The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century
HE IS RISEN !
N° 200 – July 2019
Director : Brother Bruno Bonnet‑Eymard
DOES EACH MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC COUNTER-REFORMATION RECOGNISE THE LEGITIMATE AND UNINTERRUPTED MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES, SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLE PETER ?
If you are as yet unfamiliar with the events that launched this new round in the doctrinal debate that has been going on ever since Father Georges de Nantes took exception to the documents of the Second Vatican Council as they were being elaborated and voted during the Council, please read the previous article : At last ! the long-awaited answer from Rome has come via a questionnaire from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
V. THE RECONSTRUCTION : A CATHEDRAL OF LIGHT
The successive Pontiffs, John XXIII who opened the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI who carried it through to completion, John Paul II who put it into practice, all pursued the goal of establishing a deep understanding with all the religions, peoples and cultures of the world. Father de Nantes defined it as a transformation of the Roman Catholic Church into a Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy (masdu.) Its purpose was to prepare the Church for a renovation of her Faith and her pastoral activity in view of a “ new evangelisation ” and a “ new humanism ” for the third millennium.
The work of our Father, Georges de Nantes, is nothing other than the defence and illustration of Catholic doctrine, which is “ unchanged, unchangeable, and non-negotiable by reason of its divine perfection. ” He did not cease meditating on it and perfecting it to form a “ total ” doctrine in order to respond to the immense apostasy that is resulting from this adultery of the Church. As unique Bride of Jesus Christ, she engenders, through a new birth, the sons of Adam to restored grace, introducing the “ other religions ” in her family.
TO PREPARE VATICAN III.
On May 13, 1971, Father de Nantes launched a campaign that took up Cardinal Suenens’ challenge : “ Instead of lamenting and preaching pointlessly a return to the past or a ‘measured reform’ of Vatican II but ‘modestly,’ let us prepare the future ! ” He carefully and critically studied the Acts of the Council, which consist of sixteen texts, ‘constitutions,’ ‘decrees’ and ‘declarations.’
After having detected the seeds of heresy, schism and scandal that had been sown in these documents, he devised, in a dogmatic exposition, the counterpropositions of reparative and victorious schemata.
He rebuilt all the theological treatises, that Archbishop Wojtyla had demolished with his “ dogma ” on the Incarnation defined as the union of Christ with every man, whoever he may be, making him a god. Father de Nantes, however, did not merely content himself with teaching a “ total theology ” and a Catholic mysticism of the true union with God in word and writing, he lived out such a union by a continual contemplation and an incessant colloquy with God the Father, God the Son, nurtured by all the gifts of God the Holy Spirit, striving to have us, brothers and sisters, enter into this divine family.
John Paul II made religion a Hegelian dialectic, while Father de Nantes made of it a love, like Father de Foucauld, like Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus. Throughout his whole life, he applied himself ‘to making Love loved.’ The first Mystical Page, dated from February 1968, is a cry from the heart : “ Our Father Who art in Heaven, I love You and I suffer. ” What does he suffer from ? Like Saint Francis of Assisi, he suffers seeing that Love is not loved.
In order to make Love loved, he undertook a “ Catholic Counter-Reformation ” to attack not only the third “ Reformation ”, that of the 20th century, but the first one, Luther’s (1517.) Protestantism took “ the first step ” on this path, as Saint Pius X said when condemning “ the second, ” Modernism (1907,) in prevision of “ the third, ” that would lead into “ atheism, ” in which we find ourselves today.
“ The questions debated are new, at least in part, ” our Father admitted, “ and they oblige us to resolve difficulties that were unknown to the Ancients. Our Catholicism, therefore, will have to make both theological and institutional progress […]. We have no desire to “ return ” to Vatican I, nor to the Council of Trent, nor to that of Nicaea ! We want Vatican III to clarify Vatican II and to isolate and eliminate its poison. ”
This was the programme that Father de Nantes fulfilled through monthly lectures in the great hall of the Mutualité, in Paris, for twenty-five years, and in the monthly bulletin of The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century, which became He is Risen in 2000. His intention for “ the beginning of the third millennium, ” was to rebuild a Church, depicted as “ a large city half in ruins, ” in the “ Third Secret of Fatima, which was published in the year 2000.
