The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century


N° 200 – July 2019

Director : Brother Bruno Bonnet‑Eymard


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.


“ Do you recognise the legitimate and uninterrupted Magisterium of the Popes, successors of the Apostle Peter  ? ”

Our first movement would be to respond with a wholehearted yes, since our Father taught us and communicated to us his love for the Roman Church, Mistress of all the Churches, and especially his true and genuine devotion to the Pope, “ our sweet Christ on earth, ” the common and immediate Father of all the faithful. Father de Nantes was Roman and correlatively to his admiration for the papacy, he transmitted to us his abhorrence for all schism – and even for anything that might bear semblance to it –, for any separation from the See of Peter from which one cannot deviate, even in the slightest, without endangering the salvation of his soul.

Nevertheless, the reformation carried out by the Second Vatican Council and the hierarchy’s abstention from exercising its Magisterium have placed our Father, our communities and all the members of our Catholic Counter-Reformation movement in a situation of withdrawal of obedience, which we must explain to justify our definitive answer to the question put to us.


From 1963 onward, Father de Nantes had the time to keep abreast of the works of the Council and comment on them at the very moment when it was setting its decisive orientations. Our Father had providentially prepared himself for such a task since, in 1951, he had led an extensive campaign against the book of the Dominican, Father Yves Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, which was to become the charter of the Second Vatican Council. Our Father weighed up the danger and thought it was his duty to bring it to the attention of Rome, on June 3, 1951. Following the meeting that he had with the future Cardinal Ottaviani, from the Holy Office, Rome forbade re-editions and translations of the book. Between 1959 and 1963, Father de Nantes published a theological study entitled The Mystery of the Church and the Antichrist, which dealt with the progressivism that he saw in action in the Church of France.

From Maison Saint-Joseph, our Father understood what was at stake in the debates, and unrelentingly denounced the heresy that was shamelessly being flaunted in the conciliar aula. However, parallel to his opposition to the Council, our Father had to begin “ the fight of the son against his Father, of the priest against the Pope. ” (Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 82, August 1974, p. 1. Abridged translation in CCR no. 53, “ I Have Been Fighting Alone, ” August 1974, pp. 16-18.) Nevertheless, the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of August 6, 1964, forced our Father to recognise that Paul VI was personally committed to the very principle of Congarian reformism.

Thus, our Father had to warn his readers that a Pope can fail in his duty as Pastor and supreme Doctor. (Letter To My Friends no. 188, November 1964).

On January 6, 1967, a year after the closing of the Council, in his Letter To My Friends no. 240, our Father was able to make an assessment of a year during which every sort of disorder flourished in a Church carried away by her masdu (Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy) pipe dream. He was forced to admit that “ a fundamental compact, a collusion, exists between the highest responsible Authority and the subordinate executors of the reformation with the aim of ‘creating a new Church in the service of a new world’. ” The highest responsible Authority within the Church is none other than the Pope himself, Pope Paul VI.

Our Father thus decided to publicly denounce the reformation of the Second Vatican Council as a second Reformation “ in order to encourage all good men to undertake the Counter-Reformation of the 20th century ” (ibid., p. 8). To direct this combat, he established two rules  ; the first, for him and for those of his friends who were willing to follow him  : never to declare that they alone constitute the Church, thus “ repudiating this post-conciliar Reformed Church as schismatic and heretical, ” the second  : to combat “ within the Body of the Church, i.e., the visible society in which fallible men conserve the power they have to err or to do wrong, this latent schism, this parasitical heresy, this inadmissible novelty that defiles her divine purity and conceals her true life. ” (ibid., pp. 5-6)

The first action taken in this combat that would become a trial consisted in addressing “ the Sovereign Pontiff as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, and Our Lord Bishops as the legitimate pastors of our dioceses, in person, in order to demand and obtain the resolution of unbearable doubts, from their infallible Magisterium. ” (ibid., p. 6) After having announced it several months in advance, Father de Nantes sent a “ Letter to His Holiness Pope Paul VI ” on October 11, 1967. It began with these words “ The pride of the reformers. ” It was a clear and comprehensive presentation of the plan for a certain unprecedented and insane reformation of the Church directed against the very person who was the initiator of this reformation.

Our Father did not lose faith in the Church. Pending her recovery effected by her supreme Magisterium, he solemnly warned the Pope that he would protect himself from this reformation as from the greatest of sins, because it is “ Satanic in its essence, impious in its manifestations and its laws […]. ” While our Father waited for a doctrinal judgement that presents all the guarantees of infallibility, he was forced into a withdrawal of obedience, which he himself presented to the Holy Father. “ We will discern to our best, according to the infallible criterion of Tradition, what proceeds from Your customary and Catholic Magisterium in order to submit ourselves to it, and what comes from this usurped authority for the Reformation of the Church, which we will always hold to be null and void. ” (CRC no. 2, November 1967, p. 12)

A month later, Father de Nantes published an analysis on the encyclical, Populorum Progressio. It describes a programme to transform the world, improve the lot of men, instore universal peace, with the participation of all religions and ideologies. This analysis forthrightly raised the tragic question of the Pope’s fidelity to the Catholic Faith and to the responsibility entrusted to him by Our Lord Jesus Christ  : to strengthening the faith of his brethren. The question is tragic “ because good Catholics […] are caught in a vice between two temptations which they must resist. They must either accept everything  : the chaos and the corruption of liturgy, faith and morals, all of which is ordered or authorised by a unanimous hierarchy headed by the Pope, a temptation to which they are strongly encouraged and constrained to submit  ! Or else, they must reject everything as a whole because it is all really too stupid, distressing, shameless and evil, but in doing so, they forsake a Church that is provoking them into revolt and openly desires their departure. Now these two easy solutions, too easy by far, are sins. One does not forsake the Church of Jesus Christ  ! Neither does one rally to the Modernist and progressivist Reformation  ! So what is the solution  ? The solution is to reject the Reformation while remaining in the Church. There, however, is no way to dissociate the present Reformation from the Church that is imposing it  ! Unless…

“ … unless we ‘attack’ the very Person of the Pope, since he, and he alone, stands at the crossroads of these two worlds, those of order and disorder, of Tradition and subversion, of the Work of Christ and the machinations of Belial […]. Yet what if every appeal to Rome should also be in vain  ? If the Pope should scorn our concern and our indignation  ? If his obstinate, absolute and terrifying will should uphold those who are demolishing the Church and assassinating the Faith  ?

“ If this is indeed the papal will, the will of the true Vicar of Jesus Christ, then God would be divided against Himself and it would be the end of our faith. There remains one final possibility which explains everything  : that the will of the Pope is that of an apostate. ” Unless it is we who are mistaken. The only way to escape this unbearable doubt is to provoke the Pope into infallibly pronouncing himself. “ Then our faith recovers its certitude, a certitude based on the infallible, immortal Church, which conserves within herself the energy necessary to evict the apostates who are destroying her. ” (CRC no. 38, November 1970, p. 7)


The issue of the Pope’s deposition obliges us to reflect upon his authority over the Church. “ The task of founding the Church in accordance with the plans made by Christ was entrusted to the Apostles and was to be implemented on the Day of Pentecost. It obviously required special gifts from the Holy Spirit, truly singular and extraordinary ones, for the generation of the builders. This is why the Twelve, the Apostles, were made the columns of the Church, endowed with powers so vast and so exceptional that the totality could not be passed on even to their successors. ” (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 5)

The mission of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter, and of the bishops, the successors of the other Apostles, is to preserve the Church, to guard the deposit of the Faith with dedication and to expound it faithfully. Anything that is alien to it remains suspect, anything that is contrary to it is false. “ In order for the Church to have a sound foundation, continuity and perpetual fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ, the fundamental acts of the Pastors of the Church have to be necessarily and indubitably effective, followed by their divine effects. These acts fall within the province of infallible Powers, unconditionally assisted by the Holy Spirit. Other acts are greatly contingent and depend as much on human frailty as on the assistance of the Spirit of God  ; they issue from less extensive powers that require discernment. ” (ibid., p. 5) The successors of the Apostles exercise the powers of order, teaching and government. Their authority, however, is subordinate to that of the Bishop of Rome who, by the express will of Our Lord, is invested with supreme authority. We will only mention here the power of teaching, since it is the only one that is the subject of the third question put to us.


There are several types of authority. It is important to point this out, for the author of the third question makes no distinction by evoking “ the authority… of the Magisterium of the Popes. ”

The teaching of the private man, whether he be Pope or a simple bishop, remains fallible. Even if they are endowed with a dignity, these individuals have marginal liberty to teach under their personal responsibility, personal theories and opinions in the capacity of “ private theologians ”. These notions are worth no more than their intrinsic demonstrative strength. It is of utmost importance that this sort of teaching not be confused, at least in appearance, with the Magisterium.

By contrast, the Church in her unanimous belief is infallible. What all the faithful of the Church have always believed together, unanimously, as divine revelation is infallibly true.

As for the Ordinary Magisterium, it unvaryingly appears as the “ echo of the unanimous Tradition of the Church. ” Yet it is only endowed with a conditional infallibility. “ When the Pope, or a bishop, or even a priest, teaches what the Church has always and universally held to be certain, then he is necessarily and infallibly speaking the truth. In this sense, it would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that we are all infallible, but only insofar (and the exact extent is often difficult to determine) as we are repeating what we ourselves have learned from the Church. So, with some listening to and believing the constant doctrine of the Church, and others teaching and explaining it without mixing anything new or peculiar therein, everyone has a share in the Church’s certitude.

“ On the other hand, if the Pope or the bishops should put forward new or controversial opinions – even as part of their ‘authentic’ teaching, proposed by virtue of their office with the authority of their particular rank –, then such doctrine cannot be considered as coming under the Ordinary Magisterium. It presents no guarantee of infallibility. This is the great weakness of this Ordinary Magisterium that there is no clear line of demarcation separating it from the realm of human opinions.

“ Thus, ever since Pacem in Terris and the so-called Pastoral Constitutions or the Decrees and Declarations of Vatican II, an error is commonly made concerning the authority that these Acts of the Pope and Council possess. Though clearly ‘authentic,’ they totally lack any traditional or universal character  ! As none of this hotchpotch of novelties can justly lay claim to the authority of Tradition, it cannot belong to the Ordinary Magisterium and has no more value than those who have fabricated it. ” (ibid., p. 5 et 6)

Finally, there remains the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium that is of itself strictly and fully infallible. “ This is something indispensable to the Church for, should it happen that on a certain point of doctrine the tradition were not clear or unanimous, or if a long-accepted belief were suddenly contested or even rejected by certain people, then those who possess all power for preserving and defending the deposit of the Revelation will be led to resolve the conflict, to adjudicate the question once and for all by means of a proclamation in the indisputable form of the Truth. The assistance of the Holy Spirit has been promised to them for such decisions. The term solemn or ex cathedra is applied to this infallibility of the Pope and the Council.

