IV. On the Way to a New Book of Accusation

FROM the first day of the Second Vatican Council, our Father has made a point of criticising the texts of the Council and demanding that they be revised, corrected and, for most of them, he even dares saying… retracted in their entirety by the same Fathers who promulgated them, or by their successors, and to declare loudly how tremendously humanly aberrant and dogmatically heretical they are.



This is not only an example chosen from among one hundred others: it is the focal point on which is based the appeal to the solemn and infallible Magisterium of the Pope, in the three Books of Accusation of 1973, 1983 and 1993.

The Council declares: « The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in religious matters no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, nor prevented from acting, within due limits, according to his conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others. (Dignitatis humanæ, 1, 2)

This text is so contrary to the Church’s doctrine that seventy opponents voted “ non placet” to the very end. (...) That « no one be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience », is one thing. (...) This totally interior freedom, however, does not create any objective and social right to act according to one’s conscience, in private or in public, at the expense of the Church and Catholic states. (...)

This is why, secure in the strength of his Catholic faith, Fr. de Nantes committed his life, and consequently his eternity, in a flawless opposition to this new dogma. The Popes of the nineteenth century described it as « delirium ».

Therein lies the cause of the ruin of the Church, which was shown in advance, on July 1, 1917, to three innocent children as a « large city half in ruins », which everyone can see for himself today. One only has to open his eyes.

Yet no one sees it because of a general blindness from which only one man has escaped through a grace, an extraordinary vocation. How is it possible that all those of his generation participated in this wind of folly? Even Albino Luciani, the future John Paul I!


From June 1972 to October 1973 the Mystical Pages were devoted to commenting on the baptismal rites. There is unveiled the entire mystery of this “setting apart”, as it were right from his mother’s womb, of Georges Marie Camille de Nantes, who was baptised on April 5, 1924: « I was barely two days old. » Faith, « which since then has never abandoned me », is transfused into the soul of the reader: « Jesus is as true as I am, I am as true as Jesus! Joy. » All the errors of our times were going to come into conflict with this faith, as pure as crystal and as hard as adamant.

Mémoires et RécitsStarting in 1979, the Mémoires et Récits replaced the Mystical Pages. They are themselves mystical pages because of the « clearness of the stylewhich penetrates the humblest of things with spirituality » (...)

Well, in the second volume of Mémoires et Récits, our Father relates in detail an altercation concerning grace that he had with Fr. Callon, his professor of theology.

« Grace, we wrote at his dictation, without astonishment nor murmur, is God within us. »

Objection: « If grace is God who gives Himself to man, just like that, mysteriously, marvellously, if it is the Holy Spirit, Love, who alights in us and sanctifies us by His mere Presence,… then this grace has no name, it is indiscernible, indefinable, without nature, limits, or conditions. It supposes nothing in man; it finds no obstacle that impedes it; it requires no particular disposition or effort. Thus, the question of “the salvation of infidels” is settled in the twinkling of an eye. The Holy Spirit would fly over all our borders without making any distinction of race, class, religion or sex, giving himself to everyone gratuitously. What about original sin? What about baptism? What about the state of grace, venial or mortal sin and confession? There remained but one criterion: the intimate experience of the fire of Love, of the peace and the joy that the Spirit distributes to whomever he wishes, with a generosity that it is not for any man to monitor or submit to his own strictures. The Divine Presence, an exhilaration of the heart – this is what could summarise Monsieur Callon’s theology of grace, supposedly taken from the Greek Fathers. » (...)

Even though he was still a very young seminarian, George de Nantes set up a preliminary inquiry against Fr. Callon concerning the theological problem that would dominate the Council twenty years later, and the post-Conciliar period, and which can now be found codified in a heretical manner in the New Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 1992). (...)

It is true that he was alone. We were told this often enough in an attempt to convince us that he was therefore certainly mistaken! Yet, he is not crazy, nor are we who have received the grace of understanding him and following him. St. Paul’s teaching is clear: outside of the supernatural order of grace, of baptism, of God’s predestination to which we must remain faithful through our faith, there is nothing but perdition.

Even before the Council, our Father stood up to defend this truth, the basis of our Christian life. In 1950, he denounced to Rome his most notorious contradictor, Fr. Congar. (...) He died in 1995, showered with honours, after having been made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II. He clung stubbornly to this religion of man that he had invented. (...) In August 1964, the encyclical Ecclesiam suam revealed to the world that Pope Paul VI had been won over to Congarian reformism and, from that moment on, the reformist party irresistibly prevailed at the Council. It has never ceased since then, to dominate; it leaves no right to speak, even less to govern, to the « small remnant » (Is 4.3) whom they persecute, as in the last times of the Old Testament, when the Pharisees and Sadducees oppressed « Yahweh’s poor ».

