Georges de Nantes, Defensor fidei

Against Hans Küng the Apostate
and Ratzinger-Benedict XVI the Modernist

THE German-Swiss Modernist Hans Küng died on Easter Tuesday, April 6, appearing before God for his eternal judgement, without having recanted his denials of the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption, his rejection of the historical reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, his blasphemies against the Eucharist and the Sacred Heart, his unbearable outrages against the Immaculate Virgin Mary, nor his highly publicised contesting of Christian morality, which has led to the fall and desertion of many priests and faithful.

Hans Küng always refused to submit to the lenient injunctions of conciliar Rome in the 1970s. Our Father was indignant at the Pope’s impotence, which turned into genuine complicity: “What is Paul VI waiting for to throw this triumphant apostate and all his mafia out of the Church, or to leave it himself and found another one with them?” And again: “What is Paul VI waiting for to excommunicate these denigrators of natural morality and of the evangelical law? He cannot delay without incurring anathema along with them!

During the following pontificates, the rebellious theologian continued to wound the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary by his provocative impiety and to scandalise the faithful, without ever having a canonical sanction imposed on him.

He was even received by Pope Benedict XVI a few months after his election to the pontificate, on September 24, 2005. “The Holy See press room stressed that the meeting took place ‘in a friendly atmosphere.’ Benedict XVI appreciated ‘Professor Küng’s effort to contribute to a renewed recognition of the essential moral values of humanity through the dialogue of religions and in the rapprochement with secular reason,’ underscoring ‘that the commitment to a renewed awareness of the values that sustain human life is also an important objective of his pontificate.’ ”

In 2013, Küng took a public stand in favour of “assisted suicide. Suffering from Parkinson’s disease, he did not want to go through intellectual or, beyond a certain point, physical decline. He therefore planned to “end his earthly life at the moment when it would cease to coincide with his idea of dignity.”

Last summer, knowing that he was close to dying “peacefully,” the very Modernist Cardinal Walter Kasper, his long-time friend, telephoned Pope Francis who “told me to convey his greetings and blessings ‘in the Christian community.’ ”

This was published the day after his death by Cardinal Kasper in the Italian-language Osservatore Romano, without provoking the slightest denial. It is staggering. Pope Francis was thus acquiescing to what Küng had dared to claim on the last page of his Memoirs: “No matter how the system and its administrators may judge me, I am still at home in the great Christian community of the faithful.”

To understand or, more precisely, to explain such a conciliatory, benevolent attitude of the Popes, from John XXIII to Francis, towards this apostate, we must go back to the Second Vatican Council.


Together with several theologians such as Professor Karl Rahner and his emulator Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Küng was one of the architects of the revolution brought about by Vatican II. Their first victory was the Opening Speech of the Council on October 11, 1962. “It was then,” wrote Father de Nantes, “that the Fathers learned that they were not to do any dogmatic work, to define divine truths and denounce contemporary errors, nor above all to condemn anyone. Men, we were told, have now reached adulthood and are able to recognise for themselves what is of pernicious doctrine and we remember the cruel off-handedness with which John XXIII dismissed the prophets of woe! This Council would choose the path of mercy rather than that of severity so favoured in the past: it would be open, pastoral and ecumenical. ‘Is not this refusal of doctrinalism an entirely new emphasis?’ Hans Küng, a peritus of the Council, commented: ‘It is obviously a refusal to engage in purely polemical, defensive anti-Protestantism and in a rigidly moralising anti-Modernism, which are negative attitudes. It is also a refusal to engage in anti-Communism of a southern brand, etc.” That is indeed a great novelty! The Solemn Magisterium, therefore, in its ecumenical sessions has decided not to distinguish between truth and error, to admit everything and to proscribe nothing. It has decided to leave men to their own opinions without imposing infallible pronouncements on them or commanding them in the Name of God.”

With more restraint and control than his friend Hans Küng, Father Ratzinger, the young private theologian of Cardinal Frings of Cologne, also expressed his satisfaction: “The climate of the Council was immediately marked by the broadmindedness of John XXIII. At last it seemed that the neurosis of anti-Modernism had been overcome.”


In 1962, Father Hans Küng, then thirty-four years old, was one of the first to prepare the second great victory of the innovators. “Rahner,” he said, “had already given a lecture in Tübingen on January 14, 1962, on the subject of the Council, a lecture that was enthusiastically received by my students, who could see that his positions were in agreement with those of their own professor of theology. Already at that time we had made plans to fight against the curial strategy of the Council.” That is, against the preparatory work of the Roman theologians, often members of the Holy Office.

A fortnight before the opening of Vatican II, he wanted to meet urgently with the French Dominican, Yves Congar, author of True and False Reform in the Church, whose errors, it should be remembered, had been detected by the Holy Office as early as 1937, after the publication of his book Chrétiens désunis [Divided Christendom.]

Congar related: “Küng phoned me on the morning of September 27, asking to see me. The same day he came from Tübingen [to Paris] for this purpose.

“He, in agreement with several German theologians, in particular Möller, from Tübingen, considers the four dogmatic schemata to be bad: they should not be amended, but rejected. Amended they would remain substantially what they are. They, in fact, express the theology of a school of thought, that of the Roman schools. For the public, and even practically for the average cleric, their constitutions would pass for definitions of the Faith. This would constitute a further hardening in a direction that would not offer real possibilities for dialogue with the thinking of our contemporaries.

“To give ourselves a better chance for them to be refused,” Küng claimed, “we must avoid these dogmatic schemes being proposed first.

“We are considering the possibilities of action in this sense.

“However, I draw Küng’s attention to the danger and disadvantage of giving the appearance of being a paraconcilium of theologians that would want to influence the real Council of the bishops. Küng would have liked to hold a meeting of theologians in Rome. I formally advised him not to do so. We would create the impression:

“1. that theologians want to dictate the Council’s line. This would be unpleasantly reminiscent of Döllinger;

“2. that a plot is being hatched.

“But every action provokes a reaction. Our action would cause a hardening of all the immobilists and paltry scholastics who represent perhaps the numerical majority [of the Council Fathers].”

Congar, who was fundamentally in complete agreement with Küng, was much more prudent and cunning!

It would be endless to recount all the intrigues and manoeuvres of the reformers, particularly against the preparatory schema on the sources of Revelation which, according to Congar, was marked by an anti-Protestant, Counter-Reformation spirit, incompatible with the needs of our time. They obtained on November 21, 1962, thanks to John XXIII and his violation of the conciliar rules, the rejection of the schema, then at the end of the first session the scrapping of all the other schemata prepared by the Theological Commission. “Father Joseph Ratzinger said that the absence of any approved conciliar text was the great, astonishing and truly positive result of this session. The fact that no text won the assent of the Council Fathers was for him proof of a strong reaction against the spirit that had underpinned the preparatory work. Not concealing his jubilation, Father Hans Küng said that what had once been the dream of a vanguard group in the Church had spread and, thanks to the Council, had penetrated the whole atmosphere of the Church. He saw the rejection of the scheme on the sources of Revelation as a great step in the right direction. This was something we in Germany had all hoped for, but being a small minority we did not think it possible.”

The day after their victory, on the evening of November 22, Rahner, Küng, Ratzinger and Schillebeeckx decided by common accord to create Concilium, a avant-garde theological review, “in the spirit of the Council.” In 1958, Rahner had refused to embark on such an adventure: “We will not be able to write what we want to write in it,” he had replied to the Dutch editor Paul Brand. Yet since John XXIII had revealed his intentions through his various interventions at the Council – his Opening Speech, the rejection of the schema on the Revelation, the appointment of new periti including Küng himself – the reformists no longer had to worry about possible censorship. Congar wrote the first article in the first issue of the journal and Ratzinger the second.

Congar was particularly fond of the latter: “Fortunately, there is Ratzinger. He is reasonable, modest, disinterested, helpful.” Of good help, because more calm, softer, finer and more skilful than Küng, but both got along wonderfully at that time, each of them keeping busy in his own way in the Modernist plot.

In the summer of 1963, Ratzinger welcomed the likely arrival of Küng in Münster to occupy the first chair of dogmatic theology at the university where he himself was teaching. Küng replied to him, “I quickly saw in Rome [at the Council] that we are on the same wavelength, that is what matters.” As for Ratzinger, he wrote to him: “I do not need to tell you how much I share your opinion” about the need for a new theology for conciliation with the Protestants. In the end, it was Ratzinger who joined Küng at the University of Tübingen, to pursue the career on which he secretly had his heart set and which would effectively lead him to the sovereign pontificate.


The Reformers were not unaware of Father de Nantes’ well-argued criticism. The day after the opening of the Third Session, on September 15, 1964, Yves Congar noted in his Journal of the Concile: “Bishop Guerry brings me copies of Letters in which a certain Father Georges de Nantes attacks me. I am not interested in this, but Bishop Guerry thinks that a response must [sic] be made: they now have a distribution of ten thousand copies and are supported by sponsors [sic].”

Certainly, it was necessary to respond to this Father Georges de Nantes, or else to admit that it is he who was right! This response is still required today.

Congar never replied to him. On the other hand, he defamed him, as we will see later.

À Annecy, salle Lamy, le 8 février 1977, l’abbé de Nantes contraignit le Père Congar à controverser publiquement avec lui.
In Lamy Hall, in Annecy, on February 8, 1977, Father de Nantes obliged Father Congar to controvert publically with him. The Dominican reformist was forced to admit that the Second Vatican Council had not taught any new dogma invested with the character of infallibility. “I obtained the recognition of our complete holy freedom in the Church,” our Father triumphantly explained, “to refuse the Acts of the Council, the scandalous novelties of which are not covered by infallibility.”

Father de Nantes fully understood the reasons for the catastrophic evolution of this “baneful Council” and the role played by these innovators, notably Hans Küng, the private theologian of the bishop of Paderborn. He wrote in his Letter to My Friends of Pentecost 1965:

“There is a handful of proud doctors and bad shepherds in the Church. Their aim is to chase out of the Church all those who are opposed to their plans in order to dictate their will as masters to the hierarchy and to force the people to accept it. They are the princes of the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy and the Council has become the occasion of their victory.