“ Such a charism is stupefying  ; it makes man like a God, certain of possessing the absolute truth  ! Yet it is a truth of our faith, believed from all time and proclaimed by the First Vatican Council, henceforth irreformable. It was necessary that it should be so. Recourse to this intrinsic infallibility, as indicated by the very form of the Act which defines the Faith, is the ultimate solution to the doctrinal crises faced by the Church, for in such situations there is no other solution than to believe without further discussion or argument, simply because ‘Rome has spoken,’ because the Pope has spoken ‘ex cathedra,’ because the Council has promulgated a ‘dogmatic constitution’ accompanied with anathemas. It is then that we may be fully confident of hearing the Truth. ” (ibid., p. 6)

Thus, “ in certain matters, under certain precise conditions, the infallibility of the Magisterium is indisputable and absolute  : it is, as it were, God Himself Who is speaking through the Pope, through the Council. In other matters, or when certain conditions are wanting, it is human defectibility that prevails over divine assistance. Even then, it would be good and prudent to believe those whom the Holy Spirit assists so that they do not err and procure the good of souls. There remains, nevertheless, a certain possibility for the pastors to betray their functions and to be mistaken out of ignorance, or to deceive and mislead us out of malice. (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 6)

Even the Pope  ?

“ Yes, outside of his ex cathedra teaching and outside of his Ordinary Magisterium, when he ceases to repeat what the unanimous tradition holds to have been revealed, and therefore when he speaks as a private theologian. ” (ibid., p. 7)

Moreover, an explicit reference to the possibility that the Pope has of deviating from the faith, i.e. to his heresy, is found in a canon of the Decree of Gratian. “ Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anyone, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the Faith. ” Even the First Vatican Council that proclaimed both the dogma of papal infallibility and its limits, “ also strongly proclaimed that outside these conditions, the Pope remained capable of erring and thus could not be blindly followed. ” (ibid.)

Finally, “ several Popes strayed into errors in matters of Faith and persisted in them to the point of condemning the adherents of orthodoxy, sometimes with a certain solemnity. ” (ibid., p. 8)

Our Father drew up a list of five Popes who, “ for one brief moment in their Pontificate, concerning some particular and obscure point, failed in their duty to uphold the purity and integrity of the Faith, or, to be more exact, the firmness of their Magisterium – they were acting from motives of diplomacy or out of the desire to keep the peace rather than from those of formal heresy. What are five cases among 263 Popes and in almost twenty centuries  ? Insignificant – but for the fact that they show that such a thing can happen. ” (ibid.)

Our Father concluded that such a situation, the case of a heretical Pope, is supremely improbable. Thus it is the last hypothesis, the one to be examined when all the others prove themselves insufficient. “ It is the hypothesis of desperation. I can well understand that people do not follow us when we have recourse to this solution, which is possible in the absolute, but statistically improbable […]. Yet, when no other solution remains, when all the proofs have been gathered and converge, neither is faith shaken, nor does hope die, nor does charity find itself wounded to say  : our Pope is a heretic. ” (ibid., p. 9)

What then is to be done in such a situation  ?


Theologians propose two solutions, and Father de Nantes a third one. This third solution is so noteworthy that it was presented by Mr. Cyrille Dounot, professor of history of law at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, and Mr. Oliver Échappé, Counsellor at the French Court of Cassation, during the colloquium, which was organised on March 30 and 31, 2017 by the Pantheon-Sorbonne University. This colloquium was devoted to “ The deposition of a Pope – Loci theologiae, canonical models and constitutional issues. ”

“ Papa haereticus depositus est... A heretical Pope is deposed. ” This is the solution advocated by Robert Bellarmine in the heyday of the Counter-Reformation. “ Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a withdrawal from the Church, any Pope who should fall into heresy, would find himself ipso facto cut off from the Church. He is, by this very fact, deposed. He ceases to occupy the Apostolic See of his own accord. ” (ibid., p. 10) This solution is impracticable. It would suffice for anyone to declare, according to his own private whim, that the Pope is heretical and to conclude that there is no longer any pope. This would have no effect other than to cause confusion.

“ Papa haereticus deponendus est... a heretical Pope must be deposed. ” This is the solution proposed by Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians. It implies two important consequences. “ If it so happens that a Pope is a heretic, he must be deposed for him to cease being the Pope. Furthermore, the person who accuses the Pope of heresy must not leave it at that, but must ask for the legal process for his deposition to be undertaken, since he cannot make a universally and immediately executory decision of his personal judgement. ” (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 10) This is a wise solution, yet it raises further questions, in particular, who will judge the Pope  ?

Our Father brought the key to the difficulty that Cajetan was unable to solve, and for good reason, since it presupposes a definition of pontifical infallibility. “ For, to the decisive question  : who in the final resort will sovereignly decide the matter once the trial of a heretical, schismatic or scandalous Pope has commenced  ? Only the dogma of Vatican I provides the possibility of a realistic solution. Who will judge the Pope  ? Why, the Pope himself, in his infallible doctrinal Magisterium  ! ” (ibid.)

Who will bring forward the accusation  ? Any Christian, provided however, and the condition is of importance, that he be a member of Holy Church. Before what court  ? The only true tribunal competent in matters of Faith is the Church herself, by virtue of her authority as the Spouse of the Lord. Her competence is universal, her judgements are infallible. The believing Church owes her faith to and retains her ‘sensus fidei’ through the constant help given by the teaching Church. The canonical proceedings would have to be instituted before the whole Church, either by representative members of the Hierarchy, or by a tribunal consisting of theologians merely charged with establishing whether or not the teaching and the acts of the Pontiff are compatible with the Catholic Faith and the Tradition of the Church, subject to an infallible sentence that is not within its competence. ”

Who will be the Sovereign Judge  ? The Pope speaking ex cathedra. The infallible Pope will thus pass judgement on the fallible Pope. He alone can be judge and litigant in his own case.

What are the possible outcomes of such a process  ? The Pope would rebut his accuser and repeat the contested teachings, which until then he had only given in the exercise of his authentic Magisterium, this time in the form of a solemn pronouncement. Or he would admit his own error and recant. Or the Pope might refuse to listen to his accuser, to settle the object of the dispute. In this case, his repeated refusal would constitute a resignation and the sentence of deposition would thus be the canonical conclusion of this acknowledgement of the Pope’s resignation.

No one came forth to give such an admonition, to undertake such proceedings against Pope Paul VI. Our Father, who had been the only person to lead the Catholic Counter-Reformation since the end of the Council, thus took it upon himself, he alone, as a simple priest, to bear this truly overwhelming cross. It would be the “ great affair ” of his life, an affair in which a son was to rise up against his father, the reigning Pope, to accuse him of heresy, schism and scandal with a view to having him deposed. We must now present a brief account of this unprecedented trial. It began on July 16, 1966.


On December 10, 1965, immediately after the closing of the Council, Bishop Le Couëdic, who at the time was Bishop of Troyes, enjoined Father de Nantes to leave the diocese and to stop publishing the Letters To My Friends, under pain of a suspension a divinis. Father de Nantes proposed to his bishop that a doctrinal judgement on all his past writings should be demanded from the Sovereign Magisterium in the Court of Rome, even if it meant suspending, but only temporarily, his criticism of the Council, and submitting his writing to episcopal pre-publication censorship. Bishop Le Couëdic agreed in principal with the proposal.


In a petition dated July 16, 1966, Father de Nantes officially deferred to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the 220 Letters To My Friends that had been written between 1956 and 1966, and which were organised according to a detailed and precise chronological summary. They formed the substance of the doctrinal examination and constituted incriminatory documents against the Fathers of the Council and Pope Paul VI because of the criticisms that they contained and that were aimed at them.

In a second part, our Father stated the motives for such a singular initiative  : “ The Council firstly abandoned the exercise of its divine Authority, refusing to engage in doctrinal work, ” while demanding everyone’s obedience in the pastoral sphere. Alarming disorders ensued from this situation. The divine authority of the Church, however, must remain in order “ to teach us the Church’s dogmas and laws, without first asking us to adopt more new opinions. ” (Letter To My Friends no. 231, July 16, 1966, p. 6-8)

“ Henceforth, two interwoven but distinct powers, coexist within the Church. The one is divine, unchangeable and sovereign  ; the other is human, sectarian and ever changing. The precarious survival of an oppressed traditionalist school, of an openly counter-reformist minority, is a sign that the Church cannot be absorbed by any sect, and that the divine, will never be supplanted by the human in her living Magisterium. Beyond reformation, dialogue, ecumenism, opening to and serving the world, and the cult of man, there remains the Church, which is ‘God’s great thought about the World,’ the inviolably faithful Bride of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the One, the Holy, the Catholic, the Apostolic and I add – because this word specifies the mainspring of all our hope – the Roman Church. ” (ibid., p. 9.)

Accordingly, Father de Nantes required of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the name of both the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches, and the Pope, that it powerfully and decisively perform a work of discernment “ among the various Spirits disputing the Saviour’s blessed inheritance ” (ibid., p. 11.) It would be incumbent upon it to decide between two Spirits. On the one hand, a Spirit in the service of which the conciliar Assembly has placed itself. This Spirit inspires and enlightens each conscience, brings about a mysterious convergence of ideas and commitments, opposite and beyond the ecclesiastical Institution, in order to reach a general reconciliation of all men that overcomes their divergences of opinions, religions and interests. It, however, inspires loathing and contempt for all that was and still remains today of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit, Whose mission “ is a mission of tradition […], Who inspires penance, conversion, religious instruction and the sanctification of the faithful. ” He cannot separate Himself from Jesus Christ. Neither can He detach Himself from the Church. On the contrary, He “ inspires all men, but more especially the faithful and even more so the Pastors of the flock, with esteem, respect and love for all that is Catholic, and with defiance, contempt and hatred for errors and disorders inimical to it. ” (ibid.)

Our Father had defined the object of the litigation and imposed on the Holy Office the redoubtable alternative of having to adjudicate between him and the Pope  !

Out of courtesy Father de Nantes had given a copy of this petition to Bishop Le Couëdic so that he could take cognizance of it before forwarding it to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith through the hierarchical channel. The Bishop who scarcely a few months previously had boasted to his confreres that he would reduce to silence the sole opponent of the conciliar Reformation, was himself “ reduced ” to transmitting to the Holy Office, and what is more, under his authority, a powerful investigation file that called the Council and the Pope into question. It was not a mere doctrinal examination of the written works of a private theologian  !

