VI. « Children are asking for bread »

ANDRÉ Frossard related that Pope John Paul II confided something to him: « There is something that makes him sad. He told it to me. It is to see that his encyclical letters are so poorly distributed and that so few people read them, even though he has put so much effort into them. »

This single fact shows how illusory, false even, is the universal chorus of praise surrounding Pope John Paul II. (...) People applaud. But they do not pay attention to what he says.

Well, at least one theologian, Fr. de Nantes, has carefully listened to, read and studied him, and has explained him to his readers. He made it his duty to do so:

« (...) Karol Wojtyla goes from one encyclical to the next, and again in this recent Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem, building a system without parallel in the Church’s past, especially on the part of a Roman pontiff! This system is the complete dogma, article by article, of a new cult of man, apparently still Christian… in the bovine eyes of moronic or conniving clerics. As for me, I would rather be deaf and blind than not to see and understand this work; I would rather have my right hand cut off and my tongue cut out than forego denouncing this work and demanding that Rome anathematise it, or, failing that, Christ Himself. »

What is extraordinary and what allow us to identify precisely “ the ways of Providence” is that our Father ceased this gruelling work at the same time as the Pope himself, who can no longer express himself today. It has happened as though to show us that all has been said on both sides, and that it is incumbent on God to give judgment. (...)

This is a gigantic fight, but to wage it Fr. de Nantes was forearmed with his relational metaphysics, the antithesis of Pope John Paul II’s « generalised solipsism ». (...)


As an introduction to his commentary on the encyclical Redemptoris missio, of December 7, 1990, Fr. de Nantes wrote:

« There is in the Pope’s teaching – authentic if you like – but certainly not “ordinary”[that is to say, he is unable to invoke his predecessors] or “extraordinary” [that is to say, he is unable to invoke his personal infallibility because, if he were to do so, he would condemn himself!], for it is innovating and deviating beyond what is tolerable! A certain progress in boldness and in fusing opposites in a Gnostic proposition of the mystery of man and of God who are but one. » (...)

« What is said about the Church is secretly granted to the whole of humanity. What is attributed to Christians by virtue of their faith and baptism is as though already possessed, incognito, in the state of “seeds of the Word” by every religious man or as “evangelical seeds”, in every soul of good will who is preoccupied with the good of his neighbours and the progress of humanity. »

This is what our Father calls Pope John Paul II’s « unanimist gnosis », « whereby apostasy dons sumptuous Christian, Catholic chasubles, and whereby the Church takes off her divine and chaste adornments to become a courtesan ». (...)

In fact, we have to bow to the evidence: « The Pope “does not know God” in the Johannine sense of such an expression: he does not love Him, he flees from His light, he distorts and amputates His revelation in order to please the impious men of our time. »

« Of course, he existed! He was born, He died, and He rose from the dead. Then, everything becomes muddled and fades away. His historic destiny has ended and remains in the collective memory... as Mozart remains in his indefinitely reviviscent musical work and in his immortal message. » This is not a whim! It is the Pope who in his speech of March 16, 1991 passed without transition from Christ to Mozart, who is supposed to have delivered a message similar to that of the Gospel. (...)

The same applies to the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for the Sacraments He instituted and distributed by means of her. In his preaching opened to all « men of good will », believers and non-believers, the Pope never refers to the need for them. Furthermore: he infects the Roman Church herself with the deadly poison of this « unanimist gnosis » by means of a new “ catechism” published in 1992, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, C.C.C., the antithesis, if ever there was one, of the C.R.C.!


« It is the undiluted venom of the Second Vatican Council in all its impudence and insolence, republished in its own terms before the Face of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, and in Their Name! It is published in a catechism that is universally distributed and praised by all, by the teaching Church, by the lay leaders of world opinion, except for the criticism of the revolutionary Left, who condemn it for its half-heartedness and indolence. Such criticism, however, can only serve to make the book more acceptable and cherished by the faithful, worn out after thirty years of contestation. »

This is even more true since this Catechism was done at the request of several bishops to operate a doctrinal correction in the Church!

« So, in an instant, the voice of conscience told me that we, the CRC, would have to return to Rome, more isolated than ever, to bring an accusation of heresy, schism and scandal, no longer against one or two popes taken to task personally, but against the entire Church for public and provocative adultery and fornication after thirty years of shocking and wild behaviour. (...) »

However, to accuse such a Catechism of heresy is once again to attack the Pope principally:

Our Father went to Rome for the third time on May 13, 1993, along with two hundred and sixty-seven representatives of our Catholic Counter-Reformation, to lodge this third Book of Accusation. (...)


Just as he had done twenty years earlier with the Dutch Catechism, our Father began by admiring this new Catechism: « even though I soon regretted allowing myself to be caught, so I admit that I was charmed and conquered by the religious ardour, the spiritual joy and the contagious magnanimity of this Catechism. (...) A great book, worthy of the Holy Catholic Church, a “Roman work”.

« From beginning to end, I found myself being powerfully and gently enticed to adhere to it, “charismatically” conditioned to yield to its Weltanschauung, to its global model of envisaging the Christian religion, so new and apparently so liberating. But liberating from what? From all constraint? »

Yes! That is where the shoe pinches.

