point of view, her opinion among others, to be taken into consideration like the others! » This is how the mortal equivocation was introduced into the Council, under the pretence of liberalism and openness to “others”.

As well, the true causes of past dissensions had to be passed over in silence.

MAKE A CLEAN SWEEP OF THE PAST!

Classical Catholic theology taught that only the Roman Church was One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, that all those who had decided to leave it, individually or as a group, through the sin of schism or heresy, separated from its Unity, but that this Unity subsisted without them.

Vatican II deliberately stated the opposite of this teaching. It wanted to consider the “separated Christian Churches and communions “as so many disjointed members of the one Mystical Body, whose unity is to be re-formed through an effort of conversion and reconciliation, upon equal terms, of everyone with everyone else. The Church would only recover its divine perfections after having reunited with the “separated Brothers”. Whence a destructive sort of ecumenism at all costs.

« The Conciliar and postconciliar Church recognises the possibility of finding one’s salvation in and through heresy. She accepts to share with the sects founded by heretics and schismatics her beautiful title, until then exclusive, of Church of Christ and to recognise everywhere else the presence and the activity of the Holy Spirit. She submits her dogma, her rites, and her discipline to the aberrant urgency of a reconciliation which is to know neither victor or vanquished. It is enough to say that, sacrificing her own dignity and disowning her Pontiffs and infallible Councils, she hastens to get along with the unrepentant offspring of those whom they had anathematised. Here is, in its very principle, the full-blown autodemolition of the Church; seeing the fruits that this ecumenism has brought, everyone notes that it is indeed, in the line of “religious freedom”, a denial of the faith. » (CCR n^o 29, p. 4)

It was therefore necessary, in order to please the “others”, to reinterpret the history of our divisions, rifts and dissensions (n^o 3). Obviously, the text shifts a part of the blame onto the Catholic Church, but the essential crime does not lie therein.

« The crime is to lie by omission, to deny, to pass over in silence, the original sin of all schisms and all heresies, which is a sin of rebellion against the Church, and consequently against Christ and against God. Listening to the pretensions of the dissidents, the Council accepts that they have remained in communion with God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while no longer being in “full communion with the Catholic Church”! There were “wrongs committed by men of both sides” wrongs that apparently are not transmissible, and that only lead to a certain number of misunderstandings, secondary oppositions, that “the ecumenical movement strives to overcome” » (CCR n^o 29)

THE DECATHOLISATION OF THE CHURCH

« All are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church [which Church?] and accordingly to undertake with vigour the task of renewal and reform. » (n^o 4) Congar triumphs! His principle of permanent reform of the Church was introduced into the text of the Council. Let the Protestants rejoice: Christ wants a reformed Church!

A frosty mention is made of individual conversions: « However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action [sic!]. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvellous ways of God. » And nothing more is said on this.

But what a passion for decatholicising the faithful in order to reduce them to the calibre of a universal ecumenism! « With ten years of hindsight, what a terrible castration! » our Father wrote in 1972. The Church is today « a large city half in ruins », to speak as the Secret of Fatima does, and thousands of « corpses » are strewn throughout its streets and squares.

The program « can be summarised in two big works: critical study and withdrawal of Catholics with regards to their faith and their Church institutions, on the one hand; and on the other, a growing admiration and rapprochement towards every dissidence in which “the effective power of Christ”, “God always admirable in his works” and “the grace of the Holy Spirit” manifest themselves. To such a point that if the others suffer from being separated from the Church, she suffers as well from lack of fulfilment as long as she does not benefit from their profound wealth. » (n^os 5-12)

The third chapter of the Decree announces, between the lines, the continual fool’s game that will be the inevitable consequence of such an ecumenism. For it is difficult, at the same time, to get along with Protestants and the Orthodox, and to want to please the latter without betraying the fidelity and the confidence of the uniates. « This is, in effect, the drama of conciliar ecumenism and it is its crime. In order to make peace with the adversary, Vatican II did not hesitate to sacrifice its own faithful. »

THE CHARTER OF CATHOLIC ECUMENISM

« There is one form of unity which is an abomination in the eyes of God; there is another form for which He shed His Blood. They must be clearly specified », wrote the future Cardinal Journet in his book “The Union of Churches” (1927), to which our Father refers, in order to oppose it to that of Congar’s “Disunited Christians” (1937), the source of Vatican II’s ecumenism. Tomorrow, Vatican III will have to « go back to the great tradition of reconquest of lost ground that made the grandeur of the Catholic Counter-Reformation of the XVI^th century. However, it is good to perfect the dogmatic expression of truths that heresy has deformed and to draw from it a new pastoral action. »

The theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth century applied himself to doing this in two short pages of a theological richness and a marvellous clarity.