“From the beginning of this Council, the Bishop of Paderborn’s adviser, has adopted a truly disturbing position, to say the least, to judge from his book The Council, the Church’s Trial. Its theme was clear, namely that the Council had gathered in order to accomplish a certain reformation and a certain progress known to God, which He would inspire in His members by the Holy Spirit. Some have received the inspiration, others not. Hans Küng then expounds what the Holy Spirit wants Vatican II to accomplish. Küng, the peritus, naturally knows God’s plans and he sets them out so that the Council Fathers can follow them and so that we might know clearly whether or not the Council is obeying God’s will.

“In the present article Hans Küng only gives the Council a partial ‘satisfecit.’ The plans heralded by him and the divine reformation traced in advance by the periti has been decided upon and proclaimed but had also been sabotaged. ‘Substantial results have been obtained’ but not without ‘reversals’ and Hans Küng then draws up a list of eight points where the obstructionists won in spite of ‘the vehemently critical reaction of the press and of world opinion,’ thereby blocking the advance of reformism. Faced with this situation, the [Modernist] Sect has had to adopt two complementary attitudes that serve to hold the hierarchy in a vice. The one is pragmatic and consists in exploiting those decisions favourable to the Movement to the utmost and in pushing as many such decisions as possible to the limit. The other is intransigent and consists in remaining faithful to the integral programme of the Reformation, whilst protesting against, opposing and even disobeying whatever contradicts this programme without repudiating any of its primary demands.

“All the Bishops can understand that the Sect retains its profound unity and its totalitarian will to govern the Council and lead it where it will. The bishops are forewarned that two columns are forming: the one to promote everything favourable to subversion, as a provisional stage on the way to better things and the other clamouring for more and openly criticising these half measures. These two columns only appear to be opposed to each other, in fact they obey the same strategy. The one pulls Sovereign Authority ahead, whilst the other pushes from behind. The mass and the periti joining forces to make the Church move forward.” This was so much so that “bishops are to be obeyed or disobeyed according to whether or not they are in tune with the Reformist movement. Over and above the Hierarchical Council there hovers the absolute authority of the Council of Periti: above the Church, Masdu is in command. Everything has to lead the Christian people and their leaders to do its will, if not through obedience then through revolt; if not by persuasion, then by force.

“Rahner, Küng, Schillebeeckx, Congar, Chenu and de Lubac were merely a handful of un-influential and timid theologians when they were reduced to silence by Pius XII. Now they have returned and are laying down the law.”

They did so at the Council until its conclusion thanks to the active complicity of Pope John XXIII, then of Paul VI who supported and led the reformist movement with unparalleled skill.


Father Hans Küng published in 1960 his book “Council and return to unity,” in which he denounced the Church of the Ancien Régime, and above all her Bastille: the Holy Office, which was to be destroyed! It was thanks to his young friend, Father Joseph Ratzinger, that the assault was launched.

In his history of the second session of Vatican II, Father de Nantes wrote: “Cardinal Frings, pressing home his advantage, clearly demanded the reform of the Roman Curia and in particular of the Holy Office, which is responsible for watching over the purity of the Faith in the name of the Pope himself. It is the passionate wish of the reformers to reduce this supreme tribunal to powerlessness under the control of the bishops.” He then explained that “the heroic barrier, the only tenacious and sure one in the Church for twenty years,” for conserving and defending the Faith, “was the Holy Office. Now they have gouged out its eyes.”

In fact, a few days earlier, on November 8, 1963, Cardinal Frings declared in the Conciliar aula: “The Holy Office’s manner of conducting itself in many spheres is not in step with our times, is detrimental to the Church, and is a cause of scandal for many.”

This was verbatim the declaration that his private theologian, the young Father Ratzinger had prepared for him. A few minutes later, Cardinal Ottaviani, secretary of the Holy Office, protested vigorously against cardinal Frings’ scandalous assertions.

Then Bishop Romoli, Dominican Bishop of Pescia, explained and justified its procedure, in an interview granted to the journalist Wiltgen: “As I asked him if it was true that the Supreme Court of the Church condemned an accused without having heard him, Bishop Romoli replied: ‘It is necessary to distinguish. If one member of the Church accuses another of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Holy Office, the accused is always heard and has every opportunity to defend himself. The same cannot be said of published works, however, for these are theories which, taken into account in themselves, risk undermining the integrity of the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls. In such cases, the Holy Office does not always hear the interested party before delivering its verdict. In such convictions, it is not the intentions of the perpetrator that are questioned or condemned; the court considers only his theories taken in themselves. Once uncertain or false doctrines have been spread, what would be the point of such an interrogation? It would not change the influence exerted by the published work on the Catholic world.’ ”

Despite this well-argued defence of the inquisitorial procedures, Pope Paul VI asked Cardinal Frings that very evening to prepare the reform of the Holy Office. It would be neutralised, dismantled, annihilated at the end of the Council by the motu proprio Integræ servandæ of December 7, 1965. It was replaced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was not responsible for fulminating condemnations but for “creating doctrinal progress on the basis of the achievements of culture and the social sciences.” With such an objective, the new Congregation encouraged the proliferation of heresies in the Church and contributed to destroying the Faith in it.


Joseph Ratzinger was appointed professor of dogmatic theology at the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Tübingen, thanks to its dean, Hans Küng, who had noticed him at the first session of Vatican II. Father Ratzinger was imbued with the spirit of the Council, as defined by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Speech “Nowadays, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”

To meet the needs of our present day, Father Ratzinger condemned the anathemas of the Council of Trent!

The Council of Trent ends its declaration on Corpus Christi with a sentence that rings painfully in our ecumenical ears and that has certainly contributed more than a little to discrediting this feast in the eyes of our Protestant brothers. If, however, we purify this formulation of its passionate elements proper to the 16th century, we are surprised by what it reveals that is positive and great. This Conciliar text specifies that Corpus Christi must represent the triumph of the truth in such a way that “its adversaries, before such splendour and such joy of the entire Church, either give way or, struck with shame, come at last to recognise their errors.” Let us strip this sentence of all controversy: it means that the force by which the truth imposes itself must be the joy with which this truth is manifested itself.”

Just what was this truth for Ratzinger?

Until the Second Vatican Council, the influence of the truth (which is the source of our joy!) in our world of darkness was always accompanied by the fight against this same darkness and its errors. “What concord does Christ have with Belial?” (2 Co 6:14)

In reality, Ratzinger renounced the fight, because he emptied the dogma of the Eucharist of its content. That is why, for him, the visit to the Blessed Sacrament no longer had any raison d’être: “One cannot reasonably consider that Eucharistic adoration, or the silent visit to a church, consists simply in conversing with God Who is imagined to be present in a given place,” Ratzinger explained in a lecture given at the time of the Council.

The affirmation God dwells here and colloquy with God Who is imagined to be locally present, which is the basis for this affirmation, expresses a misunderstanding of the Christological event as well as of the idea of God. This necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit God Who is present only there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man.


The major work of the young professor of Dogmatics, The Christian Faith Yesterday and Today, published in 1968, contains a German dialectic intended to rationalise the mysteries of the Faith. Their ancient representations supposedly did not make any sense to modern man. Let us follow our Father in his critique of this book, an “old stale loaf of bread, mixed with rat poison coated with verdigris.”

Father de Nantes starts by noting that “too many allusions or appeals to modern science are totally devoid of seriousness,” for example, the reference full of praise to Jacques Monod, “someone whom I know well enough to despise utterly.”

“What can be the value of a theology that kowtows before modernity to such an extent? Alas, less than nothing, and worse than everything imaginable. We are forewarned in this note concerning the so-called ‘creation’ or ‘forgery’ (sic) of the Name of Yahweh in the ‘story’ of the Burning Bush, ‘the work of Israel’s faith,’ ‘a creation’ which a ‘strong presumption nowadays tends to attribute to Moses:’

“ ‘That is the historian’s point of view. The believer’s conviction is unaffected by it; for him this creative transformation was only possible under the form of a welcoming of revelation. The creative process, moreover, is always a welcoming process.’

“That is precisely and literally the very essence of Modernism denounced and anathematised by Saint Pius X.

“The word Modernist is not a benign one, without venom. Since the encyclical Pascendi (1907) it has designated, using the ostentatious name by which they styled themselves, a party of heretics of the very worst kind, determined to entrench themselves within the Church by means of pretence and false oaths, the better to destroy her traditional faith and thence the entire institution. This is in order to replace them with a purely subjective, individual and democratic religion, where all is sentiment and freedom, adhering charismatically to the Christian mysteries whilst eliminating them, by means of reason and science, from the world of physical and historical reality.

“This is because the modern mind is incapable of accepting anything that is outside the ordinary course of things and inexplicable by the rational sciences. To ‘divine revelations,’ however, it is admissible to grant a certain adherence of the heart, an emotional sensitivity for what is welcomed by the human community as ‘divine’ in certain very sublime experiences, so exalted that they can only come from the Spirit that blows where it wills.

“Such is the faith of Ratzinger the Modernist, full to bursting with German phenomenology, so, beware of the damage!”


United when it came to attacking Catholic dogma and emptying it of its content, the reformists, dare we say the evil ones, who had departed from orthodoxy and the discipline of the Church, were quick, after the Council, to divide and hate each other: they opposed each other in violent quarrels.

In an editorial entitled The Madmen Are at Large, our Father described them with very telling images:

“In my city, as a result of an inexplicable decision by the Administration, the madmen have been set free. It is a Feast of Fools, as in the Middle Ages. Suddenly, everyone is playing the fool and those who really are, are having a tremendous time. This is serious, very serious. I do not think, however, that this is absolutely deadly, because people still realise very well that we are living in an abnormal atmosphere. Even the greatest fools have moments of lucidity, and it is amusing to hear them then, accusing each other of madness!

“Nevertheless, it must not go on too long, because nothing shakes more the common sense, which was passed for the most seated and best shared thing in the world. You only have to listen to the speeches of a madman to feel your own common sense wavering. That is in fact why, in our city, bizarre accidents, heinous crimes and unheard-of scandals are occurring. It is common to see people suddenly undressing on the street, and others setting fire to their own homes. All such things were incredible yesterday, and now we do not know what to think about them.