In these circumstances, Bishop Le Couëdic categorically refused to forward the petition. The stated motive was the alleged offensive nature of the document instituting the proceedings, as though the Bishop of Troyes had the authority to assess the admissibility of petitions addressed to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, especially for such a reason. Our Father, therefore, sent his petition directly to the Roman dicastery and above all published it, despite an incredible prohibition imposed by the Bishop of Troyes.

Our Father thus saved his canonical action from being lost in the maze of Rome, but he paid a heavy price for this publication  : Bishop Le Couëdic immediately suspended him a divinis, for life, since neither he nor his successors ever deigned to lift the suspension – Bishop Daucourt would even try to aggravate it in 1997. As for our Father, he straightaway refrained from appealing. At the very moment when he was publicly contesting the orthodoxy of the Reformation of the Church, it seemed to him that it would be best to show complete submission to the disciplinary decisions of the hierarchy, even if arbitrary, since they were aimed at him alone. For our Father, moreover, it was important not to let himself be distracted from the essential and sacred action that he was undertaking for the triumph of the holy Faith, simply to defend his honour and personal rights.


For two years, nothing filtered through concerning the meticulous study of the voluminous dossier of the Letters To My Friends that the Holy Office had undertaken. In April 1968, however, the procedure accelerated  : our Father was summoned to Rome and found himself before three consultors, “ learned, well-disposed theologians with no weakness, ” and what is more, experts on the deliberations of the Council (CRC no. 24, September 1969, p. 4., published in English in CCR no. 78, September 1976, pp. 3-20.) They were Fathers Gagnebet and Duroux, Dominicans, and Dhanis, the enigmatic Jesuit.

The substance of what was to be examined was precise  : “ It was to question the idea of a ‘Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th century.’ Since the hierarchy had proclaimed the Reformation of the Church, might one sustain doctrinally a traditionalism that was fiercely opposed to it and might one oppose practically its authoritative implementation  ? ” (ibid.)

The examiners first assessed the admissibility of the action of the applicant. Did he profess the exact Catholic Faith, which alone could authorise him to act against his legitimate pastors  ? The examination of the doctrines that Father de Nantes had developed throughout his Letters To My Friends soon proved that he had the Catholic Faith.

Then, when replying to a series of questions intended to put him in an awkward position, our Father had the wisdom to avoid taking a stand based either on a narrow-minded sectarianism or on a certain breadth of vision through which it would have been possible to steer him through the breach towards the openings effected by Vatican II. This first part of the proceedings therefore ended to the advantage of the defendant.

The consultors could then no longer defer dealing with the main object of this trial  : the accusations levelled by Father de Nantes against the authors of the conciliar Reformation and foremost among them  : the Sovereign Pontiff.

“ I, the defendant, became the prosecutor. My examiners were transformed into the counsel for the defence, or rather they became the defendants. By virtue of our exact and firm Catholic Faith, I rose up against the dogmatic presuppositions of a so-called pastoral Reformation. The consultors had not been able to catch me out, but now they sought to refute my criticisms of the new reformed religion […]. Thereupon ensued some rather confused discussions. On the meaning and significance of the conciliar and papal slogans we were far from agreement  : collegiality, the serving Church, religious liberty, opening to the world, ecumenism, peace, culture, etc. It was a war of words.

“ At this point my examiners lost the clarity, the objectivity, and the security that the Catholicism of all times affords. Their calmness and self-composure gave way to impatience and aggressiveness. These learned gentlemen sank up to their boots into the sludge of the conciliar equivocations, ambiguities, and confusions that one could sense they had not yet left behind. In order to cope, they accused me of seeing the Acts of the Council and the discourses of Paul VI only through the interpretations of others. They contrasted the promulgated texts with the whole apparatus of the discussions and commentaries that had prepared and followed them. They supported an unreal Council, in conflict with the para-Council and the post-Council.

“ The sort of battlefield through which we were galloping was in their dazed eyes the site of a new and radiant human city in mid-construction. They wanted to believe in the mirage. For me, as far as the eye could see, it was the ruins of the Holy City, devastated by a cyclone. Whenever we recalled such and such an act or discourse, they would have me taste its sugar and its tea  ; they failed to notice the arsenic that made it into a poison […].

“ The madness of the whole world was of little importance for them. They judged none but me, since I had been the only one insolent enough to have requested it, and they condemned my conservative opposition, even more criminal than the other sort, the revolutionary, which it reinforced, they said, causing the greatest damage to Rome’s Authority. I tried to take up some of my proofs. It was useless. One does not clarify in twenty hours what hundreds of cunning theologians have rendered inextricably confusing in five years of conciliar Byzantinism […].

“ They had nothing more to tell me than their conviction, their human, desperate persuasion of grand personages who are secretly just as disquieted and disturbed as we are. I recopy the way I had jotted down their entreaties, which are really in the nature of confessions  : ‘Yes, masdu (Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy) exists, but not in the Council, nor in the thinking and the Acts of the Pope, fear not… Take on Cardonnel  ; no one will say anything, but do not take on the Pope  ! In the long run, we will manage to reabsorb the aberrations, the postconciliar disorders, but be confident, the Council is the work of the Holy Spirit  ! No, the Pope is not a heretic, he cannot be  ! No, there is no heresy in the Council, there cannot by any  ! Instead of criticising them, you should, with all your talent and your influence, demonstrate that they did not say and desire what some have made them out to say and desire  !’

“ Poor, admirable, Roman theologians. How I would have liked to share your good faith  ! Yet when you ended up believing that I was carried away by your example or convinced by your authority, I was only measuring the abyss that separated you from the rest of the Church and from the Pope himself. I remained hurt but inert to your appeal  : ‘Tell us simply that you accept the Council and that you have trust in the Holy Father with a pure, straightforward, and unreserved allegiance, and no one will demand anything else from you  !

“ I had to bring things to an end. I dictated to the Italian clerk of court  : ‘Est, est. Non, non.’ ‘What do you mean by that  ?’ the president asked me. ‘That means that what is, is and remains so, independently of my accusations.’ ‘You persist, therefore, in your criticisms of the Pope and the Council  ?’ ‘Yes’ ” (CRC no. 24, September 1969, pp. 3-4.)

At the end of the canonical proceedings, the applicant was invited to read and countersign the record written by the ecclesiastical clerk of the court. This man, an Italian, had manifestly not understood anything. The judges and plaintiff agreed  : this worthless document was inadmissible. What should be done  ? Who, in three days, could write a precise, accurate, exhaustive and, most of all, impartial report concerning these long hours of subtle theological debate  ? The judges, quite embarrassed, entrusted this task to the plaintiff who wrote the record that the consultors approved and countersigned  !

The case was remitted to the following July 1, the date on which the cardinals, members of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would announce their verdict.


On July 1, 1968, Father de Nantes was summoned once again to the Palace of the Holy Office. No judgement was rendered, yet he was required purely and simply to retract his criticisms against the Pope, the Second Vatican Council and the French bishops, and to swear a complete, unconditional and unlimited obedience to all of them. Thus the preliminary investigation of the trial that had taken place two months earlier had not been taken into account. The doctrinal judgement that had been demanded with such resolve had not been rendered, yet Father de Nantes was being required to make an unlimited, ‘Muslim’ submission, accompanied by an overwhelming threat  : his refusal of a general retraction would be penalised by an excommunication. Our Father refused to sign the formula of recantation, which was being imposed on him.

Thus, during almost a year, our Father received no news from Rome. Undoubtedly, the cardinals of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would gladly have been satisfied with this status quo if the French episcopate had not, at the same time, published new catechisms inspired by the “ Fonds commun obligatoire. ” Our Father had shown its scandalously heretical character and had made it his duty to set off on a veritable National Crusade in order to denounce it. Everywhere he went, he spoke before full-house audiences.

Undoubtedly acting under collegial pressure of the Bishops of France, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on August 10, 1969 a notification in the form of a terse press release that propagated “ a spate of blatant lies. ” It contained a lie concerning the alleged errors of Father de Nantes. He had purportedly been demanded to retract them. Yet the three consultors had found no doctrinal error of which he was culpable. It contained a lie concerning the alleged rebellion of the accused against the legitimate authority of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Finally, it contained the Church’s defamation of Father de Nantes who, by the alleged bad example of his rebellion against the Magisterium of the Hierarchy, disqualifies his entire work and his activities.

This notification, however, was accompanied by no canonical sanction. Father de Nantes was indeed defamed but not condemned. This implicitly and necessarily acknowledges the fact that the author of the writings, which had been the object of careful study by the consultors of the Holy Office, holds the truth, while the Pope whom these very writings criticise is in error. Thus, the admission of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, in the end, had fulfilled its function, raises the question of the indictment of the Pope so that he might be judged. Father de Nantes did not want to act hastily and preferred to appeal to God’s help, to His faithfulness and His mercy in order for Him to move the Holy Father’s heart, or else remove him from his See, “ within three years. ” In the meantime, another task awaited our Father and which legitimised his appeal from the Pope to the Pope  : to defend confused Catholics made desperate by the Conciliar Reformation from the temptation of leaving the Church.


“ I believe that I put all my strength into fighting heresy until July 16, 1969. From July 21 on, we gradually engaged in the fight against schism. ”

On that day, Father de Nantes received a visit of several integrist priests who tried to lure him into schism. They considered, on their own authority, that the new Ordo Missæ, which was due to come into force on November 30, 1969, was heretical and made the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass invalid. They contended that Pope Paul VI was deposed by the mere fact that he had promulgated it. Our Father tried, in vain, to show them that even if one were to assume that the Pope had fallen from office from the very fact of having promulgated a heretical and invalid Mass, it would still be necessary for the whole Church to confirm and ratify this “ deposition ” by a judgement of the competent Roman authority. “ You may reason, prove, and argue as much as you like in formulating an accusation of heresy against Paul VI. However, as long as the Magisterium of the Church has not rendered a dogmatic sentence, your thinking will be nothing more than the opinion of a theologian who could be wrong. Therefore, it is essential to obtain a judgement. ” Since these priests did not want to listen to these compelling Catholic and Roman reasons, our Father literally threw them out of the house, not wanting to maintain relations with openly schismatic clerics, but he understood that the reform of the rite of the Mass would henceforth threatened the House of God with a new danger.