Vatican III will proclaim the perfect and unique unity of its own Church, as well as its apostolic nature, « that is to say, that it will come to terms with the entire heritage of the centuries, without renouncing anything that the Church did or decided », other than the renouncing of the past that took place at Vatican II!

« Catholics may have all possible sins, their being Catholic, their membership in the Church is holy. Dissidents may have every virtue, their religious form, their membership in dissidence is sinful, and if they persist in it, this bad form impairs their worship and keeps them separated from God. »

Of course, many of these separated members only belong to the dissidence in a material way, because they happen to be born into it, and are ignorant of what makes it separated from and enemy of Christ. Unlike their leaders and their theologians, hardened in the justification of their rebellion, « they may receive and maintain supernatural life by all the Christian material elements conserved in the schism into which they are born; the Church, from far off, looks upon them as her own, in ignorance. But at any time, they risk being corrupted by the bad elements and being driven to consent formally to the heresy or the schism of their Fathers, thus cutting themselves off from the Mystical Body. They must be converted! »

The Abbé de Nantes then develops an entire “ecumenical pastoral project”, that Vatican III will certainly implement, contrary to the follies of Vatican II: « As much as the Roman Church must be wary of the pride of the great, of the obstinacy of those of the dissidents who have known her well and for a long time, but who do not want to convert... so much can she be full of sympathy towards the poor, the humble who only know her through the opaque wall of age-old prejudice, but who never formally sinned against her. To those who desire unity, the Church will delight in showing that already, mysteriously, union existed in faith, in the grace of the preserved sacraments, in the piety and the virtues drawn from the Gospel sources of the common tradition. »

« The gentle and radiant attraction of Rome, the heart of the world, is the way of the future », our Father wrote in 1972. The face of John Paul I, the smiling Pope, in whose arms Nikodim died, converted from his Orthodoxy, came to justify and confirm this hope. « Even if no spectacular result may be hoped for, from a human point of view, this is where – for Vatican III will do its entire duty of Catholic fidelity – the conclusion of the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism which has confidence in the Holy Spirit may be taken up in order to achieve what is impossible in human eyes (n^o 24). »

Tomorrow the miracle of the conversion of Russia will be wrought when the Pope will have consecrated it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! « So many resurrections that were thought impossible have been seen throughout history! Through miracles or chastisements, God can come to the assistance of ecumenical missionaries and preachers of his Son. Tomorrow Vatican III, the day after tomorrow perhaps – this is our hope –the massive return of the Eastern Orthodox freed at the same time from their Communism and their schism, the return of the English, having lost their fondness for their insular Anglicanism, and the conversion, at a rhythm universally accelerated, of Protestants. That is when, yes, in accordance with the apostolic thought of contemporary ecumenists, Christians, at last reunited will be able to go to conquer the world, in Christ’s words: “May they all be one so that the world may believe” May they be one as You and I are one: this is the fundamental urgency of Catholic Ecumenism whose source is divine and whose means are supernatural. So that the world may believe, this is the harvest promised to those who sow in tears. Carry out Vatican III and the times of the world triumph of Christ the King will come through His Holy Mother. » (CCR n^o 29)

IX. THE SALVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE

After liberty has been recognised to all men to chose their  religion, without any human or divine authority being able to prevent or constrain them in any manner; after the notion of equality has forbidden any “Church”, especially the Catholic Church, to claim to be the unique and infallible interpreter of the Thoughts and Will of God; here now is fraternity, through which, humanity, reconciled in the respect of all beliefs, will no longer experience any religious, cultural, racial or social discrimination.