“Extraordinary things are happening in the German quarter. There, the two most formidable madmen of the city, named Karl Rahner and Hans Küng began to quarrel. Each of them are going so far as to demand that the Administration take immediate internment measures against the other! Karl is the most dangerous of all: he has a cold and fierce appearance. He accuses Hans, who is younger and has Saint Vitus’ dance, of being frenetic! Yesteryear they agreed that Christ was not God. This, they said, has no meaning for modern reason. Man is God and Christ is man, which is why the ancients imagined that He was God. Language of fools! Granted, few people let themselves be deceived, but Hans claimed that Karl’s speeches were so profound that they were incomprehensible. People believed them so as not to look stupid!

“Today, everything is going wrong. Hans having claimed that the infallibility of the Pope is the infallibility of the people, which seems to me to be an innocent stupidity, Karl gets very angry and calls him a great madman. So their quarrel is upsetting the whole neighbourhood and we see that the guards would like to bring them back behind bars for them to kill each other there! The amusing thing is that when these great geniuses who are incomprehensible to men and angels, insult each other, they once again revert to such simplicity of language that everyone understands them and then loses his deep respect!


Immediately after the Council, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation took steps to have the content of his writings examined and judged in Rome. He finally obtained, by the publication of his petition to Cardinal Ottaviani on July 16, 1966, that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith open his doctrinal trial. Our Father responded to the Roman summons so that the preliminary investigation of his doctrinal trial might be carried through to its conclusion, which was attained in 1968. The trial itself, however, was brought to an end, at least temporarily, a year later, with a denial of justice and a media-staged caveat, which has no canonical force: it was a self-disqualification that contained “a spate of blatant lies,” published on the front page of the Osservatore romano of August 10, 1969.

In fact, according to the Roman notification, Father de Nantes had refused to “subscribe to a formula retracting his errors…” Yet the consultors and judges of the Congregation had not found the slightest error in his writings. No one had made his alleged mistakes known to him. “As for doctrinal errors, none were found in my writings. He who claims otherwise has lied.”

The notification disclosing this alleged disqualification appeared in France in the newspaper Le Monde “on the same page as a diatribe of Hans Küng defying the Roman authority that did not even dare to condemn his glaring errors!”

His errors were particularly evident in the most recent of his books with an ecumenical design, Die Kirche [The Church], which resulted from his collaboration with Ratzinger: “I thank wholeheartedly my colleague in dogmatic theology and co-editor of Ecumenical Research, Professor Joseph Ratzinger, for his invaluable help.”

In this context, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith invited him to come to its Palace in Rome, for a discussion on his theories. It was in 1968, he could have encountered our Father there. Unlike Father de Nantes, however, Küng refused to go there and was in no way disquieted.

It is no longer a question of censuring any heretic. Paul VI had to capitulate on this. It is an admission of total impotence in the face of the combined forces of Germanic Modernism and Latin Progressivism,” observed Father de Nantes.

“We must beseech the Pope, or coerce him, to do his duty, and even if this means that he has to renounce the liberal and democratic principles of his Council. One only has to see the fuss that Hans Küng raised when he impudently challenged the infallibility of the Pope, in contradiction with the faith defined at the First Vatican Council, to understand that the strength of the contestation resides in the weakness of the Supreme Authority which tolerates it to the extreme limit of its own denial. That is what is intolerable.”


“Despite his whining, his warnings, his short-lived attempts to put things back on an even keel, which are, moreover, absolutely ineffective, Paul VI identifies tenaciously with this exaltation of novelty, with this chimera of perpetual change that is devouring the Church and killing us.

“There are stronger bonds between Giovanni Battista Montini and Schillebeeckx, Küng, Chenu, Illich, Lemercier, than between us and Him. There is agreement between them, even prior to the Faith, on the reformist principles of Vatican II, on which we are in total opposition to them all. As in the Revolution of May 1968, government officials have more sympathy for the leftist militants on the barricades and trade unions than they will ever have for the counter-revolution. The Pact that still binds Paul VI to the rebels is the Conciliar Reformation!

“Shillebeeckx, Küng, Illich are in trouble with the former Holy Office, and Chenu with the General Curia of the Dominicans. All the newspapers talk about it. The murky Modernist solidarity was brought into play, the blackmail lasted three days and the fourth, Rome yielded.”

Küng would say all that he owed to Paul VI: “Personally, I am grateful to him because he held his hand on me; in other words, he protected me.”

“Does not Küng have a photograph that depicts him smiling, at the Pope’s side,” Father de Nantes remarks in his Liber Accusationis against Paul VI. “Everything is permitted, even a direct assault on Your own function, even to insult You to Your face!” (p. 32)

Küng continued: “Without Paul VI, there would certainly have been people in Rome demanding of him condemnations, sanctions and disciplinary measures against me.” In fact, there were some in Rome, but Paul VI had written in Küng’s file at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Proceed with charity which, for Paul VI, meant no disciplinary measures.

In short, this was the exact opposite of true charity!

Nothing can excuse Paul VI, our Father said, “for shirking the essential duties of his sovereign Authority. There is no longer an unwavering Catholic Faith, there is no longer a sure form of worship, there is no longer justice in the Church when the Roman Pontiff refuses to exercise his threefold Magistracy and prevents every other bishop or prelate from exercising it in his office.


In his article, Is Opposition to the Pope Sometimes Legitimate and Holy” Father de Nantes wrote: “Never has there been any opposition to the Pope as such nor any revolt against the Holy See, on the pretext of collegiality, Gallicanism, liberalism or democracy, which has finally won the upper hand. Nor could such opposition ever be legitimate. Here we must insist that our arguments are entirely Catholic and Roman, and are not in any way comparable to the views put forward by Hans Küng in his recent work Infallible? An Inquiry (Desclée, 1971), in which he attacks, a propos Humanae Vitae, the Magisterium itself in its very principle and essential prerogative of infallibility. His work contradicts the defined Faith, and its arrogant and mocking style simply serves to condemn the author. He opposes his fantasies to Catholic dogma and stands in judgement over the Church. Those familiar with our thinking know that we put our faith in the Church and oppose every innovator and reformer, even were he the Pope himself. Our opposition is founded on humility and respect and, dare I say it, obedience. His is based on presumption and rebellion.

We have nothing in common with such rebels and we cannot understand how they can be allowed to teach in the Church. Not for us this decapitation of the Church! Every attack against the authority of the Pope is an attack against the Church, against Christ and against God. Anathema sit!”  

When Father of Nantes established the opposition between the teaching of Paul VI and that of his predecessors, he ended his demonstrations with an appeal from the Pope to the Pope, asking him to judge himself by delivering an ex cathedra teaching.

“Listen to Saint Bernard, warning Innocent II: ‘Who will refute you for me? If I had a judge before whom I could drag you I would have already shown you what you deserve. There is indeed the court of Christ, but far be it from me that I should think of summoning you before Christ's tribunal! I therefore have recourse to him to whom it is now given to judge all Christendom. I appeal from you to you yourself to pronounce between you and me.’

Since the First Vatican Council that solution has been clear, but it is the one that Suenens-Küng-Congar fear most: the appeal to Pontifical Infallibility. The remonstrance to the Sovereign Pontiff, the threat of deposition formulated by the Roman Clergy do not end in an impasse: let the Pope therefore judge himself!

Urged to resolve this ambiguity and the, at least apparent, incoherencies of his personal theories, he must make a sovereign decision alone or in a Council presided over by himself, and so bring an end to this extraordinary process. Whether it be Paul VI or his successor; whether alone or by means of a necessary Vatican III, the turbid heritage of this so-called Reformation must be audited. If the Solemn Magisterium were to raise these new and disputed theories, ex cathedra, to the rank of irreformable dogmas, then there would be nothing left to do but submit, adhere to them with all one’s heart and repair the damage caused to the Church by our unjustified criticisms. If, however, the Magisterium, although wanting to define these theories infallibly, is prevented from doing so, or if, as I am convinced, it dare not, then it is He who must, under pain of being banned from the Church, renounce holding these strange opinions in public and must cease appearing to impose them on the Church as though they were revealed doctrine. Either way the Church will be delivered from heresy.” 


On July 5, 1973, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiæ, recalling the dogmas of the unicity of the Church, her infallibility and particularly in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, the specific character of the so-called ministerial priesthood, with the intention of leading Hans Küng to retract his well-known heresies on these three matters. However, he was not named, nor were his books explicitly disapproved.

Father de Nantes commented: “Returning from Greece where he was taking his holidays, Hans Küng met in Rome – in private, La Croix says, so as not to offend its readers, in reality in a festive banquet – Cardinal Seper, prefect of the said Congregation. The meeting was cordial. Küng later declared that he kept his ideas; that, we suspected! He added: ‘I don’t want to revive the controversy in vain, but I am happy these days. I found less rigidity than I had thought.’ ”

The Modernist cabal immediately mobilised to support him: “Journalists and theologians frighten Paul VI by reminding him of the Reformation Pact that forbids him to backtrack! The best deterrent is to shift the accusation of heresy onto someone else on the opposing side. On July 8, Le Monde opened its columns to Hans Küng, and pointed the finger at us in the anonymous presentation of the article: ‘It appears, as Bishop Schoeffer, the prelate in charge of presenting the declaration, pointed out, that theses other than those of Hans Küng are in question. These would include, in particular, those of integrist theologians such as Father de Nantes, who recently attacked the Pope very severely.’

“Father Congar soon pronounces his oracle in the same journal, on the front page on July 13. It is an artificial smokescreen concealing the enemy from view, disconcerting the flagship and finally causing it to open fire on another flotilla. Cunning defence of the theologian of Tübingen who is admittedly recognised as guilty, but who is excused and exonerated in order to shift all the responsibility for this disorder, again and again, onto the Church before Me-Congar.

“ ‘On the Magisterium and infallibility, Küng radically questions positions [Congar no longer says: dogmas] that the two Vatican Councils affirm [he no longer says: have infallibly defined]. He is waiting for them to be refuted. Conceit? Many people think so. Küng, on the other hand, would say that this is the truth and that Galileo was right against both the commission that judged him and the opinion of the majority.’