Being totally unbiased, our Father immediately put his theological analyses to the test of the practice of the local Churches and of Rome. Everywhere, whether in Rome or Madrid, in Germany, Switzerland, Portugal and even in Australia, he had observed that the new rite imposed by the Pope’s will was accepted by everyone, although without enchantment. Thus, it was impossible to affirm that this Mass was invalid since the entire Catholic Church throughout the world accepted to celebrate it every day. “ The entire Church could never have accepted, even out of obedience to the Pope, a mere simulacrum of the Sacrifice. This argument is categorical  : if today, all over the world, the mass of Catholic priests were celebrating an invalid liturgy, giving the faithful nothing but bread and wine to adore and consume in place of the adorable Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and if the whole Catholic community were taking part in the deception in a mistaken faith, then the promises of Christ to His Church would be void, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against her and there would no longer exist a Church of God  ! ” (CRC no. 30, suppl., Easter 1970, p. 1.)

Since the new rite of the Mass was valid although bad, Father de Nantes, with an entirely supernatural wisdom, implored his friends and readers, to tolerate it and not to set as a programme “ to impose our views, our liturgy and our traditions upon our fathers and brethren in the faith through the use of force. Yet, in our certainty of having remained faithful to the true institutions and the will of Christ, we have the noble ambition of holding on to them, of defending them steadfastly and of getting all the others to love them too, whilst we wait for God Himself to convert the hearts of our Pastors who have gone astray. ” (ibid., p. 4) This could only be done by remaining in our parishes to maintain an irreplaceable living, sacramental contact with the Church.

During this period of conciliar disorientation, to despair of the Church to the point of forming one’s own chapel, sect, or even schism was for many traditionalist Catholics the great temptation, to which many finally succumbed. In doing so, they turned away from the only effective fight for the service of the Church  : the fight against the Reformation. To wage it, however, it is necessary to remain in the Church, being truly convinced that “ we are not the saviours of the Church. The Church is still and always our Ark of Salvation. Even though I cannot see it, I believe with the certainty of faith that the Church’s salvation resides today as yesterday in her Pastors. Even though they have temporarily fallen into error and into the sectarianism of their ‘Reformation,’ grace nevertheless still subsists in them indefectibly, imperceptible, it is ready to irradiate, on the day appointed by God, for the salvation of all. The trouble may be very great and the danger to souls mortal but God does not wish to govern us except through the Hierarchy. […]. The Church is not in us  ; she subsists in those very ones whom we see occupied with her ruin yet whom we believe to be the bearers of Christ’s grace by virtue of their Apostolic Jurisdiction. (CRC no. 25, October 1969, p. 12.)

That is why Father de Nantes decided in the spring of 1970 to found a League in the service of ‘The Church, the Church Alone’ (Editorial of CRC no. 30, March 1970) in order to keep on board the members of the faithful who were tempted to “ abandon ship ” and maintain them on the narrow path of Catholic fidelity. “ I do not claim any merit for having shown you the way. It was mapped out for me by article 28 of the Rule under which we live here, and which is much older than our present problems  : ‘The Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart will love one another as members of one family, the Church. They will never set up their Order in rivalry or opposition to any other community of any sort. Only one community exists for them and that is the one that includes them all – the Catholic Church.’ […] We repudiate any integrist ‘esprit de corps’ just as we suffer agony and death as a result of the reformist ‘esprit de corps,’ which has enlisted against us the whole hierarchical chain of the oppressors of the Church […]. How odious is this sectarian spirit  ! The only esprit de corps that is inspired by supernatural Wisdom is that which configures us to the Holy Spirit in His unique love for His Body, the Church  : the mystical Esprit de corps, the only one that is holy. (CRC no. 31, April 1970, pp. 1-2.)

Alas  ! Few traditionalists benefitted from these salutary lessons, although they radiated truth in a loving, unwavering loyalty to the Catholic communion that had to be maintained at all costs, then and still today. A large number of them, exasperated by post-conciliar anarchy, preferred to turn their eyes towards Archbishop Lefebvre who was founding a seminary in Econe. It was opened with the temporary permission of Rome, in order “ to experience Tradition, ” while refraining from designating those who were primarily responsible for the Reformation that he was supposed to remedy stealthily, namely the Pope and the Council.

Father de Nantes publicly urged Archbishop Lefebvre to “ strike at the head, ” that is to say, to accuse the Pope of heresy, schism and scandal, openly. “ As long as you spare the Head, you will not control the members. As long as you obey the Head, you will be crushed by the claws and the teeth of this Masdu (Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy). ” (CRC no. 89, February 1975, p. 2)

Archbishop Lefebvre did nothing and what was bound to happen occurred, as Father de Nantes had anticipated. He received an order from Rome to close the Seminary at Econe and despite the prohibition, he ordained fifteen priests on June 29, 1976. Twelve years later, he consummated his schism by consecrating four bishops with no pontifical mandate. “ What a mess  ! ” our Father wrote in July 1976  : “ To be right on the essential issue and put oneself in the wrong by separating from the one Church of Jesus Christ. ” (CRC n° 108, August 1976, p. 2) He warned his friends and readers that it was henceforth “ not only useless, but reprehensible ” to support Archbishop Lefebvre’s foundations.

During these years, the Pope had no change of heart and God did not remove him from his office to pass it on to someone worthier of it. In January 1973, our Father witnessed a veritable self-demolition of the Church  : “ Catechisms everywhere corrupt the pure souls of children and corrode the faith of priests themselves. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the object of countless sacrileges, the consequence of all Roman directives. It has reached the point where the real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrament is despised. The sexual obsession that devours clergy and religious invades their colleges and abandons Christian society to aberrations that are the most formidable for the future of religion and civilisation. Politics has invaded the sanctuary  ; it is seditious against the last Catholic states, socialising in our country, servile towards the Power in the Eastern countries. Celebrating Peace as though it were a divinity, is a betrayal of the free world under the threat of immanent invasion. ” (CRC No. 64, January 1973, p. 1)

Our Father was astounded that so many others, that all the others, who are replete with wisdom, science, virtues and holiness, had not risen before him. He concluded that we now had to accept to do with the help of God what God did not want to do without us  : “ We must attempt the ultimate step. It falls within our competence  ; it is our duty. We have to go to Rome and remonstrate with the Pope in person concerning the heresy, schism and scandal for which he is primarily responsible. ” (ibid.)


The notification of August 10, 1969, a powerful act of defamation on the part of the Church but bereft of any condemnation, was a remarkable confirmation of the legitimacy of Father de Nantes grave suspicions against the Council and Pope Paul VI. Hence, it fell to our Father to draw up a book of accusation to compel the Sovereign Pontiff to render a sovereign, infallible and liberating judgement in his own case. In the end, our Father would do so three times during the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II.


After having requested an audience and announced his coming to Rome, Father de Nantes presented himself on Tuesday, April 10, 1973 at the Bronze Door of the Papal Household, accompanied by the brothers of his Community and by around sixty friends of the movement of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in order submit to the Holy Father a book, a Memorandum, comprising 102 pages written in the course of a few weeks. As he advanced in his drafting, our Father developed an implacable, logical series of accusations that reveal all the elements and interconnections of a system, “ which forms the most dangerous and subtle instrument of war to have ever been introduced into the Church for her ruin. ” Here is the essential.

Pope Paul VI was accused of pursuing, as his pontifical programme, the chimera of the construction of a new world in which religion would be confined to a mere role of spiritual animation. To achieve this, he “ slashed ” the divine authority of the Church and proclaimed the cult of man.

a) The obliteration of the divine authority of the Church.

Paul VI forcefully imposed religious freedom on the Church, a freedom that had nevertheless been irrevocably condemned, thus marking a break with the Magisterium of his predecessors and, when that was achieved, he abstained from exercising his legislative, judicial and coercive powers. He wanted to be loved rather than obeyed, to charm rather than command, disregarding the rights and wills of Jesus Christ, Whose Vicar he was. During his pontificate there was a profusion of all sorts of errors and distressing scandals. He did not want to remedy them and was their consenting accomplice. Two examples are particularly illustrative.

First of all, the scandalous affair of the Dutch Catechism  : Pope Paul VI was fully aware of its heretical character as evidenced by the clarifications that he made in the articles of the Creed, which he published in 1968. Yet, he did nothing to prevent the diffusion of this so-called catechism throughout the world. Through the fault of the Sovereign Pontiff, the teaching of the Faith was irremediably corrupted in the entire Church.

Another scandal is the abandoning by thousands of priests and religious of their vocation after the Sovereign Pontiff created, on February 2, 1964, an ad hoc commission and made known that he would annul of the vows of all those who would asked him to do so. Paul VI became the greatest tempter of his priests […], the powerful accomplice of the flesh […] by accepting to release them from their vows in the diocesan officiality in order for them to be able to go the very next day into a church to get married before God, the betrayed but happy Spouse, and with His blessing. Thus a form of divorce by mutual consent was introduced into this mystical marriage by forcing God to withdraw in favour of the love for a human creature, The duties of Paul VI’s charity would have obliged him to say no, to cause distress, to thwart, to insist on self-denial, forcing chastity upon them.

“ As in the decadent epochs of the past, it is through the marriage of priests that moral ruin has entered the Church. Today, however, for the first time in history, this has taken place with the consent, the complicity and the collaboration of the Vicar of Christ  ! ” The clergy’s moral scandals that arise today allow us to measure the extent of the consequences of this tragic corruption of priestly celibacy. Paul VI’s personal responsibility is considerable.

By allowing all errors defile the Church, Paul VI was at the same time guilty of a rebellion against her. He cast aspersion on the Church’s past, taught his people to despise her heritage. The liturgical reform of the Mass was a tragic illustration of this. He abusively invoked the authority of the Council and the obedience due to it in order to impose it, in reality, on his own authority. This reform proved to be the primary instrument of the deterioration of the Magisterium of the Church, in particular through both the disorder in the ritual for the Sacraments and the calling into question of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass.

Paul VI presented his encyclical Ecclesiam suam, of August 6, 1964, in this way  : “ Nor do We propose to make this encyclical a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or of moral or social principles. ” Thus, he introduced a new relation both within the Church and with the world. She no longer wanted to deliver teaching in an authoritative manner, but she was to become “ conversation ” and promote dialogue at every opportunity. “ It is a way of making spiritual contact […] avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. ” Nevertheless, since Paul VI claimed to be illumined by the Holy Spirit, he did not hesitate to confer on his personal, innovatory magisterium, unknown to those who had preceded him on the throne of Saint Peter, “ a supposedly divinely inspired extra-canonical infallibility. Having no lawful basis, this infallibility is not at all of an authoritative nature, but it is rather an enticement, a communication of love devoid of any other force of obligation. ”

Paul VI thus obliterated the traditional Magisterium in order to have the Church accepted as the servant of the world, which is nevertheless dominated by Satan. It would be a world in which all men would be fundamentally good and whose vocation would be to unite, for all of them would be motivated by a sincere desire for friendship, peace and justice, in order to bring to it a ‘supplement’ of faith and love. “ Without, however, offending in any way against the autonomy or the justifiably secular character of the earthly city, but merely through a silent osmosis of example and spiritual virtue. ” (Sermon of June 17, 1965) In reality, it was a betrayal by Paul VI of the charge entrusted to him by Christ, which required him not to strengthen but rather to curse this new, ideal and secular City as a house built in defiance of the Lord.