From December 1972 to October 1973, the programme that was announced under this title unfolded as though it were a proposal of superior reconciliation that would remedy the narrow confines and the sectarian fits of rage that the novelties of the Second Vatican Council have spread within the Church, and that John Paul II’s dialectics only worsened. To return to the apostolic “ kerygma ” is tantamount to returning to the frank proclamation of the Word of God, on which the Apostles founded the Church after Pentecost, after having received the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Is God, our God, His Son Jesus Christ, Their Spirit of Love, a God of Order or of Revolution ? Here is a “ kerygmatic ” response to this antagonism that has torn our Christianity apart for five hundred years :
« I am a revolutionary with Christ, to overthrow the power of the Prince of this world, and I am a conservator of Order, which is the result of nature and grace, from which mankind has already received and is still expecting a thousand marvels. ”
This principle governed his analysis of the current political and religious events that he set out in the first hour of the monthly meetings held in the Mutualité hall until 1996. Political and religious events were understood and explained from God’s point of view, in order to discern what others call “ the signs of the times, ” or as we would say, the will of God, according to a divine orthodromy, i.e. the way that leads the most directly to God.
This kerygmatic theology prepared the way for mystical aesthetics (November 1977-September 1978,) the subject of the conferences that preceded Paul VI’s death and John Paul I’s accession for a thirty-three day pontificate in 1978.
The goal was still the same : “ The pursuit of an open and practicable way to God, for a union with God that is possible, meaningful and sure. ” This aesthetics becomes dramatic once beauty manifests itself in the ugliness of the Cross and on the Holy Face of Jesus crucified, the “ centre and the summit of all aesthetics, ” since Jesus and Mary have vanquished sin, purified us of it through this mystery of death and resurrection. Accordingly, to find the Father in the Son is to attain Glory through the Cross, to seek happiness in trial, wealth in poverty, life in sacrifice. This is what true religion, the only true one is.
Ever since Pentecost, the Church has throughout her history strived to established the temporal reign of the Sacred Heart over the whole earth : “ It is in such a mystical ascent and at its highest point that the root and the source of this apostolic, social, political charity is to be found, a charity that is expressed in the second petition of the Pater Noster, dear to Father de Foucauld, leading to the third : ‘Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.’ ”
Throughout the centuries, the Church has been resplendent with all the wonders that the Holy Spirit has accomplished in her by the lineage of the saints who were both intrepid defenders of the pure Catholic Faith and tireless reconcilers of the filial and fraternal community.
LOVE OF CHURCH.
In order to understand what our Father called our “ high ground, ” which was neither integrist nor progressivist, rather traditionalist, it is essential to read this masterpiece of the history of the Great crises of the Church, contained in the issues from February to November 1975 of the French bulletin :
“ The deepest, most objective and most solid distinction between these two great attitudes, which subsist down the centuries and which divide the Christian intelligence between them from the beginning, is to be sought in their understanding of the revealed Mystery. On the one side, faith, mystical (I do not say sentimental) certitude dominates ; the sense of the supernatural, of grace and of the Divine prevails. On the other side, reason, logic, naturalism, humanism, man’s freedom and concern for the present world prevail. On the one side, Heaven attracts the being in a state of ecstasy for an eternal life ; on the other side, the earth holds back the man who is passionately concerned to make for himself a happy and independent life here below.
“ It would seem that right always and entirely lies with the party of God, whilst wrong always and entirely lies with the party of man. In the end, however, the total truth always seems to emerge from a reconciliation of the two Parties, by dismissing their extremes. The total truth is always the mysterious, revealed synthesis of supernature and nature, of freedom and grace, of the twofold yet related knowledge of faith and reason that God presents and explains to men. It is the party of God that has the good role whenever a conflict arises in the Church.