Such is the new form of universal salvation that the Church preaches since the Council. It is the Masdu, denounced as early as 1965 by the Abbé de Nantes, aiming no more no less at establishing world peace through harmony between all religions. Nostra ætate, promulgated at the Council on 28 October 1965, is the declaration of this principle, with a spectacular advance made in favour of Judaism. « This declaration is set in the heart of the Council. It symbolises “Vatican II”. » (Father Henry, Unam Sanctam n^o 61, p. 11)

The tenacious opposition to this text that was seen from November 1964 to October 1965, dropped sharply when it was seen that the Pope declared himself in favour of it. Ninety-nine Fathers resisted to the end, but none of them dared rise up publicly to say that such a declaration was a disavowal of the Cross of Christ.

MASONIC FRATERNITY

What a strange preamble for a text of the Council! « In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together [?], and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light. »

It is stupefying and scandalous that the entire Catholic Magisterium adopted, without batting an eyelid, this fundamental premise of a universal fraternity, a veritable contradiction of Divine Revelation and the foundation of an antichrist humanism. God is said to be the Father of all men; they are consequently all brothers, and all discrimination between them must be abolished: such is the new creed of Vatican II, more Masonic than Christian, repeated thousands of times by Paul VI and John Paul II these past forty years. Without other results than incessant wars, divisions and persecutions…

« Our faith erects the Cross of Jesus at the centre of human History, explained our Father. It is the Event towards which converge all human aspirations for eternal salvation and from which flow all graces for everyone. Humanity, a single family dispersed by original sin, divided in every way, must not and cannot regain its unity and its fraternity other than in this Christian salvation resulting from the redeeming Cross. Legitimately, since the death of Christ, all men are reconciled with God who wants all of them for adoptive sons. But, in reality, they only enter into this fraternity through their membership, implicit or explicit, in hope or in act, in the Church born of Jesus’ pierced Heart. The Church is thus the Mystical Body of Christ, the unique and universal sacrament of salvation. This is what her name of “Catholic” expresses. » (CCR n^o 29)

ATTRACTIVE PAGANISMS

« The Catholic Church, one can read at number 2, rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions [pagan, or oriental, “that are bound up with an advanced culture” such as Hinduism and Buddhism]. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men… »

All the true specialists of these religions will say that this is a very partial view. On the subject of praying bonzes, Father Van Straelen, S.V.D., wrote: « Despite their impressive self-control and all sorts of other natural virtues that they have, one seeks in vain an object of their faith, that directs their interior movement, but above all, one seeks in vain a grain of true charity, even in their highest mystique. » (Ouverture à l’autre, laquelle? Paris, 1982, p. 173)

In reality, « under their shining forms, referred to in the Declaration, a fundamental paganism, or rather an absence of God subsists, which makes all solutions other than conversion impossible », wrote our Father. Now, it is precisely the opposite of a call to conversion that the Council addresses to them when it exhorts the Catholic faithful « so 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, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. »

A PEACEFUL ISLAM

Father Caspar, White Father, who comments in Unam Sanctam on n^o 3 of the Declaration, remarks the Church’s turn around in favour of Islam: « The time had come for the Magisterium to declare itself on Islam in positive terms, putting an end to a history consisting of struggles and of defiance, and marking the start of a new era of comprehension and collaboration. [You have to read it to believe it…] Instead of focusing, as in days gone by, on the (individual) salvation of infidels, she endeavours to find a divine intention and mediation specific to religions as social bodies. » (p. 212)

The Council outlines Muslim worship, « prayer, alms, and fasting », while omitting holy war, which is also a “pillar” of Islam! It does not reveal either, its absolute negation of three essential Christian mysteries: the Holy Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption. In short, « it is wrong and it deceives us about Islam. It does this knowingly, voluntarily, under the constraint of its basic premise of a “unification of the world” from which would follow the need of “passing from confrontation to dialogue, from competition to collaboration.” » And our Father draws the conclusion: « The Jihad will reply to these utopias and we will be left with praying for new Lepantos! » (CCR n^o 30)