“Does this mean that Congar himself is openly taking the side of the Galileo of modern times against the dogma of the infallibility of the Church and especially of the Supreme Pontiff? No, that would be too dangerous. He knows full-well that Küng’s ideas are no longer Catholic, but he can be of more help to him by this way of sowing the seeds of doubt in minds, of obscuring this all too clear question, of accusing even the accuser in the person of the whole ante-conciliar Church: ‘It is difficult to see how the affair can be resolved by measure of authority. The surest thing would be to give the search for the truth time to make the necessary adjustments... (for) it must be recognised that centuries of clerical triumph have accumulated so much that one will not be able, in one day, to make the discernments that a demanding and patient service of the truth calls for.’ Such language, which is, moreover, utterly stupid and hypocritical, is intended precisely to throw Giovanni Battista Montini into a cruel indecision and remind him of his sworn liberalism. We are searching, rethinking, trying to discern, we do not yet know, nor will we know for a long time to come who is telling the truth – you can believe Congar! – in dogmatic questions already decided infallibly by irreformable and irrevocable definitions of the Church!

“Congar flatters Paul VI, to possess him: ‘Between a repressive Church and a permissive Church, there is that of Paul VI, open, patient, in both senses of the word, humble and praying: our spiritual mother. Küng knows well, because I have often told him, that beyond the intellectual differences that are, after all, limited, I sense her and I see her differently than he does.’ Then, at the end of his article, in cauda venenum, I am suddenly implicated: ‘There is intelligence. Neither Hans Küng nor Georges de Nantes lack it. There are, more penetrating than it, the enlightened eyes of the heart, which also enter into the perception of the truth, because it is indeed truth that is at issue. It is with them or through them, too, that one is called to be Catholic.’

“Here I am, placed by Father Congar – and on the basis of a calumny of an anonymous Fesquet [upon enquiry in Rome, it turned out to be a lie: Bishop Schoeffer had not mentioned Father de Nantes] – in the dock of the notorious heretics, who do not have the eyes of the heart like Congar. Symmetrical with Hans Küng. On par with him? No, in a worse position.

“Reread this clever verbiage. He distinguishes three Churches: the permissive one is the totally democratic, anarchic Church of which Küng dreams. The deterrent Church (Congar will be grateful to me for whispering the word to him), is his and that of Paul VI, our spiritual mother. As for the repressive Church, it is surely the Church of all time, the Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, of the 263 ante-conciliar Popes, of Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII! Since it would be badly received to admit this, call it the Church of Georges de Nantes – a Church that is neither humble nor prayerful, a Church that is triumphalist, legalistic, having a record of infamy: the repressive Church, from which has been exhaling a whiff of the stake ever since Vatican II.


“I consider false symmetries to be the most astute, effective and therefore infamous form of lies and moral homicides. Here, attention is diverted from Küng, who is a heretic, to us, who are not. In order to equate us, Congar conveys something of our innocence to the guilty party, and besmirches us with some of his wickedness. I have often written this concerning the fellagha and the paratrooper who are put on opposite sides of a seesaw. To bring them into balance, to a horizontal position, an artificial movement has to be imparted to the device that will result in total amnesty granted to the terrorist (with apologies and veteran’s benefits) and in the death sentence for the soldier. This has literally happened. Thus Congar imprints on our spiritual mother, the Church of Paul VI, a movement of repulsion for the repressive Church, which is nothing more than an attraction towards Küng’s permissive Church.

“To fail to condemn him today, but to throw suspicion on the opponent, means that tomorrow he will be proved right and we condemned, and through us the Church of all time.” 

The question is “to know who belongs to the Church and who does not: Küng, Congar or us, because it is no longer tenable to claim that all three of us do.

Congar, who is a theologian and attentive reader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, knows perfectly well the perfidy of this amalgam. He knows from within that this doctrinal act of the Holy See is aimed at errors and heresiarchs on his side, since it refers to truths that we have not ceased to hold and to recall against them all, and against him too.” 


Küng deserved to be duly condemned, since the dogmas that he rejected are constituents of the Church’s Magisterium, either Ordinary or Extraordinary. Yet, he never was. On the other hand, Father de Nantes was disqualified, even though all that he refused: the novelties of Vatican II, adopted by Paul VI, were in no way guaranteed by the Church’s infallibility.

A few years later, at the beginning of John Paul II’s pontificate, Father de Nantes wrote:

“It appears that Popes and Councils can err on secondary points. Küng says so, and he uses this as a pretext to reject the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption and the historical reality of the Resurrection, not to mention Christian morality. And he is allowed to glory in his immunity within the Church.

“On the other hand, everything that greatly pleases Hans Küng in the teaching of Vatican II, of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, appears to us as absolutely unacceptable, foreign to Scripture and Tradition, but totally inspired by the principles of modern society, of its philosophical rationalism, its atheist humanism and its revolutionary spirit. Yet, all this, to which our popes and bishops attach such great importance, still only relates to their views and options as private theologians. At least so it seems to us.

“With Paul VI, we make profession of the Catholic Faith; we adhere to his Credo as we do to all his absolutely traditional moral teaching. We, however, contest his cult of man, his universal ecumenism and his theory of religious liberty, opinions unheard of on the part of a pope. And yet our free criticism of these secondary points is not tolerated; it has earned us suspension and disqualification within the Church!

“There needs to be clarity in ideas and order restored to the Church, so that through divine truth and human justice we may find ourselves united in a sincere and profound charity – that is our most ardent desire.

“Now, who can do that, apart from the Pope?” Indeed, the Pope alone can do it. “It is to him that we appeal.”


Noting the extent to which Küng’s new 799 page book, On Being a Christian, “was wreaking havoc” in the Church, our Father asked me in September 1978 to give a series of lectures exposing and criticising his philosophical, exegetical, theological theories, concentrates of Modernism! I refuted them point by point, relying on the body of renewed Catholic doctrine that our Father taught us.

For his part, our Father published a harsh, well-argued review of the interview of Küng with the journalist Robert Serrou, published in “Paris Match.” We have reprinted excerpts in insets. From this interview, the Father de Nantes drew three conclusions:

“The first is a simple observation. Hans Küng has not budged one iota in his convictions and in his will since the opening of Vatican II, as they appear in his book of that time: The Council, the Church’s Trial (Le Seuil, 1963). When Paul VI appeared to prevaricate and restrain the movement of reform tending towards the Church’s “protestantisation”, Küng, invoking the will of the masses, protested that the movement would continue with or without the Pope, outflanking him and sweeping him away.

“So we know where this new Döllinger stands.

“The second is of a theological order. The Paris Match interview is an exact summary of the faith and morality, or rather of the unbelief and immorality, of the Theology Professor of Tubingen. It is precisely the Modernist heresy the ‘meeting place of all the heresies’ as Saint Pius X denounced, reproved and outlawed his encyclical Pascendi, in his decree Lamentabili and finally in the Antimodernist Oath.

“Hans Küng took the Antimodernist Oath. He is a heretic, he knows it and has perjured himself.

“The third is of a juridical, disciplinary, ecclesiastical order. Küng has not to be judged; he says nothing new and is therefore de facto condemned. He incurs the excommunication latæ sententiæ that falls on all those who hold or propagate a heresy already condemned by the Church. (Canon 2314).”


The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had had the Küng file in hand for more than ten years and the apostate was faring very well, since the Congregation no longer used an inquisitorial procedure. The new Congregation that replaced the Holy Office was not to condemn, but to dialogue, during colloquia to which Küng always refused to go, on the pretext that human rights would not be respected.

However, the scandal caused by his public and virulent criticism of all dogmas finally led the Roman Congregation to take a decision against him: on December 15, 1979, it withdrew his licence to teach theology.

Commenting on the documents published by the Osservatore romano, our Father wrote: “It is evident that Professor Hans Küng is a formal heretic, that he has defied the German episcopate and Rome and that he rejects essential dogmas, known to all as infallibly defined and irreformable. And for seven years at least Rome has been dealing with him respectfully, patiently, indulgently and very considerately in order to end with a declaration that ‘he can no longer be regarded as a Catholic theologian and as such can no longer hold a teaching responsibility.’ Is that all? Yes, that is all.

“So much so that the last words of the dossier, to be taken up by all the world’s press, are there to affirm that ‘Hans Küng is not thereby excluded from the Church nor does he cease to be a priest.’

“He ‘deviates from the integrity of the truth of the Faith.’ Yet he does not thereby cease to be a member of the Church, and a priest! Yes. Obviously that has to be understood in the active sense. He does not believe in the Pope, but he remains one of the Church’s faithful. He does not believe in the Church yet he is fully entitled to remain a Catholic. He does not believe in the priesthood nor in the Mass, the Real Presence, the sacrifice and the sacrament and yet he is still entitled to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and preside over the liturgical assembly. It is sheer madness.”

A few days later, Cardinal Höffner, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, publicly stressed that the professor was not subjected to “any Roman disciplinary measure!” The abolition of the teaching licence is “exclusively caused by a deep sense of pastoral conscience.”

The ravenous wolf thus remained a member of the Catholic clergy and, while no longer belonging to the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Tübingen, he remained in that university, since its rector retained his functions as professor and director of an Ecumenical Research Institute.

Küng was also able to continue publishing his books translated into all languages and distributed in Italian in Rome itself, since the commission of the Index of Prohibited Books had been abolished the day before the Council closed.

It should be remembered that before his elevation to the sovereign pontificate, Karol Wojtyla quoted him in the retreat Sign of Contradiction that he preached in the Vatican, before Paul VI, in 1976, and several passages of his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis, concerning the modern world, the cult of man, the service of man are inspired by the first and last parts of the book On Being a Christian, which deal with humanism. I had prepared a list of all of them for our Father.


Küng had nothing to fear from Cardinal Ratzinger who was appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981. His former colleague and comrade in arms was determined never to take the slightest inquisitorial measure: “Never, would I have accepted dedicating myself to this ecclesial service if my task had been primarily one of control.”