This role is the one of an “ intelligent traditionalism. ” Our Father’s entire monumental work is its fruit.
His theological and pastoral study on the Sacraments (November 1976 – August 1977) provides abundant proof of this. Even Father Congar ( !) expressed his admiration at this reply to the integrist revolt by a serene assessment, an extensive study of the exact worth of the postconciliar innovations. He had in mind the necessary and reconciling synthesis that would be the work of Vatican III, “ when past routines will be definitively restored and corrected in the light of today’s novelties, which in their turn will be amended and purged of their disfiguring errors. Does that complicate the strategy of the opposing parties by breaking the Manichean dualism from which they draw their militant strength ? On the contrary, it reinforces the only party to which we adhere, that of the Church, and it is only by following this unique path that I can see any outcome, any light ahead. ”
This was the judgment of a true son of the Church, and of Mary !
SON OF MARY.
An illumination that he received when he began his dogmatic theology in the seminary enlightened his whole life. This insight would lead him to reorganise all the knowledge that he would teach to us, his spiritual sons and daughters. He relates in his Memoirs and Anecdotes : “ I paid particular attention when Monsieur Guilbeau dealt with the definition of the person. Several times in philosophy courses, I had been upset by having misunderstood it and by soon hearing things inferred about it that went against my ‘familial [and Maurrassian] biases,’ such things as autonomy, independence, the sublime dignity, the inalienable rights of the person, of every person to the service of whom the whole world must subject itself. On the other hand, the individual [but is he not the same being!] is no more than a member of a social entity and is committed to serving it to the point of sacrificing his life.
“ I asked Father Guilbeau how this same word of person could evoke two ideas so different that they seemed not only opposed but even contradictory. The one that he had taught us that morning came from a centuries-old philosophic tradition. It characterises the human individual by his incommunicability. The other that he had previously drawn from ecclesiastical tradition, from the Greek Fathers and from Saint Augustine, who define the divine Persons as pure relations, ‘subsistent relations’ Were not ‘subsistence’ and autonomy terms irreconcilable with this total gift, with these ‘processions’ that constitute the three Persons in God ? ”
In brief : “ Is it not regrettable to designate by the same word, in human society, the independent being, jealous of his rights and claiming to be sovereign, and in divine society these Persons Who are and Who want to be wholly relation, unreserved gifts to one another, pure paternity, filiation, love ? Should there not be coherence, analogy, from one sphere to the other ? Should not human persons define themselves in the image and likeness of the divine Persons rather than contrary to their admirable perfection ? ”
Father Guilbeau listened to his student, “ as though caught off his guard on this path where I was running along like an impulsive child. ” Thereupon, he fell ill, was rushed to the hospital and underwent an emergency operation. To his student who went to visit him, he smilingly said : “ I haven’t forgotten you. I am thinking… It is a very interesting question, but difficult. Undoubtedly it is the key… ”
“ I had the foreboding that I would never get from him the answer to this question, a question that had become his own in his dialogue of a dying man with the Holy Trinity. A few days later, he saw what he was seeking. ” (Memoirs and Anecdotes, Vol. II, pp. 162-163)
“ This is the tragedy that introduced me to true theology. Its weight of grace has not ceased to increase with time, as this question made an immense metaphysical novelty and a total theology well up in me. For forty years, they have not ceased to enlighten my mind. ”
Father de Nantes’ “ total theology ” runs counter to John Paul II’s philosophical rationalism and generalised solipsism, which are totally inspired by the “ philosophy of the Enlightenment, ” and against “ the cult of man, ” which Paul VI established in the world. This total theology is Mistress of Truth and introduces us “ into the only religion that established between Heaven and earth the bonds of a divine and human circumincessant charity : the Son of God becoming Son in this world, the Son of Mary in the village of Nazareth, teaches us to love every kind of filiation on earth. ”
Philosophy itself was renewed by it : since relation returned to the sources of being, our Father reorganised all human knowledge by defining the privileged being that is the human person by his relations of origin.