This unobtrusive Magisterium led to the attenuation of dogmas and the commandments of God considered as obstacles to universal brotherhood, and of the Sacraments, which had become unnecessary on the building site of the world under construction. Ultimately, it meant both the annihilation of our entire religion, invited to fraternise with all the others, to work together in the temporal task that has become a new and common justification for their existence, and the collapse of the institution of the Catholic Church. Christians are required to deny that they are any different from the rest and, unknowingly, they will finish in apostasy, the path that Pope himself has opened, in the name of a Christian humanism, which has become atheist.

Through Pope Paul VI’s actions, the Catholic religion has become – at least to all intents and purposes – one opinion among many and has actually ceased to govern the world of men. “ Its objective quality will be clouded over. The distinction between Heaven and Hell, between the Grace of God and His Malediction, between piety and impiety, will pale into insignificance, ” Father de Nantes pointed out while addressing himself to the Holy Father. “ What increases consequently is man’s pride, for by your dialogue you have invited him to make himself judge of divine realities. From the moment that you proclaimed dialogue as the only lawful tool of the apostolate, the world of Christianity began to shake in its foundations  : for instead of God being the acknowledged Judge of man, it is now man who is called upon to judge God. ”

b) The proclamation of the cult of man.

The innermost mainspring of Paul VI’s teaching was an unfettered, strange love of every man, whoever he may be, a love that adores its object and has no regard for the Truth of God, or His Law  : Love, love for the men of today, whoever and wherever they may be, love for all. ” (Speech of September 14, 1965)

Such a love knows no constraint because it is no longer dependent on the love of God nor modelled by Him, and soon turns into idealisation and idolatry of its object. This leads the Pope to a most extravagant faith in man  : “ For we have faith in Man. We believe in the good which lies deep within each heart, we know that underlying man’s wonderful efforts are the motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress and brotherhood – even where they are accompanied by dissension or sometimes even, unfortunately, by violence. It is your task, not to flatter him but to help him become conscious of his true value and his true potential. ” (Declaration of December 2, 1970, in Sydney)

This faith in man is nothing other than the cult of man, which the Holy Father dared to proclaim openly, on December 7, 1965, before the entire assembled Council, in the course of a discourse “ unlike any other in the annals of the Church and unlike any other that is ever to come  : ”

“ The Conciliar Church has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, living man, man totally taken up with himself, man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the principle and finality of all reality. Secular, profane humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible stature and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against a religion – for there is such a one – of man who makes himself God.

“ And what happened  ? A shock, a battle, an anathema  ? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with a boundless sympathy. The attention of this Synod was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth (sic  !) makes himself greater.

“ Do you at least recognise this its merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism  : we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man. ”

This allows us to assess how your heteropraxy is inexorably slipping into a full and entire heterodoxy, ” our Father commented. “ I can no longer refer to it as heresy, but as apostasy. And all through your apostolic generosity  ! Against all the wise counsels and infallible teaching of all your Predecessors, you want to be the Good Samaritan of the Gospel, affectionately turning your attention to every man his brother. And in your unfettered love you make friends with the Goliath of the Modern World, kneeling before the Enemy of God who only defies and hates you. Instead of steeling your heart and fighting, like David, against the Adversary, you express yourself full of love for him, you flatter him, and end up in his exclusive service  ! Your charity turns into adoration and service of the Enemy of God to the extent even of rivalling him in his error and even in his blasphemy. ”

Paul VI did not need to read this book. He was aware of the accusations brought against him by Father de Nantes because of the Trial of 1968 during which the judges were unable to find any doctrinal errors against his accuser. So as not to be obliged to recant and in defiance of the duties of his office, Paul VI obstructed the examination of this complaint. Several serried rows of plain-clothes policemen and armed carabinieri of the Italian police before the Bronze door to prevent its deposit, were his only response to this Book of Accusation, which alone invalidates the canonisation of him who has been profaning our altars since October 14, 2018.

It is undoubtedly in order to avoid the instituting of an adversarial trial of John Paul II’s cause that Benedict XVI hastened the proceedings of his canonisation, on April 27, 2014, without responding to the numerous criticisms that were formulated by Father Georges de Nantes, our Founder, in the form of a “ complaint against our brother in the Faith Karol Wojtyla, on account of heresy, schism and scandal. ”


The grounds for this complaint were collected in a “ Book of Accusation ” presented to the Holy See on May 13, 1983 by Father de Nantes and two hundred delegates of the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Although this action was in accordance with the Canons 212, 221, and 1417 of the Code of Canon Law, the authorities have always refused to examine or even to accept this accusation against the reigning Sovereign Pontiff. It is thus still pending judgement. If the Holy See recognises its legitimacy, it would have to forbid the “ cult ” of dulia that is fraudulently rendered to the “ holy ” Popes of the conciliar Reform.

Today, Father de Nantes, though dead, still speaks against John Paul II’s heresy, the corollary of “ the faith in man who makes himself God, ” which was proclaimed by his predecessor and “ spiritual Father, ” Paul VI. In the exordium of this second Book of accusation, Father de Nantes cited a text on which he declared himself prepared to stake his entire faith and his eternal life  : “ One on which the whole case could be judged. ” It concerns pages 222 to 227 of the “ Dialogue with André Frossard – from his book N’ayez pas peur (Be not Afraid) –, in which the part attributed to you, ” Father de Nantes wrote, addressing himself to John Paul II, “ was, in fact, written, revised and carefully amended by you before being published in 1982. ”

In the incriminating pages, John Paul II quoted the reply of Jesus to Pilate  : “ Yes, I am a king. For this was I born and for this came I into the world that I should give testimony to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears My voice. ” He commented  : “ Christ is king in the sense that in Him, in the testimony He rendered to the truth, is made manifest thekingshipof every human being, the expression of the transcendent character of the person. Such is the proper heritage of the Church. ”

This affirmation categorically contradicts Catholic tradition according to which the truth for which Our Lord Jesus Christ died concerns God His Father and Himself, in His unique, sacred, inviolable and inaccessible Holiness, in other words, in His “ transcendence ” as Son of God, only King of the universe and Saviour of His people. On the other hand, John Paul II makes Christ into a martyr of the dignity, the kingship, and the so-called transcendence of man.

a) Esotericism.

Father de Nantes reveals what biographers ordinarily conceal  : Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, master and friend of Karol Wojtyla, was a disciple of the theosophist Rudolf Steiner, an adept of a non-dogmatic and evolutionist cosmic Christianity. This cannot be seen as a simple influence on Karol in his youth, fascinated by the enthralling magic of the theatrical art, since, when he became the Archbishop of Cracow, he wrote an introduction for Kotlarczyk’s book, “ The Art of the Living Word. ” In this introduction he develops a theory according to which “ a group of people of one mind subject to the poetic word (sic) assumes an ethical significance  : the significance of solidarity in the Word (sic  !), and of loyalty with regard to the Word. ”

Oddly enough, this preface of Karol Wojtyla does not figure in the inventories of his works… Is this omission made so as not to hinder his canonisation  ?

In order fully to grasp how contrary to the Catholic faith is this alleged “ transcendence of man, ” the principle of dialogue with atheists faithfully practiced by Pope John Paul II, one only has to read the transcription of the retreat “ Sign of Contradiction. ” In it, he refers to the words of 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 that shall be contradicted. ” (Lk 2  :34)

By applying it to the Hegelian contradiction between the Catholic religion (thesis) and modern atheism (antithesis), he intends to show that the idea of a God Who does not accept the kingship of man is an appalling misunderstanding, which he gives himself the mission of dispelling.

For, instead of condemning the “ speculative deicide ” by which the scientist and the modern philosopher refuses to submit to the authority of God, substituting their own for it, as though they were themselves God, Cardinal Wojtyla justifies this crime of deicide through an entirely new exegesis of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis. His entire reasoning rests on a novel interpretation of the Biblical account of original sin, according to which the fault would have consisted not in rising up against God, but in succumbing to the “ lie ” of Satan, making Adam and Eve believe that God was jealous of their kingship  !

“ It all began with an untruth that one might think was merely based on faulty information and showed an innocent intention  :Has God told you then not to eat of any of the trees in paradise  ?’ The woman unhesitatingly corrects the faulty information, perhaps without sensing that this is merely an opening gambit, a prelude to what the Father of Lies is about to say to her. Here is what follows. First he calls into question the veracity of God  :You will not die  !Thus he attacks the very existence of the Covenant between God and man. ” (p. 43)

Father de Nantes points out that Cardinal Wojtyla has, in his account, “ skirted around the existence of a God-given precept to our first parents  : ” “ You may freely eat of every tree of the garden  ; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. ” (Gn 2  :16-17) The result of this clever “ omission ” is the effacing of this first truth ‘that God has the right to command, that He has in fact commanded His creature, under pain of punishment, that which He willed to command him, demanding of him his obedience for the pure and simple good, merit, advantage and glory of obedience. ” According to Wojtyla, it is totally the fault of Satan, whose “ statement is intended, ” he says, “ to destroy the truth about the God of the Covenant, about the God who creates out of love, who out of love concludes a Covenant with humanity in the person of Adam, and who out of love lays upon man requirements that apply to the very essence and on the very reason of man. ”

Thus, according to this exegesis, love excludes any law that would exceed what “ the very essence of man ” under the control of “ reason ” demands. This amounts to making authority a sin, and disobedience a natural and virtuous reaction to any trampling on the liberty of man by God or anyone else.