Father de Nantes commented: “You made a point of letting it be known that you would never ever have accepted the office of Prefect of the Holy Office had it not been undertaken that no longer would there ever be any question of sanctioning or condemning anyone, except the enemies of Liberty!

“Charity, or rather ‘solidarity’ as they prefer to say nowadays is understood in the free-Masonic sense of the word: let all men be respected in their convictions, commitments and actions both public and private. And the supreme rule: let no man be ‘judged’ by anyone, still less ‘condemned’. As though the prime charity were not to define the truth and to defend it!

“Thus it is, with Your Eminence reigning at the Congregation (founded for the defence) of the Faith, in accordance with your demand and promise, that there is no longer that primary charity which consists in defending the Church from the invasion, domination and ravages of the Prince of this world, Satan.”


On August 6, 1983, the Prefect of the former Holy Office wrote to the bishops with regard to the power of consecrating the Eucharist. He severely warned them against the “erroneous opinions” based on the “common priesthood” of the faithful, which the Second Vatican Council proclaimed, in order to presume the right of laymen to “preside over and consecrate the Eucharist.”

Let us add what was left unsaid in this Letter, as Hans Küng insistently claimed. Küng, for his part, pushed the advances of the Council to their limit!

Our Father’s strong faith inspired his commentary on this Letter:

“Is it perfect? No! The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deserves three vehement reprimands, which we do it the charity of pointing out to it.

“Firstly, scarcely had the document been published when the Prefect nullified it in his press conference on September 8, 1983 with the assurance that the erroneous doctrines aimed at in this declaration ‘are not very wide-spread’. Moreover, ‘no name of any theologian or community appears in this letter: the tendencies are diffuse and varied… The aim of this document is not to impose sanctions affecting persons or communities, but to strengthen the faithful and priests, because here and there problems exist, although there is no imminent danger.’”

Our Father gave vent to his indignation: “It is a language of eunuchs. He speaks sternly in order to make it a sacred duty for bishops to reprove these dreadful heresies, to curb these odious practices, and then he himself, the Prefect of the Holy Office, crumples up; he collapses before the journalists!

“Secondly, why make this solemn defence of the Catholic Faith? Alas! You will never guess! For God’s honour? Not at all. For the salvation of souls? Definitely not! Then, for the respect due to the Sacrament? Nay! Here is the reason, which the same Cardinal Prefect admitted to the journalists. It was in order to be forgiven for this fit of strictness. Well, he said to them, we were forced into doing it, because of our separated brethren who are scandalised by such abuses!

“‘This letter,’ he told them, ‘is intended to have a certain ecumenical repercussion, especially with regards to the Orthodox Churches, which are sometimes worried to see or hear about certain practices and theories that stray from the common faith of the first millennium, which the Catholic Church clearly (!!) reaffirms (!) today. Likewise for Protestantism, there is a certain search for the episcopal structure, as the recent assembly of the Ecumenical Council at Vancouver once again demonstrated.’

“The age-old heretics and schismatics are more Christian than our post conciliar Church gone mad. The aim is to reassure them by acting as though we are rectifying our disorder.

“Thirdly, and it is the most serious point: What harm is there in the Eucharist being celebrated by false priests or ‘priestesses’?

“Answer: ‘The faithful who make attempts to celebrate the Eucharist outside of the sacred link of the Apostolic succession based on the Sacrament of Holy Orders exclude themselves from the unity of the one Body of the Lord, and consequently they do not feed the community, they do not build it, but they destroy it.’

“That is all. Rome’s reproaches express her concern for defending the institution of the priesthood and the unity of communion in the Body of the Lord, i.e., the Church. There is, however, not the slightest thought, concern, awe-filled anxiety of defending God, outraged by these false masses which are shams, either idolatrous if they truly believe that they consecrate and sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ, or profaning and blasphemous if they no longer even believe it. It is Jesus Christ Who is crucified anew in these sacrilegious travesties. Rome could not care less about that. This is a scandal far worse than the scandal of these absurd eucharists. Rome has the cult of man, of the institution, of the hierarchy, and of itself. But of God, not in the least.”


Under cover of conciliar liberalism, the Beast of the Apocalypse wreaked immense havoc in the Church, so much so that Cardinal Ratzinger could not disregard The Crisis of Faith, in his interview with Vittorio Messori in 1984. He, however, did not renounce anything of his conciliar commitments, as several passages of his interviews showed:

“During Vatican II, Ratzinger was one of the Private Expert of the German episcopate. He was then one of the founders of Concilium, the international review, which collected together the progressivist wing of Catholic theology.

Was your commitment to Concilium a youthful indiscretion, Eminence?

– Absolutely not.

“We have come full circle when you insist on letting it be known urbi et orbi that the conciliar pact, as I call it and have denounced it for twenty years, the promise whereby the authors of the Council mutually support and defend one another, still holds.”

The following year, when Pope John Paul II announced the convening of an extraordinary synod to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the closing of the Council, Hans Küng renewed his campaigns and cries of hatred against all that still remained Catholic in the Church: “I launch my appeal hoping that it will be remembered that, twenty years ago, I contributed to fashioning this Council as a conciliar theologian: may the bishops at the Synod and in the dioceses act as they did at that Council! Before all else, may they act in the name of the young people who are so far removed from the Church, and in the name of women who, faced with an authoritarian and celibate hierarchy of men, are deserting religion in increasing numbers without uttering a word.

May they also side with those who have divorced or who have infringed the rules on celibacy, with theologians and with religious who, within the Church, have been intimidated (!) or unjustly (?) reprimanded (!). May they work in view of an ultimate rapprochement of the Christian Churches and for an unprejudiced (!) pursuit of the dialogue with Jews, Muslims and other religions.”

Hans Küng denounced Ratzinger, who “is said in Germany to have betrayed the spirit of reformation bequeathed to him by the German Cardinal Frings on choosing him for his Private Expert at the Council.”

The German Big Bertha, as our Father called him, favoured Cardinal Ratzinger’s strategy and ambitions. Indeed, under the terrible bombardment, he appeared as a moderate cardinal, wisely conciliar, saying: Yes, to the reformation of Vatican II, but No to the permanent reformation.

“If the Church has, therefore, begun and is re-beginning all over again her aggiornamento, it has to be the inalienable work of the liberal party, not of the dangerous Progressivists, the Jacobins of the conciliar Reformation who turn all into revolution and terror. It is a return to the starting point of 1789, without the Terror of 1793. For Ratzinger, this 1789 of the Church is the Second Vatican Council, its Birth Certificate, the principle and charter of its new, modern existence.

“The cardinal is secretly delighted with this vicious manoeuvre [of his former comrade in arms] which enables him to set his conscience in agreement with his career and his major impiety, this liberalism of 1789, reedited in 1965, which makes him hate to death the only decisive illustration and defence of the Roman Catholic Faith, our Catholic Counter-Reformation of the 20th century.”

Moreover, the attacks of Big Bertha put Ratzinger in a good position to obtain “the surrender of the integrists. This German-Swiss lout, in depicting Cardinal Ratzinger as a devout integrist, a fascist and a Nazi, is aiming at convincing the people on the other side that the Cardinal really is converted and is one of theirs. And that the Pope is obviously encouraging him on his Road to Damascus! How would one still dare to stand up to Rome when it is so wickedly and so odiously attacked by Hans Küng, the great Satan? No matter how enormous the fraud, it has worked in the past and made many victims, and I have no doubt that it will succeed again!”

In fact, many traditionalists gave in to the Tempter and, in the following years, fell into his trap, and for many Benedict XVI remains a model to this very day!

Father de Nantes vigorously denounced the manoeuvres of the “felonious cardinal,” which were aimed at reassuring and luring traditionalists: “Thus Cardinal Ratzinger, having made a name for himself as a conservative through a few recent utterances, rakes far and wide through the rightist, traditionalist circles with a view to leaving isolated and terribly alone and misunderstood those who refuse to lose the Faith like him, with Rome, in order to come into all the advantages and honours of a comfortable ecclesiastical career.”

It took all the insight of our Father to discern Ratzinger’s long-term strategy: he did not want to destroy the papal throne, but to conquer it.

“I now understand that he only occupies his high position at John Paul II’s side through the unctuous and over eager servility that he practiced from the age of 35 towards Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne and leader of the German Modernist plot destined to bring down the Roman Catholic Faith, first by dismantling the Holy Office and then through the conquest of the pontifical throne.”

He would succeed twenty years later, on April 19, 2005, without having denied his liberalism and Modernism in the slightest.


What Father de Nantes had written in the years around 1985 concerning the theologian Ratzinger to denounce his Modernist theories and his duplicity was perfectly confirmed after his accession to the sovereign pontificate.

In fact, all the critical analyses of Benedict XVI’s teachings and acts, which I published, have confirmed and aggravated the accusations of heresy made by our Father against Joseph Ratzinger.


In his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI writes: “ ‘Ascension’ [still in inverted commas] does not mean departure into a remote region of the cosmos but, rather, the continuing closeness that the disciples experience so strongly that it becomes a source of lasting joy.”

Yet, the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles undeniably presents the “Ascension” as a departure: they saw Him ascend into the sky until a cloud “bore Him up and took Him from their sight.”

Yes, but “this reference to the cloud is unambiguously theological language,” and not historical language. “It presents Jesus’ departure, not as a journey to the stars, but as His entry into the mystery of God. It evokes an entirely different order of magnitude, a different dimension of being.”

Modernist incredulity shines here with the full prestige of a pontifical declaration and reveals his incapacity to read the texts! – due to blindness.

Saint Luke writes: “When He had said this, a cloud bore Him up [this is the meaning of the Greek verb] from their sight.”

This “cloud” acted like a vehicle, placing itself under Jesus’ feet and bearing Him up as did the chariot that took away Elijah before the eyes of his disciple Elisha. When Elijah had disappeared into the clouds, Elisha began to work miracles with the mantle that Elijah had left him. The other disciples who had watched the scene from afar understood that Elisha had inherited the spirit of Elijah (The Second Book of Kings 2).

This figurative incident announced what would happen on Ascension day, to end Our Lord’s course on earth and mark the beginning of the Holy Spirit’s. Jesus was taken away as really and as mysteriously as Elijah had been.