The relation of filiation is the formal constituent element of the “ person : ” from the child, who is turned towards his father and mother as the only begotten Son of God, the Word, is turned towards His Father, derive all the other relations : the disciple turned towards his master, the spouse towards her husband, the head of State towards the common good, the colony towards the mother country, the head of the Church towards Christ, in a constituent “ ascending dependence ” that builds a mystical body. Therein the bonds of nature join with the bonds of grace and every personal life, like that of the social body, is ordered to charity. This view was plenary, satisfying, and balanced. Our young minds, however, were unable to weigh up its divine height, its human depth, its orthodromic length and its Catholic breadth.
“ We are so constituted that we are entirely relative and in many respects. We are born from relationships to our fathers, we live in relationships with our contemporaries, and we imagine a future for our successors and our descendants. Ah ! It is already a decisive liberation for the charity and the service of the community, the Church and the country ! ”
It is a question of demonstrating to man that he is not the centre of the universe nor its end, that he himself is not his own finality. Being only a creature of I AM, he is called by Him to fulfil himself and to save himself by being inseparably bound with his human brothers, in the Body of Christ to the praise of the Glory of God ! Morality and mysticism are modified, becoming inconsistent with the principles in force in the last century, when all was due to man alone as though he were the absolute.
Today we know that the good, the beauty, the glory of “ relative man ” consist in the service of others, love, conviviality, the union in one Body, in the joyous docility to God Who leads everyone to universal plenitude.
This total Metaphysics (November 1981 – September 1982) develops into an apologetic demonstration (November 1984 – June 1985) that describes the order of the universe in the light of this certainty of the Presence of God, acting constantly in His creation in order to bring it into being and to direct its development according to a divine “ orthodromy. ” Our Father thus examined universal history to seek its “ axial ” force : from the big bang of the origins to the Revelation of Jesus Christ in which God declares His love, to the foundation of the Church, and to the return of the whole creation to God in Her and through Her, in love.
Thus, our Father proposes to whoever has the soul of a “ disciple ” and who places himself under his guidance to model his personal trajectory on this trajectory of the universe, and to follow the music by taking his place in this movement of divine orthodromy. In so doing, the disciple will be a living element in it and not a cadaver on the verge of the road, where the Holy Father is advancing with halting step according to the vision of the “ Third Secret, ” in order to belong to this Kingdom of God, to participate actively by joining this grand mystical body that is the Church, in order to struggle there with one’s brethren against the opposing forces coming from Hell, for the honour of God, “ served first, ” for the salvation of all men.
From October 1988 to June 1996, our Father endeavoured to discover the mainsprings of the interpretive history of holy and gracious France, and her place as “ Eldest Daughter of the Church ” in the great universal plan. In this perspective, he highlighted the key to our contemporary history : in 1689, the Sacred Heart made requests to Louis XIV who, by his refusal to respond to them, brought the misfortune of the domination of a Satanic republic over France, from then until today.
From these lessons of world history and, particularly, the history of France, there resulted…
A “ TOTAL ” MORALITY AND A “ TOTAL ” POLITICS.
From November 1983 to June 1984, by teaching a Total Politics, our Father renewed the thought of Saint Augustine, Bossuet and Maurras regarding the restoration of political and religious authorities who create order. In order to respond to the errors that cause the current chaos, particularly through the effects of an aggressively anti-establishment, anarchist and revolutionary human rights morality, he links political science to all other sciences : history, philosophy, metaphysics ; and finally to Christian religion and mysticism.
He reaches sublime heights when he calls for the restoring of a sacred politics inherited from Saint Joan of Arc.
Such a politics is truly ‘total.’ The king of France is its keystone. He is the bond of the moral, affective, voluntary unity of his people, the ‘mystical’ condition, cause and source of everyone’s life and security because between them there exists a constant and active adherence of the members to the will of the head. Such a communion can only exist in a Catholic nation, for it presupposes a civic, patriotic, nationalist instinct, supported by a supernatural energy capable of overcoming the forces of disaggregation that prevail in our modern societies in which each person yields to the original temptation : “ You will be like God. ”
It is the King who dispenses this victorious grace by virtue of the anointing that confers on him a power of government assisted from On High. This Christian ‘mystical’ legitimacy is based on the loyalty of the subjects, members of the Catholic Church, to Christ and His Church.