Because there is « venom » in this « honey », as in every encyclical of John Paul II:

« There are chapters, easily recognisable, composed of massive quotations from the Acts of Vatican II, which our Catholic faith has increasingly rejected for a quarter of a century on account of their obvious incompatibility with and contradiction of simple philosophical truth or scientific truth easily accessible to natural reason, or points of ecclesiastical doctrine that cannot be challenged or doubted because they are now defined. »


Our Father classified the errors of the CCC in twelve chapters. In chapter nine, entitled “ The apostasy of an antichrist cult of man based on the repudiation of the Heart and the Cross of Jesus”, he puts in the first column what he calls the « pure nectar of Jesus Christ crystal clear, sweet, sanctifying and intoxicating with the chaste love of His Cross and His Glory », the fruit of which is « Life in Christ » (nos 1691-1696 of the CCC).

Opposite, a second column is full of « satanic venom », lethal poison presented as « the vocation of man: life in the Spirit » (nos 1701-1709).

The first column is a series of quotes from the Fathers of the Church, from the Gospel and from St. Paul. The second one strings together passages from the Conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes. They present two worlds that are completely alien to one another. Or more precisely, as we understand it today, these are the two « halves » of the « big city half in ruins » of the “Third Secret” of Fatima. In the middle of the « ruins », there are still some intact monuments. (...)

In fact, Christ loses all historic consistency in this “ Catechism” in order to make way for man who makes himself the centre of the world and who gives glory to himself with no further regard for God, His Heaven, nor Hell. At least this is our Father’s analysis. (...)


Our Father had almost finished the draft when he was struck with vertigo. It was ten days before the date set for the trip to Rome, a Sunday evening, after the ceremony for the perpetual vows of Brother Vincent de Paul and Louis-Joseph. It was impressive! After vespers, he implored prayers, his voice choking from the anguish of not being able to see his work through to the end. It was a sort of agony: « If this Catechism is Catholic, he was saying to himself, it is criminal to attack it, to turn our back obstinately on the truth, simply because we criticise this Reformation of the Church for thirty years now. »

The light, however, dawned again at the thought of leaving it to the Church to decide, the Catholic attitude par excellence:

« It is up to the Church to judge, as I ask her to, in an infallible way. »

Once more, the Church, in the person of the Pope and his ministers, refused to judge.

In the morning of May 13, we arrived at Rome, by air – a special airplane – and by the night train – a special wagon of the Palatino. (...)

« The important part consisted in a few words. We were received by a Monsignore beaming with youth and naivety. (...)

« It was quickly done. Two books were handed over with explanations as to their addressees. One for the Holy Father, the other for the Cardinal. All right, very good. The comedy lasted two minutes, and our young angel was already holding out his hand… “No, not yet, Monsignor… I demand a receipt.” Search for an unfindable piece of paper. I dictated the text that the other, pretending not to know our language, wrote down as though he were an illiterate. (...)

Finally Msgr. Caotorta signed this receipt, as well as another piece of paper containing this demand that our Father had dictated:

« This book of accusation is a canonical appeal for the opening of a heresy trial, as soon as possible, under pain of dereliction of duty. » (...)

It is incredible! We must add that our Father had forewarned Cardinal Ratzinger: « With our two hundred and fifty friends, we do not come to debate with You, to express our frame of mind, to insult anyone, to seek honourable conditions for giving our support, nor to plead our case, but only to introduce it. It is clear and simple. One minute will suffice. And Your Eminence knows that because of his high position, it is His duty to receive this Book of Accusation and in this way have the dossier prepared for our trialand seen through to its juridical conclusion under pain of dereliction of duty. »

With Mgr Caotorta
Msgr. Caotorta and Fr. de Nantes at the Holy Office, on May 13, 1993.


Once that task had been carried out by main force, since our Father had received no reply to his requests for an audience either from the Holy Father or from Cardinal Ratzinger, the Roman dicastery continued to lie low. (...) So, our Father sent me to Rome to enter into discussions with the Secretariat of State, a place where I had privileged access, so to speak! (...) Msgr. Re, substitute, whohad seen me there in 1982 asked one of his subordinates, Msgr. Leonardo Sandri, an assessor, to see me. That was less than ten days after 13 May. (...)

Our conversation had begun in a perfectly polite tone, and even with some marks of friendship. After an evasive answer concerningwhether the trial that Fr. de Nantes had requested would be opened, he said to me regarding the « deviations » in the catechism, which our Father had pointed out:

Mgr Sandri
Mgr Sandri

You think that the Pope can give his children heresies in place of the food of life? That is not so! »

And yet… that is so! One only has to read.

It so happens that the first chapter of the accusation consists in denouncing the abusive extension of the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility in its head, its pastors and its people. (...)

That was precisely Msgr. Sandri’s case. When he told me: « You think that the Pope can give his children heresies in place of the food of live? That is not so! »… he was stating something the anathema condemns. Moreover, he is well aware of it, and in a confidential tone, he tried to make me concede this point and recognise that we were exaggerating: (...)