How often our Father taught it to us! Take for example his homily on Ascension Day, May 25, 1995:

“The reality of the Ascension of Our Lord today is commonly denied. It is said to be a fable, as though the Evangelists were capable of lying in order to make a stupid people understand that Jesus is still alive, God ever present in our hearts, and heaven knows what other myth. If Jesus is alive in God, it is from all eternity, if He is alive in our hearts, it is nothing but talk, an illusion. One might as well eat and drink as Saint Paul says, since tomorrow, we will have to die without either resurrection or ascension.

“Yet the Acts of the Apostles, written by Saint Luke, this distinguished Greek, after having questioned the Apostles and all the surviving witnesses, relate to us how Jesus Christ rose from the ground, from earth, from the Mount of Olives, which had been chosen for the place of His departure for Heaven, until a cloud hid Him from their view. Angels came to complete the lesson by telling them: ‘In the same way as you have seen Him ascending into Heaven you will see Him return at the end of time to establish His Kingdom.’ It is clear, it is limpid, and it is the object of our faith, the sort of faith that is imprescriptible.”


In his encyclical Spe salvi, Saved In Hope, of November 30, 2007, Benedict XVI wonders:

What is eternal life? [...] To live always, without end – this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable.”

He continues: “In some way we want life itself, true life, untouched even by death; yet at the same time we do not know the thing towards which we feel driven [...]. This unknown thing is the true hope that drives us, and at the same time the fact that it is unknown is the cause of all forms of despair and also of all impulses, whether positive or destructive, directed towards the authentic world and authentic man.”

We would expect the Holy Father to reply to this aspiration of man by explaining to him what this “unknown thing,’ ” the object of Christian hope is. For example by quoting Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus:

What attracts me towards our Heavenly Homeland is the call of the Lord, the hope of loving Him at last as I have so much desired to do, and the thought that I shall be able to make Him loved by a multitude of souls, who will bless Him throughout all eternity.”

No, Pope Benedict XVI affirms that “we do not know the thing towards which we feel driven”! For him, Heaven is a “ ‘thing unknown.

Benedict XVI recognises, however, that “in the course of their history, Christians have tried to express this knowing without knowing by means of figures that can be represented, and they have developed images of Heaven that remain far removed from what, after all, can only be known negatively, through unknowing.”

The word ‘Heaven’ does not designate a ‘place’ in the eyes of the Pope, but only animage’ to express what is indescribable, unknown.

Moreover, in my critique of Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, I explained:

Where the will of God is done, there is Heaven,” he writes. Thus, the earth itself becomes ‘Heaven’ “if and inasmuch as the will of God is done there, whereas it is only earth,the pole opposite to Heaven, if and inasmuch as it fails to fulfil the will of God. This is why we ask that on earth it be as in Heaven, that the earth become Heaven’.”  

This is how ‘Heaven,’ the only goal of all our works, disappears like a mirage!”


Continuing my study of Jesus of Nazareth, I analysed his chapter on the institution of the Eucharist. The formulation of the Pope is clearly Lutheran:

The so-called institution narrative, namely, the words and actions by which Jesus gave Himself to the disciples in the form of bread and wine, lies at the heart of the Last Supper tradition.”


The Pope seeks in a source that is not the pure Catholic doctrine an explanation to satisfy his (Protestant) friends with whom he is in ‘dialogue’. After having recalled that everything begins with the benediction uttered by Jesus when taking the bread before breaking it, as He did at the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:11), he writes:

From her earliest days, the Church has understood the words of consecration not simply as a kind of quasi-magical command [behind this word: “quasi-magical” that serves as a foil, it is the miracle that is in jeopardy. There is no miracle since Jesus is ‘in the bread’. The bread is still bread. There is neither magic nor miracle. What remains of the ‘consecration’, of transubstantiation? We shall see…], but as part of her praying in and with Jesus [not ‘through Jesus’ but ‘with Jesus’. Thus, the priest is not acting ‘in persona Christi’]; as a central part of the praise and thanksgiving through which God’s earthly gift [the bread and wine that are ‘offered’ to man by God the Creator] is offered to us anew in the form of Jesus’ body and blood [What a reversal of roles! In the cult that God renders to man, He offers him the bread and wine], as God’s gift of Himself in His Son’s self-emptying love.”

It is still bread and wine, yet it has another ‘significance.’ Here, we find the modern and Modernist theory of transignification or transfinalisation, according to which the bread, which was for eating as man’s natural food, no longer speaks this natural language and becomes clothed concretely in another finality or another meaning. All that the liturgy does is to modify the bread’s being-to-the-world so that it becomes the being-for-us by putting it aside for our fraternal communion in Christ.  

Again, in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI deals with Christ’s resurrection as a perfect Modernist: “The Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus.” It is “an evolutionary leap.”

If Christ’s Body and Blood made an “evolutionary leap into a new dimension,” the dogma of transubstantiation according to which, at the consecration during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the entire substance of the bread is changed into the entire substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His Precious Blood, ceases to exist. This dogma no longer has any consistence or raison d’être.

The demonstration could be extended almost indefinitely, as we have already done. Let us simply recall to conclude that which concerns papal infallibility.


Our appeal to papal infallibility to surmount the current apostasy that is devastating the Church and the world, came up against the ill will of the successive Pontiffs. Neither Paul VI, nor John Paul II, nor Benedict XVI wanted to resort to this personal power. Paul VI knew well that the novelty of his teaching, at odds with the Tradition of the Church, prevented it from being proclaimed infallibly, God would not have allowed him to do so.

As for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, their Modernism made it unbearable for them to proclaim an objectively revealed truth of faith.

Moreover, Benedict XVI did not believe in papal infallibility. I detected this when I read his collection of interviews with a German journalist, Peter Seewald, in 2010, entitled Light of the World.

Is the Pope really infallible?” the journalist asks. The answer of “Benedict XVI, light of the world” “enlightens” us, indeed! It exposes the reason why it was in vain that our Founder, Father de Nantes, appealed to the infallibility of Pope John Paul II, whose right-hand man was Joseph Ratzinger: “The Pope can naturally have erroneous private opinions. Nevertheless, when he speaks as supreme pastor of the Church, being aware of his responsibility [which he had just defined as “making people believe in the faith that unites men”], in that case, he says nothing that is his own, nothing that would have just crossed his mind.”

Thus, when Paul VI proclaimed religious freedom at the Second Vatican Council, after having proclaimed it on the rostrum of the United Nations, and when Benedict XVI proclaims it in turn, “he is speaking as supreme pastor of the Church, being aware of his responsibility,” and is upholding a doctrine about which it can be said that it “unites all men,” with the exception of Father de Nantes and of his disciples!

The Pope knows that in taking such a decision he does not mislead the Church, but he guarantees her unity with the past, the present and the future, and above all with the Lord.” This is in fact the conviction that motivates Benedict XVI each time he invokes the Second Vatican Council.

Moreover, when he adds: “This is what it is and this is how the other Christian communities feel about it,” we understand that it is not a question of the infallibility that Pius IX defined at the First Vatican Council, but the gnostic unanimism of Vatican II. It is no longer a question of a power proper to the successor of Peter intended to maintain the deposit of the Faith against errors and to defend the flock against ravenous wolves; rather it is the supreme expression of the religious sentiment of today’s Catholics in keeping with modern thought!

Yet, Benedict XVI, himself, has just recalled – on the same page! – the power proper to the successor of Peter. “It is only when certain conditions concur, when the tradition has become clear [on the contrary! When the tradition is clear, there is no need for this extraordinary solemn intervention] and when he is aware that he is not acting arbitrarily [in accordance with whom or what?] that the Pope can say: this is the faith of the Church. In this sense, the First Vatican Council defined the capacity to make a final decision, in order that the Faith may conserve its coercive character.”

The Second Vatican Council however, never exercised infallibility “in that sense.” The battle waged by our Father highlights the contradiction: the “final decision” that Paul VI took on December 7, 1965 to proclaim religious freedom consisted in removing from the Catholic Faith its “coercive character.” Yet, since then, the hierarchy of the Church has claimed to impose this religious freedom in the name of the coercive character of the Faith! In order for the hierarchy to do so, the meaning of infallibility as it had been defined by Vatican I had to be changed, while conserving the word. Otherwise it would be impossible, under the conditions laid down by the law of the Church, for Paul VI’s “final decision” on religious freedom not to be subject to the condemnation that Father de Nantes had demanded “in order that the Faith might conserve its coercive character.”

All the Popes from Paul VI to Francis have remained deaf to these appeals, as a “matter of [Modernist] principle!”

Accordingly, all sorts of heresies abound in the Church: “On the thrice ill-fated day of October 11, 1962, the Pastors of the Church decided to condemn no longer schismatics, heretics and atheists or their accomplices. Did John XXIII realise what he was being made to say? This claim of Modernism denies the Church the right to pronounce anathemas. Having become a “pastoral” decision of “the Church in a state of Council,” this claim is a declaration of spiritual polygamy, let us call it what it really is: adultery.”

“Thus, the faithful, priests, bishops and even the Pope are only members of the Holy Church, insofar as they adhere to the apostolic Faith and reject all that contradicts it, insofar as they are faithful to the Unique Bridegroom of their souls and hostile to impious seducers and idols of Satan. They owe their Master and Lord this twofold witness to their fidelity, to profess everything that the Holy Church their Mother holds to be revealed and to condemn with anathema all that she has reproved. “He who is not with Me is against Me, Jesus declared, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” No one can refuse to condemn error, on whatever grounds, without outraging God and lowering His Word to the level of the diverse and uncertain opinions of men. A “liberal” faith is neither sincere nor upright, its hope diverges from divine will, and its charity is nothing more than crime and adultery.

“For want of effective condemnations dealing with present-day errors and of anathemas against the heresiarchs within and without, there is dereliction on the part of Authority, however touching its intentions and efforts may be, it is a sort ofabeyanceof the Apostolic See and of so many episcopal Sees! Are members of the Church only those who both profess all the Catholic dogmas, and renounce and cast anathema on all heresy, all schism, idolatry and atheism.”

This “abeyance” of the Magisterium has lasted for sixty years, with Pope Francis now legitimately reigning.