Suffice it to say that the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are the pillars of this covenant that God made with His ‘personal’ creature by giving him existence, and in a particular way with His “ lieutenant ” anointed in Reims and to whom he entrusted the Kingdom of France “ in commendam. ” It is an unequal contract that obliges our gratitude. The creature has the delightful duty of returning to God love for love, to place in Him all our trust, keep our Faith, unchanged, unchangeable, by reason of its divine perfection. Loving Him, loving Him entirely, all His thoughts, all His wills ; we are called to love the whole universe that He created : our dear neighbour, all men, but most particularly those who have been placed in our own familiar universe, with whom we maintain daily relations.
Since the “ human person ” is defined not so much by his “ essence ” as a “ rational animal ” as by his relations, a ‘Total Morality’ (November 1985 – June 1986) turns us towards others : we exist much more by others, for others, with others than we exist as autonomous, independent, and ultimately egocentric individuals, not to say autists as “ modern pathologists ” would call them. I am not “ for myself, ” but I am “ for others ” and this is the field of a “ total ” morality detailing my obligations, my delightful duties and finally my beatitude, my value, my merit, and my glory.
In Her Apparition of July 13, 1917, Our Lady entrusted Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta with a “ Secret ” in three parts. The first one is a vision of Hell :
“ You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. ”
This vision reveals the atrocious, unspeakable chastisement, sorrows and despair, which are already amongst us, with no light, no love and not the least relief for these impious, the “ poor sinners ” who Our Lady gently pities, for they are tomorrow’s damned who, here and now, close to us, are on their way to Hell.
God is saddened as He looks at this already damned, pleasure loving and insolent world for which Christ did not pray (Jn 17 :9,) that is persecuting the Church and defying God.
Nevertheless, “ if what I am going to say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. ” This is the second part of the “ Secret, ” which concerns our temporal affairs : Purgatory here below. Orthodromy, which is based on divine authority unveils and explains the consequences of the “ bad peace ” of 1919 and the refusals on the part of the hierarchy to the demands of Our Lady. Thus, the Secret of Fatima is “ the veritable main thread of the Virgin to enlighten our route in this world and bring us to both temporal and eternal salvation. ”
The conclusion of this second part remained conditional : “ God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. ” The salvation of souls and world peace depends on the obedience of the Church to this divine will. Therefore all is in the hands of the Holy Father : it is up to him to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, after having ordered the bishops to join with him in doing it, in order for her to be converted. It is up to him also to recommend the devotion of the five First Saturdays of the month. By means of these simple demands, it is the necessity for conversion to the Catholic Church, the mediation of the Virgin Mary, the universal authority of the Vicar of Christ the King, the existence of Heaven and Hell that are recalled to the world, all of which are explicit truths that clash head-on with the “ Wojtylian gnosis. ”
This is why, when Pope John Paul II recommended the recitation of the Rosary, on October 28, 1981, he was careful not to mention explicitly the specific demand that Our Lady of Fatima made at each of Her apparitions of 1917, for daily recitation of the Rosary.
During his pilgrimage at the site of the apparitions on May 12, 1982, not only did he not reveal the so long-awaited secret, but he spoke of it in an offhand way :
“ Do you want me to tell you a secret… ? It is quite simple and it is no longer a secret : ‘Pray much, say the rosary every day.’ ”
The only thing that had never been a “ secret ! ”
In his preaching during this pilgrimage, not only did the Pope not give approval to the reparatory devotion but he turned the faithful away from it :
“ In the jubilant expectation of giving concrete expression to all that, fully, at holy Mass tomorrow, let us live our pilgrimage to the full, here and now, in Eucharist, by offering ourselves to God through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in thanksgiving and receptivity let us offer our sacrifices in union with Christ the Redeemer and let us repeat in an expiatory and propitiatory prayer of our souls : ‘Lord Jesus, it is for the love of You, in reparation for sins, and for the conversion of sinners.’ ” Now, the exact formula of the prayer taught by the Blessed Virgin is : “ O Jesus, it is for the love of You, in reparation for sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for the conversion of sinners. ” Moreover, the Pope substituted for the consecration to Mary or to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the offering to God through Mary.