« A friend of mine used to receive your bulletin when he was at the seminary here in Rome. And I used to read it too. It was of an implacable and fearful logic! Very strong. But you should study your method. It seems as though you constitute another power centre, which condemns the Church with anathemas. (...) »


« That is to prepare the work of the Holy Office, Monsignor. It’s a question of presentation. Each “anathema” sums up in a proposition the object of a thesis under dispute. It is now a question of judging its content: true or false? (...)

There was a silence, then this incredible admission :

« If we did what you asked, it would mean that it all has a fundus veritatis, a basis of truth. (...) We cannot do that. (...) First of all, show yourselves to be obedient sons, and then we shall see. » (...)

Precisely! I seized the opportunity:

« (...) Fr. de Nantes has asked me to transmit a sort of proposition to the Holy See. »

At these words, Msgr. Sandri changed expression. He became grave. He took a sheet of paper and made a note.

« 1. The Holy See could open the trial introduced by Fr. de Nantes’ accusation by a public, official decree announcing that the catechism is to be examined by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

« 2. Whilst awaiting the conclusion of this examination, the “suspension” unjustly weighing on Fr. de Nantes for twenty-seven years could be suspended. (...) »

He is not concerned about being unjustly punished but at seeing an heretical catechism imposed on the whole Church. (...)

« Our Father, Fr. de Nantes is not asking for any special consideration, reward or congratulations for having done what is merely his duty as an “unprofitable servant”… Servi inutiles sumus, Monsignor! This delay would allow a new edition of the catechism to be prepared, revised and corrected of all its errors, without loss of face, without even having to say publicly that Father is right. This is what he himself proposes.

I shall pass it on. Only what you request is official. The rest is personal conversation. »

The conversation was finished. It had lasted an hour and a half. As he lead us to the elevator, Msgr. Sandri told us once again: « I would rather be wrong with the Pope than right against him. »

This is the major argument that the right-thinking, the good traditionalists use against us. They fail to see how offensive this rule of conduct is… for the Pope! « for how can you say you are “ with the Pope ” while thinking you are wrong on the very same matters about which he says he is right?! » asks Fr. de Nantes. (...)

« Let us be serious-minded about this. Being with the Pope is not what matters most, for being with the Pope is justified only inasmuch as it allows one to be with Jesus Christ through him. Being against the Pope could never have any other conceivable justification other than to remain with Jesus Christ, should the Pope ever part with Him, which God forbid! and then to live only in anguish over such a state of affairs, in the throes of such a contradiction. (...)

Later, in the course of the summer, the Phalangist friend who had accompanied me in May wrote twice to Msgr. Sandri. (...) The prelate finally replied saying that since the request had been passed on to the competent Dicastery, he no longer responsible for dealing with it. (...)

Since then, there has been no news… For the fourth time, as in 1968, in 1973, in 1983, the authorities have shirked their duty, contravening the dispositions of Canon Law, according to which: « By virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, every member of the faithful may freely defer to the judgement of the Holy See, or bring before it any contentious or penal case at no matter what degree of jurisdiction or moment of the trial. » (Canon 1417 § 1)

Then, how is it that we have received no response? I am going to tell you why; it is quite simple: « If within the month following the presentation of the libellum, the judge has not sent out a decree of acceptance or rejection in accordance with canon 1505, the interested party can request that he acquit himself of his duty; if, despite this, the judge fails to pronounce within ten days after the request, the libellum will be considered as accepted. » (Canon 1506)

In other words: “ Silence gives consent ”… The silence of Rome is extremely eloquent. It proves that the Catholic Faith has not yet been modified, altered or corrupted in the virginal soul of the Church: « This is vouched for by this Book of Accusation that remains in the archives of the Palace of the Holy Office, as well as in the tormented hearts of those who had hoped to change the Catholic Faith by turning the centuries-old catechism into a new Catechism of the Catholic Church. »

In concluding, our Father was, however, very keen on showing solidarity with the authors of this supposed catechism, in order to indicate clearly his horror of schism, which is equalled only by how vehemently he reproves heresy. There is nothing more moving than this will to shoulder the entire responsibility, as it were, for the fault that he has just denounced:

« Our mirages have led us astray, Most Holy Father; we have lost our way because of your gnosis and we are filled with pride for having dreamed of a plan of grace more wonderful than that of God even! We have thrust the human race back under the yoke of Satan, a Liar from the beginning. Today, he believes he can triumph through our false Gospel. Ah, let us repent, let us preach the true paths of salvation! It will never be too late to repair our errors and our extravagant behaviour.

« Through the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sacred Heart will allow Himself to be touched, and our world, humbly athirst for Life, Truth and Love, will find or rediscover the way of the Church, the way of Rome, which is that of the Kingdom of Heaven in this world and in the next.

It remains for us to see how our dearest Heavenly Father took at his word his servant who offered himself in this manner as an expiatory victim.

Brother Bruno of Jesus
Taken from He is Risen! n° 29, January 2005