The result is that obedience, submission, and adoration are three demands falsely attributed to God by Satan, according to Wojtyla  :

“ The God of the Covenant is effectively presented to the woman as a Sovereign who is jealous of the mystery of His absolute rule. He is presented as an adversary of man against whom man needs to rebel. ” (p. 44)

This would have created a tragic “ misunderstanding ”, which has traversed all of history down to us  :

“ One might say that here we are at the beginning of the temptation of man, the beginning of a long process that will unfurl itself throughout history. ” (p. 44)

Today, this trick of the Devil explains modern atheism, and has pitted modern man against God since the birth of humanism. Fortunately, this misunderstanding was dispelled by Second Vatican Council when it solemnly proclaimed “ the fully legitimate autonomy of human society and science. ” (p. 45)

This is how Karol Wojtyla sacrifices the traditional Catholic religion to its modern antithesis, atheist humanism. He has this “ speculative Good Friday ” followed by a “ dialectical Holy Saturday, ” a “ descent into Hell, ” in order to “ dialogue ” with atheists. To André Frossard, he stated  : “ If the situation of man in the modern world – and above all in certain circles of civilisation – is such that his faith, let us say his secular faith (sic) in humanism, science and progress is collapsing, there is surely opportunity to tell this man about the God of Jesus Christ, the God of the Covenant, and the God of the Gospel, quite simply (this “ quite simply ” is of an incredible density, Father de Nantes commented) in order that he may recover thereby (through faith in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Gospel) the fundamental and definitive meaning of his humanity, that is to say, the proper meaning of humanism, science and progress, which he does not doubt, and which he does not cease to regard as his earthly task and vocation. ” (Be not Afraid, p. 273)

It is obviously on Cardinal Wojtyla’s own admission, “ a reinterpretation of the Gospel ” that “ opens up new ways of teaching. Christians have the duty to fashion the face of the earth and to make life more human. It is their duty to give what is called social progress its true meaning. ” (Blazynski, John Paul II. A Man from Cracow, editions Stock, 1979, p. 253)

Consequently, this affirmation from his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis attains its full import  : “ The missionary attitude always begins with a feeling of deep esteem forwhat is in man’. ” Reference is made to John 2  :25. Yet, if we refer to this passage of the fourth Gospel, we must remark that Jesus, far from showing such esteem for men, “ did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man  ; for He Himself knew what was in man. ”

In order to make his “ faith in man ” agree with Scripture, Pope John Paul II is forced to misinterpret it  !

In “ Sign of Contradiction, ” one can also read  : “ The glory of God is the living man  ! And God leads him towards glory… This glory is what God wishes above all. Only He has the power to reveal the glory of the creature, to reveal the glory of man in the mirror of His Truth, and consequently in the dimensions of the final Fulfilment… The glory of God is the living man. ” (p. 231)  »

Father de Nantes commented  : “ Here at last is the synthesis of the old Religion and of contemporary Atheism. It is their final fulfilment in living Man, rich in possessions and in existence, brought to completion in the feeling of the sacredness of his existence and in the glory of his freedom. Man and God are reconciled, but in Man. Saint Irenaeus, understood it quite differently  ; the reconciliation he had in mind was not in Man but in God  : “ The glory of God is that man might live. And the life of man is the vision of God ” (Adv. haer. IV, 20  :5-7)  ! Here man depends entirely on God and on His grace, and not on his own freedom and on his own pride  ! Between the two there is all the difference between a religion and its opposite, between the worship and love of God leading to the sacrifice of oneself and to death on the cross, and the worship and exaltation of self to the death of God and the obliteration of Jesus Christ. ” (Liber accusationis II, p. 81)

The theocentrism of our holy Catholic religion gives way, in the heart and thought of John Paul II, to anthropocentrism  ; the cult of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, gives way to the cult of man who makes himself god. This idolatry was expressed, for example, in the discourse delivered at Unesco, on June 2, 1980  :

“ Man must be regarded in his entirety and his highest importance as a particular and autonomous value, bearing within himself the transcendence of the person. Man must be valued for himself alone and not for any other motive  : only for himself. Furthermore, we must love man simply because he is man, and we must demand love for man by reason of the particular dignity that is his. All these claims made on behalf of man are integral to the message of Christ, despite what critical minds may have had to say on the subject or whatever various trends opposed to religion in general and Christianity in particular may have succeeded in doing. ”

In this same discourse, John Paul II declared that “ in the cultural domain, man is always the primary factor  : man is the primordial and fundamental factor in culture… In thinking of all cultures, I wish to say here in Paris, at the seat of Unesco, with respect and admiration, Behold the man  ! ”

Father de Nantes called these words a “ blasphemy. ” It is indeed significant that Pope Benedict XVI, in his message addressed to Unesco for the twenty-fifth anniversary of this memorable discourse, quoted this passage, but not this last sentence.

In the face of such a text, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation wondered  :

“ Might this be an intellectual construction, intended to attract atheists, unbelievers and the indifferent to the Church, and might this be a way of showing that the Church is open to their problems, even though the eloquence is a little exaggerated  ? ” If that were so, “ it would be a lesser evil, but its total failure should be sufficient to call a halt to such an apologetic. ” It is legitimate, however, to wonder whether it is not more  : “ A true passion, an obsession with the grandeur of man, for love of man and his success  ? ” “ If it is, ” Father de Nantes announced in his Book of Accusation in 1983, “ this humanism will occupy more and more of your heart and mind, and will take up more of your time and activity  ! It will be all the more serious in that you have ascended to the highest degree of the hierarchy of the Church. From that height, all that is given to man will be taken from God, and all that is kept for God will appear to have been refused to man, the rival of God. ” (Liber accusationis II, p. 88)

In 1983, Father de Nantes accused John Paul II of stifling religion. Seven years later, the latter himself admitted that “ the number of those who do not know Christ and do not belong to the Church is constantly on the increase. Indeed, since the end of the Council it has almost doubled. ” (Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, no. 3)

b) Jesus Christ united to all men.

John Paul II continually quoted a statement, which he himself had inserted into the Constitution Gaudium et Spes, when he was at the Council as Archbishop of Cracow  : “ By His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. ” Confusing nature and grace, human life and divine life, Pope John Paul II attaches no condition to the union with Christ of “ each man without any exception whatever, even when he is unaware of it. ” (Redemptor Hominis, no. 14). From whatever religion or irreligion he may be.

In his last Apostolic Letter, Mane Nobiscum of October 7, 2004, he ended up writing about Our Lord Jesus Christ that “ in Him, the Incarnate Word, both the mystery of God and the mystery of man are revealed. Because in Christ human nature was assumed, not absorbed, by that very fact this nature has been elevated in us to a matchless dignity. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. ” (G.S. 22  :2)

There ensues what Father de Nantes called an “ Idealist Pasch, ” following the “ Speculative Good Friday ” and the “ Dialectical Holy Saturday. ” This means that the Church will save her faith (“ Idealist Pasch ”) by accepting the atheistic, materialist humanism (“ Speculative Good Friday ”) of a world that rejects her (“ Dialectical Holy Saturday ”.)

It needs only to be pointed out that the “ faith ” that must be reconciled with contemporary humanism, is the fruit of the spontaneous and universal creation of the deepest human sentiment  : it is a Modernist “ faith. ”

As an example of this Modernism, we can cite the interpretation considering the “ descent into Hell ” of Jesus Christ after His death on the Cross as a “ conception, ” and not as an historical event. According to Pope John Paul II, this article of our Creed is a pure metaphor referring not to a “ descent ” but to an ascent “ to the fullness of the beatific vision of God, ” which rather suggests an “ ascension ” (allocution at the audience of January 11, 1989)  !

This explanation “ smacks of heresy, ” Arian and Nestorian heresy, which puts Christ into the same category as an ordinary human being, morally perfect, holy, and “ admitted ” only after His death to “ the fullness of the beatific vision of God. ” Unlike the teaching of the Church, according to which Jesus, Son of God, God Himself, enjoyed, from the first exercise of His human faculties, the beatific vision of His own deity, of His divine Being, of His personal identity. The Church forbids all contrary teaching and Saint Thomas shows the reason for it in the existential union of the two natures, divine and human, in the Person of the Word  :

“ Through such a union, the Christ-man is Himself blessed with uncreated beatitude, just as He is also God through this union. In addition, however, His human nature had to possess this particular created beatitude through which His soul was in possession of the ultimate end of His human nature. ” (III a, Question 9, article 2, ad 2) This is why, beginning here below, “ His soul was raised up by a participated light from His divine nature to the perfection of the beatific knowledge that consists in the vision of God in His essence. ” (ad 1)

The cult of man in whom Christ abides by the simple fact of His Incarnation leads to considering the Church as the “ sign ” of the close union of all men with God, and of the unity of the human race in its members, all brothers together. She is no longer the “ sacrament ” of that unity. It is “ the whole human race ” without any prerequisite conversion or entry into the Church, which is seen to possess a satisfactory union with God and unity among its members, as it was the case at the meeting of all the “ other religions ” in Assisi, on October 27, 1986.

“ Of course, ” Father de Nantes commented, “ there was ‘not the slightest confusion or syncretism ” at Assisi. There was much worse  : in this carnivalesque and gaudy procession of all the Afro-Asian folklore, there was a suicidal obliteration of Christ and of His Church. ” When John Paul II justified this meeting of Assisi by a quotation from the Gospel of Saint John  : “ The Lord offered His life not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad ” (Jn 11  :52,) Father de Nantes protested against “ another abusive quotation from Holy Scripture to support a heresy that could not be more contrary to it. Our Lord died on the Cross so that all, Jews and pagans, abandoning their age-old ‘ignorance’ or ‘perfidy’ might yield to the prompting of Truth and enter into the one, holy Church. ” (CCR no. 197, February 1987)

On the contrary, Pope John Paul II dissuaded them from doing so when he religiously kissed the Qurʾān, on May 14, 1999, in Iraq, where a delegation led by the Shiite imam of the Khadum mosque presented it to him. This gesture of devotion, which was shown on Iraqi television, encouraged the Muslims to believe that the author of the Qurʾān was right when he accused Christians of having “ apostatised ” the religion of Abraham – following the example of the Jews  : “ Long ago they apostatised (kafara), they who said  : ‘There is God, He, the Christ, the son of Mary.’ ” (Sūrah V, 17 and 72)

The term “ son of Mary ” is intended to permanently supersede the Christian titles of “ Son of the Most High ” and “ Son of David. ”

On Sunday, May 6, 2000, after having ritually removed his shoes, the Pope entered into the mosque of the Umayyads at Damascus, in order to listen to the reading of the verses of the Qurʾān, and the litany of the names of Allah, followed by the homily of the great mufti affirming that “ Islam is the religion of brotherhood and peace, ” and that “ we all adore the same God. ” John Paul II thereby reinforced a billion Muslims in their “ faith ” in the Qurʾān, according to which God does not have a son.

c) The Wojtylian gnosis.

During his long pontificate, Pope John Paul II turned Christian hope away from the Kingdom of God by emptying Hell and Heaven of all concrete reality, in order to call for the construction of a new world here below on the occasion of the beginning of the third millennium.