He also quoted the prayer of the Angel :
“ My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You, ” but he passed over in silence the second part of this prayer : “ I beg pardon for those who do not believe, who do not adore, who do not hope, who do not love You. ” Why ?
On the morning of this May 13, at 1982, he met Sister Lucy in private. During the meeting, which lasted from twenty to twenty-five minutes, the messenger of Heaven handed him an important letter in which she confirmed that the visions of the “ Third Secret ” are closely connected with the words of the Blessed Virgin that preceded them : they describe, in an allegorical manner, the divine promises and, above all, the chastisements connected with the refusal of the high authorities of the Church to satisfy the demands of Heaven :
“ The third part of the Secret, that you are anxious to understand, ” she wrote to the Pope, “ is a symbolic revelation referring to this part of the Message, and is conditioned by our response or non-response to what the Message itself asks of us : ‘If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace ; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.’ Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled and that Russia has invaded the world with her errors. If we have not yet seen the complete fulfilment of the final part of this prophecy, we are marching towards it with great strides.
Until her death, sister Lucy pointed out that, in keeping with the words of Our Lord, during the revelation of Rianjo, in 1931, His ministers did not want to listen to His demand.
The thoughts of Pope John Paul II ran contrary to those of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Pope wished for the reconciliation of the “ separated Churches of the East and the West, ” but he did not want for all that “ to convert ” Russia to Catholicism, since his great millenarian plan was to unite all denominations, on an equal footing, without letting the Catholic Church claim any superiority over “ the others ”. His whole programme responded to his chimera of a peaceful world in which religions would form one single “ Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy, ” a chimera of which the meeting that he organised at Assisi on October 27, 1986 was the symbol.
The violent contradiction that exists between the desires of God, revealed at Fatima, and the interfaith enterprises for peace was made manifest, precisely in the course of the meeting of Assisi, by a very moving event. A procession had advanced, bearing a processional litter on which stood the statue of Our Lady of Fatima, above a spray of flowers arranged in the form of a white heart bearing the wound, on a background of red flowers. The stewards, however, had turned it back and the litter with the statue had to be abandoned there, on the ground, in the grass.
“ This is the incident, ” Father de Nantes commented, “ that provides food for thought : the heavenly sign in a long, cold, joyless day, without faith and without light, when God seemed deaf to the prayers that rose to Him. What were all those people concerned with in that place, on that day ? Peace. They were concerned with procuring peace for the world. Through whom and by what means ? Through all religions and all cults.
“ It is then that the Person who has received from the one true God the gift of peace came forward. She approached and came to offer the assembly of all religions the gift of Her grace to all those who would pray to Her and beseech Her, and through Her touch the Heart of Her Son, without whom no man and no people can do anything. And here She was turned back ! What a sign ! Out of respect for the Chief Rabbi of Rome and the grand Mufti of Mecca, the snake worshipers and the fire worshipers, and the devotees of Buddha, whose golden statue was enthroned for the occasion above the empty tabernacle of the church of Saint Peter !
“ What did they do at Assisi ? The aim, the supreme desire of Jesus is that men, that the Pope and all the bishops, that all should open their hearts to Mary. At Assisi the other evening, they repulsed Her and turned Her away ! They preferred to pray to Buddha and to Allah for peace !