Let us pray more than ever for the Holy Father, as Father de Nantes urged us to do, although Paul VI’s daily acts distressed him and often even scandalised him:

“Although the general line of his papacy appears disastrous to me, I shall nevertheless continue to profess the entirety of Catholic doctrine regarding the Sovereign Pontiff and to pray for the person of Him who is invested with this awesome office. It is a difficult position, but one that is perfectly loyal and legitimate.”

Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary.


In October 1979, Father de Nantes published a review of the discussion of with the Hans Küng with the journalist Robert Serrou that had been published a few weeks previously in the magazine Match. Here is the part concerning infallibility. (Father de Nantes’ commentary is in light roman typeface)

Serrou: A propos of dogma, you published a book some years ago on Papal Infallibility. Does the question remain?

Küng: Unfortunately it does, I have to say. The question I posed in my book received no satisfactory answer from the ecclesiastical authorities.

That is what comes from sparing the wicked; they defy you and insult you and thus cause dissension among the faithful.

I simply asked, as every Christian is entitled, especially a theologian, how this dogma of papal infallibility is founded not only on Scripture itself but also on the great Catholic tradition of the first thousand years. I received no answer.

A dogma is a definition of the teaching Church which does not have to be explained before Hans Küng’s parallel magisterium. It is for the faithful to believe in and for those of the faithful who are theologians to search the reasons for the infallible definition, but not to discuss them. The theologian cannot turn his ignorance or his refusal to believe into an argument against the Catholic Faith!

They repeat infallible definitions to prove that they are infallible, but that is not an answer.

Hans Küng is lying here in ridiculing the Pastors of the Church. There never has been any such circular reasoning: I am infallible and the proof is that I declare it infallibly! Taking note that the solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils had at all times and everywhere been held as infallible, the Vatican Ecumenical Council in 1870 infallibly proclaimed that the Pope was personally endowed by Christ with the same infallibility, the limits and conditions of which were precisely defined, invoking, furthermore, all the necessary and superabundant proofs from Scripture, Tradition and reason.

I recently proposed, therefore, that an ecumenical commission with all the best experts on the question should be named. I or my friends cannot impose our own convictions on the Church

Here, paranoia surfaces again.

… But nor can the authorities suppress doubts and questions either. It may be possible to reject my answer but it is not possible to deny the problem.

Which amounts to saying that Hans Küng is not Catholic. For that is precisely what the Catholic Faith has always held: that the authorities have the charisma of the assistance of the Holy Spirit in order to resolve problems, settle conflicts and proclaim the truth without any further possible contestation.

Serrou (Always ready to help): What is your answer?

Küng: My answer is that a believer, a Christian, can believe in “an infallibility” or rather in an indefectibility of the Church in a more radical sense: which is to say that the Church will always be sustained by the truth of the Gospel not because the Church, some authorities or some theologians, never err but even though they do err from time to time. This more radical infallibility means, therefore, that we can have confidence in the permanence of the Church, in the truth of the Gospel, despite all errors of detail… One could compare the faith to love: a man can experience a very profound and serious love even though he be mistaken over some aspects.

Very clever! By turning the infallibility of some into a more radical infallibility: indefectibility, which he grants to all, Hans Küng shifts the infallibility from the Pope to himself, and from the hierarchy as a whole to the serious theologians, his friends. The proof is as follows.

Which means that even if an encyclical like Humanae Vitae” (on birth control) was an error, and I am convinced that it was an error along with many Catholics, men and women, theologians and even bishops – even if this encyclical was an error, the truth that the Church has to proclaim is not thereby lost. It may be compromised for a while, especially if one does not correct oneself.

‘ONE’ here is the Pope. Hans Küng being incorrigible!

But it [the truth] is not lost.

Whence the delightful joke, going round Germany, of Küng refusing to be elected Pope so as not to lose his infallibility!

Serrou: The encyclical “Humanae Vitae” was not an infallible document…

Küng: But for the Roman authorities, I fear, the doctrine underlying this encyclical is in fact an infallible doctrine because it has long been defended by the episcopate and by the popes and for that very reason cannot be corrected. That precisely is the difficulty.

Whence the ineluctable necessity for Hans Küng to deny the infallibility of the popes and of the world episcopate, the better to ensure his own! Whence also, alas, the unwarrantable patience and scandalous protection of Küng by Rome, the result of which was to convince the crowd that Paul VI was not all that sure of being right over the affair of the pill and that the Church was not very sure either of her infallibility, with Küng saying yes to the pill and to a hundred other things, fully aware of his own infallibility-indefectibility and of his total immunity.

Father Georges de Nantes.


Here are two other passages from Hans Küng’s interview with the journalist Robert Serrou, published in the magazine Match, accompanied by Father de Nantes’ critical comments in light roman typeface.

Serrou: And the miracles of Jesus?

Küng: His cures were very important, very surprising, amazing, miraculous for those times.

Hans Küng reduces the miracles of the Gospel to the one category of cures. He deals with the others by passing over them with paraleipses. What a theologian! What a scholar! What a hermeneut! As for the cures, they were amazing, for those times, but they would not astonish our scientific century and they do not astonish Hans Küng.

It does not mean that he worked miracles contrary to natural laws,

Another defensive stratagem, purely presumptive. Speaking of the pill, Hans Küng denies that there are any natural laws; here, however, he sets them up as an insurmountable obstacle to the alleged miracles of the Gospel. Modernism is not scientific, as Pius X explained, but rationalist.

but it means that he accompanied his message with prophetic deeds that truly astounded people.

People were easily astounded in those times!

which showed that for him it was not only a question of saving the soul but also of saving the body, the whole man.

Liar! It is the opposite as everyone knows. Jesus did indeed wish to cure many sick people and to work many miracles out of charity, but in order to prove His divinity and His mission of salvation, which is the salvation of souls for Eternal Life, not of the body for temporal life.

I think that all the Gospels would have to be mutilated if one did not accept this tradition of cures, which is the historical kernel of the miracle accounts.

All this sanctimonious language reeks of lying and hypocrisy: this tradition? of cures and not of the calming of the storm, of the multiplication of the loaves, of the water changed into wine? And this historical kernel which implies quite a lot of surrounding dross!

One should not be surprised if in the course of an oral transmission stretching from forty to seventy years what actually happened was amplified, embellished and exaggerated, as is normal when accounts are spread, and not only in the East.

That is the threadbare argument of the Modernists who, liars themselves, find it quite normal that the Apostles and Evangelists should have lied, amplifying, embellishing, exaggerating the cures of a Jesus, a happy wonder-worker, embellished as the miracles of a God come down on earth to save all men. All that, quite candidly received by two or three generations of amazed gaping simpletons, is the starting point of the Church and the foundation for her dogmas. There he is, Hans Küng the theologian, on whose head Paul VI placed his hand!

Serrou: How do you explain this development of a religion which, after all, was not better or not much better than others, at least apparently so?

Blasphemy rivals stupidity here.

Küng: In the final analysis, it is because of the fundamental message of Christianity: the Crucified One, Jesus of Nazareth, is truly the Christ, the revelation of God and the Saviour of man.

Same bizarre expression as: Redemptor Hominis, Saviour of man! [These are the first words of John Paul II’s first encyclical, of March 15, 1979.]

Christianity accepted no compromise with other gods.

Such a thing was possible, then? Good Heavens!

If Christianity had agreed to place the figure of Jesus in the pantheon of the Greeks and Romans,

Notice this curious expression “the figure of Jesus”. Küng believes in the figure of Jesus. I wonder what that hides. And do you see Christ in the pantheon?

Christianity too would have ceased to live; all its force would have disappeared.

What saved it was having made a group apart. A brilliant device, which still yields it an existence today. My foot feels an irresistible urge to give him a kick in the pants.

Serrou: How do you explain its attraction still in our day?

Now that the device is worn out, how can this empty form, this “figure of Jesus” still have an attraction today?

Küng : It is in fact very surprising.

Oh, abyss of blasphemy and impiety. It seems “very surprising” to the great theologian of Tübingen University, whose books render “an enormous service” that the figure of Jesus should “still have today” any attraction for men.

Has he not read in Saint John the prophetic explanation of this attraction by Christ Himself: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth [that is to say crucified] will draw all things to myself”?

We, however, have not yet touched the abominable; prepare your hearts for the worst:

It is indeed very surprising, after all the great characters of humanity, after the great geniuses, the great politicians and dictators, the great heroes, that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth should still have more radiance than nearly all those figures.

I have emphasised the impious word in capitals. For that blasphemy alone he deserves to be excommunicated ipso facto. For note that Küng could, at a stretch, be making the observation, with pain and regret and by incriminating human stupidity, that some so-called great men may have had or may still have more radiance in the world than Jesus. But no, the wretch! He is surprised that Jesus of Nazareth should still come today among the top ten of great men, despite the competition of so many other men who truly deserved it!?! I would like to know which great characters in Hans Küng’s opinion have today or in the past deserved to have a greater radiance than Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The reason?

The reason for this great and amazing radiance of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.


A marked incertitude. Hans Küng does not see very well.

… because it is a figure which, on the one hand, is more human than that of many other heroes;

We are dealing with comparatives, not with the absolute superlative: one human hero among others.

he truly suffered and he has remained the symbol of the suffering creature we are ourselves;

His suffering? It is just the symbol of ours.

On the other hand, this figure is at the same time more divine than the other figures of history:

Still in the comparative. Among men more or less divine (? !) Jesus would seem to have been more so than others

he is the pure image, face, word, will of God.

A sudden and unexpected avalanche of biblical words, very strongly expressive of the Mystery of the Son of God made man. Is Hans Küng reaching a firm profession of faith after so many contrary remarks?

It is, therefore, by virtue of this figure’s double aspect:

Would this be a modern way of expressing the dogma of Ephesus (413) and of Chalcedon (451) two natures in the one Person of the Son of God made man, this double aspect of the figure of Jesus?

true man,


… in whom …

Not “in whom” but quite simply: Who.

… God Himself spoke and acted,

Fatal ambiguity!

… and definitively revealed himself in his friendship for men.