Yet, Heaven gave a sign to this « little flock » so that in conformity with Our Lord’s recommendation it « fear not » and “ stand fast ”.


John Paul I« It is astonishing and wonderful, wrote Fr. de Nantes shortly after the election of Cardinal Luciani, God, Christ, the Church have come back to the foreground thanks to the new pontificate. This miracle has been wrought by the unshakeable faith and extreme charity of Albino Luciani, by the smiling and calm joy of his hope. The Church has preferred a Pope who is intransigent in faith but liberal towards people to one who is liberal in ideas with people from outside but hard and curt towards the people of his own household. The Figaro writes: “ He does not accept that it is possible to compromise with the faith or the moral exigencies of the Gospel.

« His predecessors would then? As for the Osservatore Romano it describes the Conclave’s choice in these words: “ His absolute fidelity to the Pope and his rigorous Catholicism.” Today there remains the fidelity of the Pope to himself and to his rigorous Catholicism in a humble and gentle heart. » (CCR n° 102, September 1978) (...)

« Between John Paul I and us, our Father wrote in his editorial of October 1978, between the heritage of John and Paul, which he declared he had assumed, and our League of the Counter-Reformation there remained one irreducible contradiction on precise and important points of faith... » such as Religious Freedom and the Cult of Man. (...) For refusing these things we had been told in France and in Rome for the last fifteen years that we had committed ourselves to a path with no outcome.

« Now, by a simple word of honesty and humility John Paul I has opened the way to an outcome. His words alone are the undoing of heresy and the clearing of the conciliar impasse and by themselves they justify the all too brief reign of this Pontiff on the throne of Saint Peter in the unanimity of the Church recognising herself in him. Admitting his interior struggle at the time of the Council and the difficulty he had in rallying the theses of the innovators, in particular to the theory of religious liberty, he had the honesty to say:

« “The most difficult thesis for me to accept was that on religious freedom. For years I had taught the thesis that I had learned in the course on public law given by Cardinal Ottaviani according to which error has no rights. I studied the problem in depth and in the end persuaded myself that we had been wrong.” (ibid.)

« The phrase is an admission of disarray – the disarray that we still feel. » commented Fr. de Nantes.

« In one go, the Pope’s honesty restored everyone’s right to be heard, even after Vatican II and without fear of a fraudulent excommunication. (...) To admit that it is possible to make an error, whether it be in one direction of the other, is to restore peace to the Church by relegating these difficult questions to the realm of free opinions whilst awaiting a dogmatic Vatican III or the Pope’s infallible definitions. » (CCR n° 103, October 1978, p. 5)

John Paul IIn the meantime, « by means of his beautiful and simple words John Paul I had already warmed, lit up and liberated the hearts and minds of the faithful. In his mild manner, he gave, as did Jesus in Galilee, a very sure evangelical teaching, a treasury of doctrine. His enemies, who did not appreciate him, were already making fun of his old-fashioned style and his countrified naivety. » (CCR n° 103, October 1978, p. 3). (...)

John Paul I’s main preoccupation was to restore unitywithin the Church. (...) Fr. de Nantes corresponded all the better to this concern, since he had founded the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation with that sole aim. (...) The time had come: with the accession of John Paul I, things looked hopeful: « We are ready for union, and for reconciliation at the cost of great sacrifice, saving faith, hope and charity. » (CRC n° 102, p. 6)

God, however, had decided otherwise: « The Father given us by the Church amid universal joy on the evening of August 26 was suddenly called back to God Himself thirty-three days later on September 28, for our sadness and consternation. “ The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.” (Jb 1.21) Yet on learning of this news on the morning of September 29, we all felt that we had been orphaned, the like of which had not occurred for twenty years. » (CCR n°103)

The mortal struggle then resumed. (...) Parallel to the exclusion of Fatima, a succession of evasions and abuses of power were going to exclude as well the Catholic Counter-Reformation.


Fr. de Nantes attempted to follow up on an approach undertaken through the good offices of Cardinal Marty and Archbishop Etchegaray by writing to Cardinal Seper on March 8, 1979:

« In order to return to both internal and external obedience to the Pope and to our bishops, I would like to see their dogmatic and disciplinary demands specified and calmly distinguished from particular opinions and options which are not binding in the same way, according to the adage: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in everything charity. (...)

Our Father once again joined to his letter the “tract n° 2” “ Peace within the Church ”, which summarises en three fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the conditions required for this peace.

The entire work of Fr. de Nantes is a “showcase” of this programme of pacification and renaissance:

1° Every member of the Church has the inalienable right to practise his religion in the traditional way.

2° Every innovator who intends to impose his doctrine and his reforms by accusing Tradition of error or defects must be condemned.

3° Innovations that make their way into and spontaneously spread throughout the Church, on the fringe of tradition, but which are not opposed to it, can enjoy privileges of which the Magisterium alone is judge.