“ Fatima teaches us that She alone can help us to obtain the peace of the world and the end of war. Yet She alone was turned away at Assisi. By a Pope whom She had – he said so himself – saved from death on May 13, 1981, five years earlier. What an irreparable aberration ! ” (CCR no. 195, December 1986, pp. 9-10)
OUR RESPONSE TO THE THIRD QUESTION
Like Father de Nantes during his lifetime, we fully recognise the legitimate and uninterrupted Magisterium of the Popes, successors of the Apostle Peter, in particular that of Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and finally that of Pope Francis obviously. As sons of the Church, we declare ourselves to be a priori and on principle fully subject to their magisterium, but within the canonical limits of the legitimate exercise of their power of teaching, as supreme and immediate heads of all the pastors and all the faithful.
In fact, although the Magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiffs, whether ordinary or solemn, and in all cases infallible, has endured beyond the accession of John XXIII, but above all beyond the accession of Paul VI, it has been altered, diverted from its original destination to such a point that it has been rendered sterile by a concomitant magisterium of a new type, a strange, “ prophetic, ” “ pastoral, ” “ authentic ” magisterium whereby the Sovereign Pontiffs assume a power equal to the one that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred on the Apostles alone for the foundation of the Church ; it is by virtue of this innovatory magisterium, alien to their primary responsibility of strengthening their brethren in the faith and improperly subordinated to the authority of the Second Vatican Council, that Paul VI and John Paul II had the pretension of leading the Church along the subversive path of a continual reformation, of an opening to the world inevitably followed by the falsification of dogmas, a radical disorder in the sacred liturgy and the destruction of Catholic morality and law, a total break with the traditional Magisterium of all the Popes who preceded them on the See of Saint Peter.
Father de Nantes found fault with this innovatory teaching, publicly made known his opposition to the errors that it contained, in particular the cult of man replacing the cult of God that Paul VI had proclaimed and for which John Paul II then claimed to have laid the doctrinal basis. Nevertheless, Father de Nantes deferred to the definitive and sovereign Magisterium of the Church by preparing three Books of Accusation for Heresy, Schism and Scandal against Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in order to admonish them to retract or to define infallibly the innovations contained in their teachings ; these three books have remained unanswered to this day. Conversely, no error has ever been attributed to Father de Nantes.
As spiritual sons of Father de Nantes, and therefore his heirs, we make our own the accusations contained in these three Books of Accusation and we consider that they incriminate indirectly any Sovereign Pontiff insofar as he intends espouse the innovatory and hence fallible teachings of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a basis for the decisions within the remit of his Magisterium.
As long as these accusations are not the subject, either directly or indirectly, of an infallible and definitive decision on the part of the Magisterium, we the Little Brothers and Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart, will continue to remain in a state of withdrawal of obedience, a state in which we will discern as best we can, according to the infallible criterion of Tradition, that which proceeds from the customary and Catholic Magisterium of the reigning Supreme Pontiff in order to submit us to it, and that which comes from this authority usurped for the Reformation of the Church, which we consider null and void.
“ Our Catholicism will have to make both theological and institutional progress […]. We have no desire to ‘return’ to Vatican I, nor to the Council of Trent, nor to that of Nicaea ! We want Vatican III to clarify Vatican II and to isolate and eliminate its poison. ”
This was the programme that Father de Nantes fulfilled through monthly lectures in the great hall of the Mutualité, in Paris, for twenty-five years, and in the monthly bulletin of The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century ! His purpose was to rebuild a Church, who is figured as “ a large city half in ruins ” in the “ Third Secret. ”
At his side, brother Bruno of Jesus-Marie, who would untiringly continue his work of Catholic Counter-Reformation
To be continued.
SUMMARY OF THE TOPICS THAT WILL BE DEALT WITH IN FUTURE INSTALMENTS
FOURTH QUESTION :
“ Do you recognise the ordinary Magisterium and the authority of the bishop on whom you depend ? ”
FIFTH QUESTION :
“ What are the statutes or regulatory texts of the community ? ”
“ Would you be willing to forward them to us, and if necessary, to work towards their evolution if the legitimate ecclesiastical authority considers it appropriate to do so ? ”