Due to the fact that “ by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man, ” does He accompany him into Hell  ? Of course not  ! John Paul II concludes from this that quite probably, there is no one in Hell. For example, in his book “ Enter into Hope  : ”

“ The possibility of eternal damnation is certainly proclaimed in the Gospel with no possible ambiguity, ” he recognises. “ But to what degree is it actually realised in the afterlife  ? ” The Pope replies to this question with another question  : “ If God desires that all men be saved, if God, for this reason offered His Son Who, in turn, acts in the Church through the Holy Spirit, can man be damned, can he be rejected by God  ? From time immemorial, the question of Hell has preoccupied the great thinkers of the Church, from Origen to Mikhaïl Boulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. The first Councils rejected the theory called the final apocatastasis, according to which the world, after its destruction, will be renewed and every creature will be saved  ; a theory that implicitly abolished Hell. The question, however, continues to be posed. God, Who so loved man, can He accept that he reject Him and for this reason be condemned to unending torments  ? Yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew, He speaks clearly of those who will experience eternal punishment.

“ Who will these be  ? The Church has never wanted to take a position. There is an impenetrable mystery between the holiness of God and the human conscience. The silence of the Church is thus the only appropriate attitude. ”

In saying this, Pope John Paul II cast doubt on the statements of Sister Lucy according to whom the Virgin Mary did not adopt this “ appropriate attitude ” at Fatima on July 13, 1917, by showing to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta “ Hell where poor sinners go, ” a vision that is well attested if only by the cry of horror that Lucy let out, which was heard by the witnesses of this third apparition  :

“ Our Lady opened Her hands again, as She had done the two previous months. The reflection (of the light) seemed to penetrate the earth and we saw what looked like a vast ocean of fire. Plunged in this fire we saw demons and souls (of the damned). The latter were like transparent burning embers, black or bronzed, having human form. They were floating in this fire, lifted up by the flames that issued from within themselves, along with clouds of smoke. They fell back on all sides, like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid cries and groans of pain and despair that were horrifying to hear and made us tremble with fright. It must have been this sight that caused me to let out the cry that the people around me heard. The demons could be distinguished (from the souls of the damned) by their horrible and repellent likeness to frightening and unknown animals, but they were transparent like burning black coals.

“ This vision lasted but an instant, thanks to our good Mother in Heaven Who, during the first apparition, had promised to take us to Heaven. Were it not for this, I believe we would have died of fear and terror. ”

We should not be surprised that John Paul II totally disregards this vision, since he denies Judas’ certain damnation  :

“ Even if Christ said of Judas who had just betrayed Him  :It would be better for that man if he had never been born,’ this sentence must not be understood as eternal damnation. ”

d) Heaven is not a place.

If Pope John Paul II wrongly taught us not to fear Hell, he did not inspire the desire for Heaven. It is noteworthy that the Wednesday allocutions of 1989, in which the Pope was finishing a methodical commentary on the Creed, article after article, which had begun in January 1982, he came to deny the physical fact of the bodily Ascension of Jesus into Heaven. According to Pope John Paul II, the Ascension is not a local translation of the Risen Jesus, from earth into some Heaven, but His “ complete and definitive abstraction from the laws of time and space. ” “ In other words, ” Father de Nantes commented, His “ dematerialisation. ”

After which, it should be noted that the allocutions of subsequent Wednesdays change subject, without finishing the explication of the Creed, in which he should have dealt with the physical reality of Heaven and Hell  !

e) A new world here below, for the year 2000.

If John Paul II only had abstruse words for speaking of Heaven, on the other hand he put all his immense intellectual capacities and his charisma at the service of the utopia of a world of peace through universal democracy of which the Church would be the spiritual animator here on earth  ! “ Breaking with Catholic morality, with the honour of civilised peoples and with the immemorial rules of papal diplomacy, ” Father de Nantes observed, “ John Paul II has not come out against this revolutionary uprising with a trade-union pretext and a religious mask. He has not, like his valiant predecessors of the last century, demanded that the peoples submit to the powers that be, and ordered the Church to co-operate with the State either in Poland or anywhere else in the world. He has not reserved his solicitude for the salvation of souls and public tranquillity, but has wasted it on the doubtful causes of justice, human rights and freedom. ” (CCR no. 145, April 1982, p. 4)

The encyclical “ Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, ” of December 30, 1987, offers a flagrant example of this. The Pope makes it a duty for everyone “ to commit himself to the development of peoples  : ”

“ It is an imperative that obliges each and every man and woman, as well as societies and nations. In particular, it obliges the Catholic Church and the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, with which we are completely willing to collaborate in this field. ”

We are at poles apart from Saint Pius X, according to whom, in his Letter on the Sillon, “ we do not have to demonstrate that the “ development of peoples ” is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; ” what is important for it, on the other hand, is to lead the peoples, “ each and every man and woman, ” if it is possible, to the happiness of Heaven.

No, in the “ integral development of man, ” John Paul II does not include entry into Heaven, in order to take one’s place at the wedding-feast of the Lamb  ! His naturalistic application of the parable of the evil rich man and the poor Lazarus to economic and social life confirms it for us  :

“ It is essential, as the encyclical Populorum Progressio already asked, ” he declared in the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis “ to recognise the equal right of each peopleto be seated at the table of the common banquet [of the goods of this world] instead of lying outside the door like Lazarus, whilethe dogs come and lick his sores’ (cf. Lk 16  :21). ” (no. 33)

Already, on June 2, 1980, parodying the words of Jesus in the desert, John Paul II had openly proclaimed at the headquarters of Unesco  : “ Man does not live by bread alone, but also by culture. ” By replacing “ all the words that proceed from the mouth of God, ” by culture, John Paul II shows that his “ religion ” is reduced to the sole cultural function of contribution. Or, to be more precise, he says, “ it strives to contribute the supernatural component to human cultural elaboration. ” (Discourse at Camerino, March 19, 1991.)

Far from being “ supernatural, ” the so-called “ component ” is purely natural, according to John Paul II. In order convince oneself of this, it suffices to acquaint oneself with his discourse to the diplomatic corps on January 10, 1998. In it he reveals his ambition of becoming the mentor of all the peoples of the world, as the best “ expert in humanity, ” dealing with all their problems by appealing to the ideology of the rights of man, of his liberty, of his cult  ; but the orator does not say a word in it about his own religion  !

The discourse at Funchal on the feast of the Ascension 1991 is just as convincing  :

“ Thus, the Ascension of the Lord is not a simple departure, ” Father de Nantes summarised. “ It is first of all the beginning of a new presence and of a new saving action ”… those of the Spirit, who “ gives divine strength to the earthly life of humanity in the visible Church. ” No sooner is it recalled than this limit of the visible Church is overturned. The fullness of “ all the restored creation, ” the “ new creation of the world and of man ” that “ we celebrate in the Sunday Eucharist ”, fills “ the Church and the world ” without further difference and without condition. Here we find this gnostic unanimism in which the dilution of the Body of Christ is total and definitive, while humanity and even the material world assume their stature of “ Body ” at the breath of the “ Spirit; ” and this will be the second Coming of Christ, in the Age of the Spirit, which will soon appear.

“ The Ascension of the Lord is, in the light of the liturgy of today, ” the Pope concluded, “ the solemnity of maturation [of whom? of what? do not try to guess: of everything that is not Christ, but that becomes Him…] in the Holy Spirit for the fullness of Christ. ” Thus there is no longer, in any Paradise, a true and living Man-God Jesus Christ, in the flesh, in company of His glorious Mother assumed into Heaven, nor any real Presence in any Mass. There is no longer any coming to expect of this Christ Saviour, other than that of the year 2000, “ the second and definitive Coming of Christ the Saviour  : ”

“ Thus the new man in dignity, in contemplation and in adoration, approaches God with confidence, in a great feast of all restored creation. We celebrate the renewed splendour of the full goodness [sic] of the world in God  : the risen Christ, in His infinite grace, frees man of his limits. Pasch is the new creation of the world and of man. ” (CRC no. 273, May 1991, p. 16)

Under John Paul II’s pontificate, the Church had as the sole aim of all her works not to lead all souls – if possible – to Heaven, but “ to bring her own contribution to the preparation of men who will enter into the new millennium. ”

Rejecting “ theprophets of woe,’ ready to see catastrophes everywhere, ” John Paul II paid homage to “ the prestigious objectives that were reached ” as so many “ moments on the road of man at the threshold of the year 2000  : ” the conquest of space, nuclear energy, genetics, computer science, robotics (Discourse at Camerino, March 19, 1991.)

All of these conquests, according to him, lead the Church to realise “ that she is living a phase that is among the most innovative of history, ” owing to the extension of the “ very concept of culture. ” Now, as man must nourish himself not only from the “ bread earned through the work of his hands, but also through the bread of science and progress, of civilisation and culture ” (Laborem Exercens, 1,) in this profusion of “ forms of multicultural societies that go beyond the traditional geographical and political borders, ” the Church has only one thought  : “ In the light of God, to assert the primacy of man  ! ”

Indeed, in the year 2000, John Paul II thought that he would inaugurate a new, definitive era, a new civilisation.

On March 26, 2000, he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem with this intention. He celebrated its first “ station ” on the ancient esplanade of the Jewish Temple, which has become the esplanade of the Dome of the Rock, the “ memorial, ” according to the Qurʾān, “ consecrated so that men may faithfully return there and celebrate thePlace of Abrahamwith prayers ” (Sūrah II, verse 125.)

Let us point out that, indeed, John Paul II’s plan presents an extraordinary resemblance to that of the author of the Qurʾān, which is to restore the “ perfect ” (ʾislām) religion born of Abraham, and to substitute it for Judaism and Christianity that are in perpetual conflict with one another  !

Thus, he therefore formulated this wish that “ the All-Powerful might bring peace to this entire beloved region, so that all peoples dwelling there might enjoy their rights, live in harmony and cooperation, and give witness to the one God in an act of goodness and human solidarity ” (quoted in Resurrection no. 1, January 2001, p. 11.)

Even though, since then, violence has only increased in the aforesaid region, as was foreseeable because “ without Me, you can do nothing, ” Our Lord warned, John Paul II persevered in his hope for a world of peace without the necessary recourse to Christ.

The second “ station ” of the pontifical pilgrimage was the Wailing Wall, where the Pope went to deposit the text of the repentance (teshouva) of the Church regarding the Jewish people and to touch with his palm the stone of the “ Qotel, ” the western Wall that supported the Temple of Jerusalem, wherein resided the “ presence ” of the living God until its destruction in 70 a.d. by the Romans.