The entire work of Fr. de Nantes is a “showcase” of this programme of pacification and renaissance: a defence of tradition by a detailed study, in all spheres; a relentless attack on the revolutionary innovations introduced by the Second Vatican Council; a fresh study of all these « new things » that, « in the spirit of the best tradition », will contribute tomorrow « energies and new lights of the Holy Spirit for our times

This is what makes his work colossal. To criticise innovations in the name of tradition is, in the end, something easy to do. On the other hand, to prepare Vatican III, to restore thecatechism, to develop a new apologetics, bolstered by all the achievements of modern science… to create a theology of the sacraments, in particular to propose a “ new Mass” capable of consigning Paul VI’s pernicious Mass to oblivion… to elaborate a “morality” – to call it by its name – « a complete morality ». This means a Catholic morality and not a “secular” one. (...)

All of this was done in the light of a thorough understanding of the Great Crises of the Church (Volumes 1975 and 1976 of the CCR), which places Fr. de Nantes in medio Ecclesiæ, at the centre of the Church, not at the “golden mean”, but at the centre with the Doctors of the Church. Thus, he will be considered the Doctor of the Church of the twentieth century, particularly for his opposition to Pope John Paul II.


It became very quickly apparent that no appeasement could be hoped for from Pope John Paul II. (...) The thread of the negotiations was interrupted and all attempts to renew contact failed: « I no longer exist for Rome. » Fr. de Nantes said to his readers in June 1980.

John Paul IIYet, in May 1981, – on May 13! – the Secretariat of State replied most officially to a private correspondent:

« Concerning the Fr. de Nantes, the Secretariat of State reminds you that his present situation is not due to a simple misunderstanding with his bishop, as you seem to think, but to serious theological errors. (...)

Our Father sent me to Rome to obtain – with much difficulty! – an interview the proper authority in order to find out what the Fr. de Nantes’ « serious theological errors » were. (...)

Msgr. Re, the third highest person of the Secretariat of State received me. Although he assumed responsibility for the aforementioned letter, Msgr. Re clearly stated to me that he was unaware of « any dogmatic, doctrinal, or even simply theological error. Nevertheless Fr. de Nantes could be reproached, in a more general manner with an erroneous ecclesial situation.

What do you mean? Fr. de Nantes scrupulously observes the “suspens a divinis”. As for the “disqualification” of August 1969, it has no canonical value.

– That is true, However, your refusal of the Council places you in an erroneous ecclesial position.

This is precisely the question! Fr. de Nantes asserts that it is the Council which places the Pope, and at the same time, you yourself, Monsignor, in a heretical, schismatic and scandalous ecclesial position. »

As for me, I left this interview rather discouraged. Our Father, however, hastened to publish and comment on the Roman prelate’s admissions:

« The main thing, what was sufficient, was done. (...) If it is recognised that I am not in error, then He whom I contradict and oppose, in matters of faith and morals, is therefore in error, and up to the neck! If that were not so, now that I have obtained a retraction of the defamation which overwhelmed me, reconciliation would be easy and immediate. »


Liber II
In Rome, on May 13, 1983.

« Alas, whitened by the Assessor of the Secretariat of State, I cannot, in exchange for this justice, retract any of my disagreements nor relax my opposition. On the contrary! He, they who commit error upon error in grave matters of dogma and morals, must come out of their error. And let them not count on any flatterer or partisan to ask that of them, but again on us, and always on us for that – a terrible responsibility but a glorious task! For “ we cannot not speak ” » (CCR n° 142, January 1982, p. 1) These are St. Peter’s words to the Sanhedrin (Ac 4.20)!

Hence a second Book of Accusation, taken to Rome on May 13, 1983. This further admonition that took as its basis the three conditions for peace within the Church, which had become more crucial than ever.

The first condition is to love and make loved the eternal faith of the People of God. Our Father did just this by developing “A mysticism for our times” with an exceptional fulsomeness, in a quest for a way to God that is « open » towards union with God and the mystical life. (...):

« Now, the path we have chosen is that of beauty. »

« We pass from grace to grace, that is to say, from the gracious beauty of created beings to the all gracious and gratuitous goodness of God, of which created beauty is the sign, the proof and the image. That is our way and on this way we shall encounter Christ, the Word of God in human flesh, the beauty and splendour of the Father, the bodily face of the Godhead. »

The smile of John Paul I replied marvellously to this quest for “grace”.

The second condition for peace within the Church is to rise up against the heresies, schisms and scandals exacerbated by John Paul II, the successor of Paul VI and not of John Paul I, because, as it happens, he bars access to grace. This was the subject matter of the second Book of Accusation . (...)

For the second time Fr. de Nantes made the accusation. From one Liber to the next, however, what a difference there was!

Paul VI

Paul VI was « a man of culture rather than intellect. (...)