JEWISH PERFIDY IS FORGIVEN

More cowardly and perfidious yet is the Council’s forgiveness of the Jewish people’s responsibility in the drama of Redemption. « That a religion known to be revealed, divine, imagines reconciling itself with others that are contrary to it is aberrant. The only thing that can result from this is its disgrace and its ruin. But that a religion said to be perfect, new and eternal should conceive “esteem, respect and love” for the rival that it supplanted, and whose very essence is in contradiction with it, it is for the authors of this Pact the worst of malfeasances. Such is however, the work of Judeo-Christian reconciliation considered to be the most important act of the conciliar “renovation”, the “conversion” of today’s Church. (CCR n^o 30, p. 7)

The authors of Nostra ætate tried desperately at n^o 4 to mix and confuse the three faces of Israel, which our Father, distinguishes, along with all the Tradition:

1. Israel, God’s Chosen People of the Old Testament, until the time of Christ. Its divine mission was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and with this its mission is brought to a close. The Church took over from this Israel. She is the unique and legitimate heir to this sacred mission.

2. The Jewish people, since the time of Christ. This people is called to conversion and baptism, like all the others, but with a particular urgency and special love since it is closer than all others to salvation by its ancient patrimony, but further away, more opposed and rebellious by its recent patrimony.

3. Talmudic Judaism, the religion of the Jews who refused the Gospel accusing it of being heretical, rejected the Saviour by treating Him as an impostor and persecuted the Church declaring it to be the usurper of its sacred patrimony. Even today, this Judaism remains the religion of the Jewish race and fuels its pride.

Now, « the Council wanted at all costs to reconcile the Church with Judaism in the third sense, by assimilating this impossible rapprochement with the call to the conversion of the Jews in the second sense, a traditional and holy calling, and by counting on our common recognition of the same heritage of Israel in the first sense. » All was said.

But this can only be done by dint of a conscious and relentless falsification of Holy Scripture, and of a rejection of the entire Church tradition. The amputation of passages of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans concerning the reprobation of the Jews is significant in this respect (CCR n^o 30, p. 7-8).

Extolling « the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews », the Council omitted to specify that, according to St. Paul, it was snatched away from Israel according to the flesh, so as to be given to the Church who had become the sole and unique Israel, guardian of the Divine Covenant, and that the Jewish people can only enjoy once again by entering into the Church and renouncing its deicide.

But from now it is precisely forbidden to speak of “deicide”: « If it is true that the Church is the new people of God, the Jews must not necessarily be presented as being condemned or damned by God. » Jews are therefore no longer to be condemned. All that remains to do is to condemn Christians for having for too long condemned the Jews. The Council applies itself to doing this. But, it is true, since then we have seen even greater disavowals.

In conclusion, here is the formidable accusation made by the Abbé de Nantes concerning such a text:

« Objectively, this Declaration excuses Humanity of all original and collective sin, the other religions of their errors and of their antichristian aggressiveness, and even more, Judaism of all its rage against Christ and against the Church.

« The Council, in the exact measure of this universal forgiveness, accuses the Church and makes her directly responsible for the divisions, rivalries, persecutions that devour humanity. In the end, it makes its Church the great divisive force among nations, the great fusspot among religions and the criminal usurper, Christ’s dishonest and untruthful invention that stripped Israel of its sacred patrimony. I do not exaggerate. Vatican II’s conclusion is to place the Church in the service of Humanity: it is the freewoman who is lead by her unnatural children to the servitude of her former slave. The inversion of the Mystery!

« Subjectively, this Declaration is the antithesis and the complete contradiction of traditional Catholic doctrine… Now the Council could not contradict Catholic doctrine in this manner without committing shameless falsifications of Holy Scripture which it claimed to rediscover and restore to its lost purity! This falsification, similar to the Jewish “perfidy” earns, I think, its authors the same malediction that formerly, fell on the deicides and their progeny. I can only remain a Catholic priest today by declaring solidarity with the 99 Fathers of Vatican II who resisted to the end the Declaration Nostra ætate. » (CCR no30)

To claim the unity of all men outside Christ is an apostasy. There is no fraternity except in Him. One must be for Him or against Him, as he preached. The motivations of religious history are heroic as well. For this apocalyptic combat, long live Vatican III!

Brother Thomas