It is weak and we remain in incertitude. Serrou could have and should have put the decisive question: The Son of God, then? I was expecting this question…

Serrou: By that you mean that Christ…

I was thinking we were there...

… remains an eminently modern man?

Flop! The accomplice, by once again changing the subject, avoids his friend’s admission and the outburst of scandal. Yet Küng the Modernist cannot stop himself from ending by crushing this Christ in Whom he no longer believes and for Whom I guess he has a secret, cold, implacable hatred.

Küng: Yes, his figure has remained much more meaningful than, for example, the figure of Julius Caesar or that of Plato or that of Napoleon.

Such comparisons are worse than insults. For a theologian, a priest! I hear a note of sarcasm there, a grating of diabolical paranoia.

Father Georges de Nantes.
(Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 122, May 1980, pp. 17-18)

Contre-Réforme Catholique No. 37, October 1970, p. 6

Osservatore Romano, April 7, 2021.

Hans Küng, Memoirs, ed. Cerf, 2006, p. 550.

Peritus, plural, periti (Latin for “sage,” “erudite person”) is the title given to Roman Catholic theologians or canonists appointed by the Pope to draft the conciliar schemata and amend them according to the wishes of the Council Fathers, in the commissions. At the end of the first session of Vatican II, there were 306 of them. They are unfortunately sometimes referred to simply as “experts,” which leads to confusing them with Private Experts, who are chosen by individual bishops to be their personal theological advisor.

Hans Küng, The Council, the Church’s Trial, p. 68.

Küng’s disparaging remark stems from the fact that the Germans consider southern Catholicism [in countries such as Portugal, France, Italy, Spain], to be obscurantist, which would have the consequence of ignorance among the people, and widespread dechristianisation and disbelief among the educated.

Letter to My Friends No. 212, September 15, 1965

Looking back on the first session, Bonn, March 19, 1963

Hans Küng, Memoirs, p. 304.

Father Congar is making reference to Father Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890), a Bavarian theologian and scholar of Church history. An unrelenting opponent of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, he tried to influence the Fathers of the First Vatican Council to reject it, by his writings, at first anonymous. Having been unsuccessful, the dogma was proclaimed. Döllinger refused to submit and was excommunicated (1871). Although Döllinger considered himself an unjustly excommunicated Catholic, he accepted all the external or canonical consequences. He therefore resigned from his Chair of Theology, stopped saying Mass and practicing the sacraments in the Catholic Church. He refused, however, to put himself under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the Old Catholics (the sect organised in German-speaking countries to combat the dogma of Papal Infallibility). Many attempts were made, by ecclesiastics and laymen, to induce Döllinger to be reconciled with the Church. Yet, he died an apostate at 91 years of age, still outside the communion of Church.

Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, vol. I, ed. Cerf, 2002, p. 101

Quoted in For the Church, Vol. II, ed. CRC, p. 20.

Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, vol. II, ed. Cerf, 2002, p. 355

Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, vol. II, p. 137

Letter to My Friends No. 206, of Pentecost, 1965

Letter to My Friends, no. 158, November 23, 1963

cf. Norbert Trippen, Joseph Kardinal Frings, 1887-1978, Vol. 2, ed. F. Schöningh, 2005, p. 383

Joseph Ratzinger, The Celebration Of The Faith, in the chapter “What Corpus Christi means to me… Three meditations.”

Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz – The sacramental foundation of Christian existence –, the transcript of an excerpt from a four-hour lecture given by Father Ratzinger in Salzburg, Austria, in 1965, He is risen, no. 109, 2011.

cf. God exists, Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 44, May 1971, pp. 1-11

Rome Loses the Faith”, Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 3

Name that designates various religious feasts of a burlesque character, in the Middle Ages, in some localities particularly in Sens (Burgundy). The ones that took place on the feast of the Holy Innocents, on December 28 and on January 1, are well-known. Decrees of bishops and councils wanted to repress the abuses of this feast, which was suppressed by a decree of Charles VII, in 1445, but which did not disappear completely until the 16th century.

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 42, March 1971, p. 1

Contre-Réforme Catholique no 24, September 1969, p. 4; English edition no. 78, September 1976, p. 7.

Hans Küng, L’Église, Desclée de Brouwer, 1967, 703 pages, p. 16

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 48, September 1971, p. 5

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 13, October 1968, p. 1

Quoted in Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 122, p. 14

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 38, November 1970, p. 7

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 40, June 1973, p. 1

Letter 213

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 78, September 1976, p. 9

In cauda venenum, (the venom is in the tail). In French, this Latin expression is often used. The Romans, remarking that the venom of a scorpion is found in its tail, derived from this circumstance the proverb: in cauda venenum. They apply it to the last part of a letter, a speech, etc., the beginning of which is inoffensive, but its “tail” end vents malicious venom.

Henri Fesquet (1916-2011) was the religious columnist for the daily newspaper Le Monde for more than 30 years, was a privileged observer of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). It was above all his daily coverage of this major event that made his reputation. After five years of captivity in Silesia as a prisoner of war during World War II, Henri Fesquet was hired by Hubert Beuve-Méry shortly after he had founded the newspaper Le Monde. In 1950, Beuve-Méry entrusted him with the responsibility of the religious column, which he kept until his retirement in 1983. He chronicled developments in the Church from the end of the pontificate of Pius XII to the early years of that of John Paul II, notably the question of worker priests and above all the Council. His friendship with Fathers Congar and Chenu allowed him to report on the preparation of this event, and then he daily followed the proceedings of the Council’s four sessions in the columns of Le Monde. His Journal of the Council (Journal du Concile), republished on the occasion of the 50th anniversary, is an irreplaceable document. Progressivist and close to the Taizé community, Fesquet sometimes took positions that oppose Catholic doctrine, in particular, he was in favour of the ordination of women and the marriage of priests.

Fellagha, an Arabic word (fallāq, plural fallāqah) literally meaning “bandit, robber,” refers to Communist inspired Muslim terrorists affiliated with anti-colonial movements in French North Africa.

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 74, November 1973, p. 11

Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 75, December 1973, p. 11

Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 115 October 1979, pp. 2-3

Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 115 October 1979, pp. 12

Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 121, April 1980, p. 8-9

Documentation catholique, 1980, p. 20

Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 176, January 1985, p. 27

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 193, October 1983, p. 7

Big Bertha, in German Dicke Bertha, a type of 420-mm howitzer that was first used by the German army to bombard Belgian and French forts during World War I. A total of twelve Big Berthas were put into service. The gun could fire projectiles weighing up to 811 kg to a distance of about nine kilometres. The most widely used type of shell in Big Berthas included a delayed-action fuse that exploded after penetrating up to 10 metres of concrete and earth.

Private expert: is a theologian who is chosen by individual bishops to be his personal theological advisor during an ecumenical council. He are responsible for preparing speeches or amendments that the bishop wishes to propose to the Council Fathers. Although the Private Expert does not attend the general congregations or the meetings of the commissions, he is nevertheless bound by conciliar secrecy. Unfortunately the Private Experts are sometimes referred to simply as “experts,” which leads to confusing them with the Periti who, although they are also theologians are not in the service of individual bishops. They are appointed by the Pope to draft the conciliar schemata and eventually amend them.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 176, February 1985, p. 27

In this paragraph and the next, Father de Nantes compares the conciliar Reformation of Vatican II to the French Revolution. This Revolution, the blueprint for all those to come, took place in two phases, the first phase was carried out by liberals, the second, by veritable revolutionary terrorists who, in reality, were only pursuing the initial aims of the liberals to their logical end.

The Progressivists, like Küng, are the Jacobins of the conciliar revolution. Originally, the name Jacobin was given to Dominican Fathers, since their first monastery in France was located on Saint James (Jacobus in Latin) Street, Paris. In 1789, their name was usurped and given to a political club of extremist revolutionaries that had been founded in the former monastery of the Dominicans. They advocated a strong centralised regime of egalitarian democracy and did not hesitate to engage in terrorist activities to reach their ends.

The second phase of the French Revolution was the Reign of Terror, (1793-94). It was a period of numerous political arrests, summary trials and mass executions of political suspects under the regime of the Montagnards led by Robespierre. The “Great Terror” started on June 10, 1794, and ended on July 27 with the fall of Robespierre. Liberals deplore this period of excessive violence of 1793 while approving the Revolution of 1789. Likewise, the outrageous demands of Progressivists like Küng, which Ratzinger feigned to deplore, allowed him to keep the Church on the conciliar track.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 176, February 1985, and no. 184, October 1985

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 20

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 179, May 1985, p. 12

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 2, 2011 p. 281

The Acts of the Apostles 1:7-9

He Is Risen no. 112, December 2011, pp. 3-5

Benedict XVI, Spe salvi, no. 10

Benedict XVI, Spe salvi, no. 12


Letter of Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus to Father Rolland, July 14, 1897

He is Risen no. 64, January 2008

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth vol. 1 p. 171

He is risen no. 58, July 2007

Translator’s note: Brother Bruno is commenting on the French translation of the Pope’s book. In it we read: ‘Jésus s’est donné lui-même, dans le pain et dans le vin – that is: ‘Jesus gave Himself to the disciples in the bread and in the wine’ which, as Brother Bruno says, is clearly Lutheran. Did the Pope express himself in this heretical sense or was it the French translator who put these words on Benedict XVI’s lips? We consulted the Pope’s original German version where we read: ‘Der sogenannte Einsetzungsbericht, das heißt die Worte und die Gesten, mit denen Jesus in Brot und Wein sich selbst den Jüngern gab, bildet den Kern der Abendmahls-Überlieferung.’” (p. 135) We see that the French translator correctly rendered the words that the Pope had chosen. The English translator, on the other hand, seemed to want to correct in a Catholic sense what the Pope wrote.

Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth vol. 2 p. 115

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 2, pp. 128-129

He is risen, no. 104b, 2011

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 2, p. 274

Benedict XVI, An Unrepentant Modernist, He Is Risen no 126, March 2013

Benedict XVI, Light Of The World, 2010, p. 25

Letter To My Friends, no. 248 of June 29, 1967, p. 2

Letter To My Friends, no. 248, p. 2

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 21, June 1969, p. 1