« He lacked the breadth of an heresiarch… I think he was just a demagogue. He was the convinced disciple of those lightweight and vain French thinkers, the Maritains, Mouniers, Congars, de Lubacs and the inevitable Teilhard (...). Little progressivist minds, not to be compared with the masters of German Modernism! Fortunately, those German heavyweights were beyond the understanding of Paul VI. He was a Latin and his culture made him allergic to their profound nonsense. »

But John Paul II, he was really something else!

« For you are no longer Catholic, you are no longer Christian for it is all one, even though you remain in name and in fact the Sovereign Pontiff of this Church whose faith and unity you reject from the depths of your will and intellect. (...)

« Have I one deed or one text on which to rest such accusations? I have five hundred, Most Holy Father. But to begin with I shall give only one on which I am prepared to stake my entire faith and life. One on which the whole case could be judged; it is one of your recurring themes. That of the Kingship of Jesus Christ, a kingship which for you is not that of God made man, but that of Man whom you proclaim to be god. (...) (Liber accusationis secundus, May 13, 1983, p. 4)

You invoke Christ, you mangle the Gospels in order to strip God of His divine and royal attributes, with which you then adorn man, Man become your idol, the object of your worship and service, of your love and striving.

« I take to witness what remains of the Catholic faith in your soul and in the souls of the cardinals and the ministers of the competent dicasteries who will have to learn of my complaint. I summon the Authority of the Church, her sacred hierarchy, her faithful people, each and everyone, in so far as my powerlessness permits, but in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to say openly and clearly whether such humanism in place of orthodox and Catholic Christianity is worthy of their unfeigned assent and adherence, or whether it merits anathema. Thence will this extraordinary trial be decided, from which one of the two parties will emerge acquitted and the other condemned, from which one will emerge sanctified by the trial and the other, failing recognition of error, public retraction and due reparation, will be doomed to the flames of Hell and to eternal damnation.

« May the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary come to our aid! » (Liber accusationis secundus, May 13, 1983, p. 4)

In a book entitled “ A Dialogue with André Frossard, Fear Not”, in reply to one of Frossard’s questions on what political doctrine can be derived from the Gospel, the Pope explained the dialogue between Pilate and Christ, when the latter states : I am a king and I was born for this, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” »

Here is the Pope’s explanation:

« Christ is king in the sense that in Him, in the testimony He rendered to the truth, is made manifest the kingship of every human being, the expression of every person’s transcendent character. Such is the Church’s proper inheritance. » (...)

This blasphemy is the culminating point of all that you have to say. It is sacrilegious. It dispossesses God of His kingship in order to confer it on Man, on this idol whom every man and all men of our time are invited to worship, honour, cherish and serve within themselves in place of and instead of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. (...)

We recognise here what already formed the subject of the first admonition to Pope Paul VI. However, what is decisively new is to learn that the « cult of man », « our new humanism », in Paul VI’s own words, was introduced into the Council by Karol Wojtyla and understood by him alone as an Hegelian “ synthesis” between the modern world and his atheistic philosophy on the one hand, and the Catholic religion of a Pope consecrated to the Blessed Virgin by his motto « Totus tuus » on the other.

The aim of the second Book of Accusation is to dismantle this infernal mechanism, in particular by analysing a retreat preached by John Paul II when he was still only Cardinal Wojtyla, the Archbishop of Cracow, in 1976, two years before his accession to the pontifical throne. This retreat’s title, “ A sign of contradiction”, recalls the words of the old man Simeon to the Virgin Mary on the day of the Presentation: « Behold this child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted. » (Lk 2.34)

For John Paul II, this is the sign of the Hegelian contradiction between thesis andantithesis, between Catholic religion and modern atheism. The “ synthesis” that overcomes this contradiction is the revelation brought by Cardinal Wojtyla: the idea according to which God does not want this kingship for man is what constitutes original sin. That was Satan’s suggestion! Satan caused in the beginning an appalling and unjustmisunderstanding that John Paul II dispels.

Of what does this misunderstanding consist? Of imputing as a crime to man what is most natural, most normal. For it is one of Satan’s lies to make us believe that God will not tolerate man’s making himself God, when man has the irrepressible desire for this. (...)

Such is the « new humanism » proclaimed by Paul VI in his closing speech of the Council, but introduced by Karol Wojtyla. Thus, according to Karol Wojtyla who became John Paul II, « the “ Truth” » to which Jesus testifies before Pilate is what the Second Vatican Council preaches, and John Paul II assures us that this is the faith. However, the Council, on this point is already him! Therefore, the Word of God today is, on the word of Karol Wojtyla, the Word of Wojtyla! This is, in concrete terms, the faith in man today in the Church: the faith of John Paul II in John Paul II. It is a circle! »

How can this circle be broken? By the patience of the saints.

Brother Bruno of Jesus
Taken from He is Risen! n° 23, July 2004