John Paul II thus behaved as the successor of Peter… before the Apostle “ recovered ” from his denial and invited the “ men of Israel ” to repent and be baptised “ in the name of Jesus Christ ” for the remission of their sins, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit  : “ For the promise, ” he told them, “ is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call. ” (Ac 2  :38-40)

In 2001, John Paul II went to Greece, Syria and Malta, “ in the footsteps of Saint Paul. ” At Damascus, in a formerly Christian church, which has been transformed into a mosque, he declared to his Muslim hosts  : “ Our meeting in this renowned place reminds us that man is a spiritual being, called to acknowledge and respect the absolute priority of God in all things. ” He did not say  : “ of Christ Who is God, ” as a true disciple of the author of the Qurʾān but not of Saint Paul who, as soon as he was converted on the road to Damascus, “ began at once to preach Jesus in the synagogues, proclaiming that He is the Son of God ” (Ac 9  :20.)

“ It is my ardent hope, ” he continued, “ that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as communities engaged in a respectful dialogue, and never again as communities in conflict. ”

Thus we must “ never again ” speak of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

During Pope John Paul II’s long pontificate, the Church, without supernatural hope, became a movement for the spiritual animation of universal democracy, in accordance with the wish of Paul VI.

We can legitimately wonder whether the words of Jesus Christ are not being fulfilled before our eyes  :

“ But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth  ? ” (Lk 18  :8)


The answer to this question will be negative if Jesus is long in coming back and if, in the meantime, the supposed “ Catechism of the Catholic Church ” (CCC,) is used to teach several generations their religion. This so-called catechism was prescribed for the Holy Church, of whom Jesus is the Bridegroom and the King, by His Vicar John Paul II, in the Apostolic Constitution “ Fidei Depositum ” of October 11, 1992. Father de Nantes then wrote his third “ Book of Accusation, ” that he brought in person to the Vatican on May 13, 1993, accompanied by 250 representatives of the CCR.

“ The whole work has been much too much governed and executed “ in the light of the Second Vatican Council, ” Most Holy Father, and for that very reason has been drawn up, not in accord with “ the whole of the Church’s Tradition ” (CCC, no. 11,) but in contradiction with it. It is my well-founded conviction, therefore, that its author is either deceived or is deceiving us. ”

Nevertheless, the Pope gave it the full weight of his authority  :

“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25 last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. ”

Now, our Father declared that “ this supposed Catechism is replete with errors, deceptions, insults against God, His Son Jesus Christ and Their Holy Spirit, and numerous manifest absurdities and incongruities. ” Consequently, he presented in a third Book of Accusation a “ complaint against X, ” that he brought “ before your apostolic Tribunal, Most Holy Father, ” in order to “ to make them the object of an infallible ex cathedra judgement. ”

The main error of this “ Catechism ” is the one that the Holy Father himself commits by imposing it on the whole Church as the expression of her ordinary Magisterium. As such, it is considered to be infallible by the sole fact that it has been “ fervently received by the whole people of God, ” with the exception of ourselves who, of course, count for nothing  !

Yet, for the consent of the people of God to be invested with the mark of infallibility, it must be the expression of its unanimous adherence, not only it adherence today “ by the dogmatic and Magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council, ” but also the adherence of the people of God of the past and of all times. This is not the case for the CCC, which Father de Nantes described as a “ Catechism of Pride, Catechesis of Deceit. ” It breaks with both the teaching of the Council of Trent and the catechism of Saint Pius X (whose name is not mentioned in the CCC), concerning the four chapters that are the objects of the second question  : “ in particular with regard to the doctrine on the Church, Divine Revelation, the liturgy and religious freedom. ”

On the Church.

“ The mere thought of belonging to the Church is enough to renew the jubilation of our souls, for the Church is Holy like her Bridegroom Jesus Christ from Whom she has received such a likeness that there is nothing in this world so beautiful, so wise, so majestic as her face and her whole being. She is our Mother, and I add  : she is the unique, incomparable Spouse  ; she alone is holy, wise, sublime, leaving false religions and philosophies far behind in their delusive darkness. In her is found, united and prosperous, all that is best in the world. ” (Georges de Nantes)

According to the new Catechism, however, Jesus Christ “ has united Himself in some fashion with every man. ” (G. S. 22  :2) We can read in number 1612 of the CCC  :

“ The nuptial covenant between God and His people Israel had prepared the new and eternal Covenant in which the Son of God, by becoming incarnate and giving His life, has united to Himself in a certain way all humanity saved by Him (G. S. 22  :2), thus preparing for thewedding-feast of the Lamb.’ ” (Ap 19  :7-9.)

This text introduces a totally new idea, according to which this union of Christ with all of humanity that has been saved would constitute the indissoluble bond of the new and eternal Covenant – eternal and therefore retroactive –existing between Christ the Bridegroom and Humanity, which invisibly constitutes His Spouse. Thus, His Spouse is no longer the visible hierarchical, priestly Church, mediatrix of grace through the distribution of the sacraments, from Baptism, which introduces the new-born child into the Church, to the Extreme-Unction that prepares entrance into Heaven.

This bizarre “ union, ” which Christ thus establishes with all men, seems to be a substantial supplement and soon, doubtless, an automatic substitute for baptism. Anathema sit  !

On Divine Revelation.

We can read in number 99 of the CCC  : “ Because of their supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never cease to welcome the gift of Divine Revelation, to penetrate it more deeply and to live it more fully. ”

The whole history of the Church proves that this is obviously not the reality, neither yesterday’s nor today’s. Through the fallibility of human minds and the defectibility of human hearts, all the terrible crises which, from century to century have succeeded one another, shook the Church, so that none may glorify himself before the Lord for his personal infallibility  ! It is still this same unfathomable human fragility that explains the increasing anarchy in which is falling today, the holy City of the people of God, the “ large city half in ruins ” of the vision of July 13, 1917 at the Cova da Iria.

“ How then is it possible to parade such a claim to an unlimited, perpetual infallibility and indefectibility for the Pope, the bishops and the whole people of God, ” our Father asks, “ when, since 1960, everyone has known, or should have known, the Secret of Fatima, announcing the general apostasy of the Church, in her Roman Head and in almost all her members, in their abandonment of the true Faith and their sin against the Holy Spirit, as a punishment for their contempt and rejection of Our Lady’s requests formulated in the name of Her Son Jesus Christ our God  ? ”

This text dates from 1993. The “ Secret ” was only published in 2000, and it confirms all the predictions point by point.

On the liturgy.

The liturgy is the service of the worship rendered to God in order to unite with Him through the mediation of Jesus  :

“ 2602. He includes all men in his prayer, since He also assumes our humanity in His Incarnation, and He offers them to the Father in offering Himself. He, the Word Whotook flesh,’ shares by His human prayer in all thatHis brethrenexperience (Heb 2  :12.) ”

“ 2606. All the perennial distress of humanity enslaved to sin and death, all the requests and intercessions of salvation history are gathered up in this Cry of the Word incarnate. Now, the Father welcomes them and, beyond all hope, answers them by raising up His Son. Thus is fulfilled and consummated the drama of prayer in the economy of creation and salvation. ”

Nevertheless, our Father recalled, in this same sacerdotal prayer, Jesus said  : “ I am praying for them  ; I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, because they are Yours. ”

“ When I read in this Catechism certain of its triumphant thoughts, lacking all fear or love of God, about the glory of man whom Christ has supposedly united to Himself for ever, I am fearful that this heresy – the master idea of this gnosis animating postconciliar catechesis – may triumph in the Church by means of this Catechism of pride  : ”

“ 1741. By His glorious Cross, Christ obtained the salvation of all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them enslaved. “ For freedom Christ has set us free ” (Gal 5  :1). In Him we have communion with the “ truth that makes us free ” (Jn 8  :32.) The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom ” (2 Cor 3  :17.) Even now we glory in the “ liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8  :21) ”

We  ? To whom does we refer  ? To everyone  ! To all men. I think I hear Jesus interrupting this insolent paean  : “ You  ? I never knew you  ; depart from Me, you evildoers  ! ” (Mt 7  :23)

On Religious freedom.

The men of our time heard with pleasure the proclamation of religious Freedom. Thereupon, they sunk themselves in their errors, their rebellions, their disorderly loves, and their earthly greed  : “ They made idols of themselves, taking themselves as genuinely being what they were not, but which you falsely told them they were  : a people of gods, a people of priests, of prophets and of kings  !

“ This arrogance, this pride, this dignity, this liberty, which they boast of and which you profess to admire in them as an exact likeness to God the Father and Son, they delight in it as a perpetual defiance of their Creator. It has reached the point where a battle is going to break out between the two worlds. Theirs is the world of your gnostic anthroposophy – will you be part of it  ? Ours is that of Jesus and Mary, ever triumphant.

“ What is to be done now  ? Nothing other than to preach Jesus and Mary, Jesus crucified and Mary transfixed. Men must be taught that the moment has come to adore the true Man, the true image and likeness of the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Immaculate Conception, His Holy Mother Who gives Him to us to cherish in order that we may grieve over our dissimilarity and our misfortune in this vale of tears, while we wait for the grace of salvation, which proceeds from an incomprehensible and inestimable predestination.

“ Our mirages have led us astray, Most Holy Father  ; we have lost our way in our gnosis and we are filled with pride for having dreamed of a plan of grace more wonderful than that of God Himself  ! 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. ”

May 13, 1993. Father de Nantes accompanied by his friends, went for the last time to Rome in order to present to the Sovereign Pontiff and to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, his third Book of Accusation against the Author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He was received by Msgr Damiano Caotorta, an Official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who took note of the demand for the opening of a canonical trial. It came to nothing, but our Father had done his duty  : that of the Suppliant who, in the midst of apostasy, demands that the authorities of the Church have pity on souls.

To be continued.

While awaiting the next instalment of our translation of Brother Bruno’s memorandum, you may like to consult the complete texts of Father de Nantes’ three Books of Accusation. The accusations contained therein are so truthfully incriminating that for years now, the Vatican has succeeded in keeping them concealed under a shroud of silence. Archbishop Pontier’s surprising intervention is bringing Father Georges de Nantes’ fight to defend the true Catholic faith to the forefront.

LIBER ACCUSATIONIS IN PAULUM SEXTUM […] a complaint against our brother in the faith, Pope Paul VI.

LIBER ACCUSATIONIS TERTIUS […] a book of accusation for heresy against the Author of the supposed Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The contents of the first and third Books of Accusation are readily accessible to the general public. In the second Book of Accusation, however, Father de Nantes had to deal with Pope John Paul II’s philosophical and theological thinking, which is sometimes abstruse and can make the reading of this book laborious for some people.

LIBER ACCUSATIONIS SECUNDUS […] a complaint against our brother in the faith, Karol Wojtyla.












“  Do you recognise the ordinary Magisterium and the authority of the bishop on whom you depend    ?  ”


“  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    ?  ”


Previous    -    Next