N° 138 – April 2014

Director : Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

The Inconceivable Canonisation
of John Paul II (2)

IN one of his morning homilies, Pope Francis declared : “ When a Christian becomes the disciple of an ideology, he has lost his faith : he is no longer a disciple of Jesus. He has become the disciple of this way of thinking. ” (October 17, 2013)

Consequently, he implicitly gave the name of ‘ gnosis ’ to “ this way of thinking ” when he declared during the Mass of February 20, 2014 : “ Jesus did not say : ‘ Know me ! ’ He said : ‘ Follow me ! ’ ”

The ‘ gnosis ’ is an evil that Fr. de Nantes denounced in a series of Letters to My Friends, under the title of The Mystery of the Church and the Antichrist, starting in September 1959. Less than a year after the death of Pius XII, foreseeing the devastating effects of a certain ‘ ideology ’ or ‘ gnosis, ’ he drew, fifty years in advance, a picture of the present situation, not as a prophet but as a man of precise faith.

It so happens that he accused Karol Wojtyla of having been one of the main ‘ ideologists ’ through whom the crisis in the Church, initiated by Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, reached an unprecedented scale. This is something that Pope Francis, in his humble submission to the successors of Peter who preceded him, is unable even to accept to suspect … unless the incriminating evidence is submitted to his judgement.

This is what we have undertaken by presenting a compendium of the accusation that our Father, Georges de Nantes, with faith in the Church, brought before the infallible tribunal of John Paul II, but which he refused to examine at the price of dereliction of duty (The Inconceivable Canonisation of John Paul II, He is Risen no. 137 March 2014)

The first part of this capital accusation, which is developed under the title : “ Innovator, you are betraying Christ ! ” denounced the novelty established in the Church by “ this faith in man ! this cult of man ! this service of man ! this struggle, this combat on behalf of man ! ” that Pope John Paul II professed from the beginning of his pontificate. “ It wholly usurps the place of faith in God, the worship and service of God, and the struggle to bear witness to Him even unto martyrdom ! ”

Our Father continued in the second part of his accusation : “ Your spiritual adultery, your ‘ sacred prostitution, ’ and the betrayal of Christ it involves, obliges me to pursue this accusation by addressing you with this second brutal exclamation :


“ Insofar as you have yielded to the Devil’s temptation and received, in accordance with the terms of the contract, all the kingdoms of this world – an illusory kingship and a deadly sense of exhilaration ! – your faith, trust and hope in man, your love and service of him – in him, with him and for him ! – have pervaded your being like a cancer and have been transformed – do you not think ? – into a faith, trust, love and cult of You Yourself, making you the centre of the world, as you already were of the Church and, as you believed, of her religion ? Are not You Yourself the MAN most often in the public eye, the one most elevated and visibly closest to divinisation ? There can be nothing more corrupting and nothing more illusory than such pride and egoism at the summit of the Church – the Church that is to be the guide and the model for all nations !

“ Your thinking, teaching and example, your intense and constant encouragement of the cult of man and of the cult of self – an encouragement to love man as one loves oneself, and to have a faith in him that is no more than presumptuousness and self-satisfaction – these act like so many acids insidiously corroding and eating away all order, both human and divine, dissolving the whole ‘ theandric ’ mystery of a world transformed by grace. In a general and indefinite way, everything is coming undone and is falling to pieces.

“ If things continue thus – and even now we are in a state of material, moral and spiritual ruin – it will be the end of religion, the end of the Church, and the end of Christian civilisation. ”

“ A field of ruins, ” it is the word used in the prophecy of Our Lady when, on July 13, 1917, in strict secrecy, She announced to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, “ a large city half in ruins. ” It is also the reality seen by our Holy Father, Pope Francis, “ Bishop of Rome, ” as he calls himself with insistence, “ dressed in White, ” when he compares the state of the Church to that of a “ field hospital after a battle, ”

As for Fr. de Nantes, he wrote :

“ The point will be reached when that sorrowful eventuality implicitly foretold by Christ will come to pass : ‘ But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth ? ’ (Lk 18:8)

“ ‘ Will not God see justice done to His elect who cry to Him day and night, to Him Who is so compassionate to them? I say to you that He will see justice done to them speedily He will promptly save them ! ’ (Lk 18:7) All the same, it is necessary that they pray ! Alas, the first thing to be stifled by your obsession with man is the virtue of religion. ”


“ Religion is a word that applies generally to people’s relationship with their gods. The true religion, however, is that whereby the one, true, living God is gradually united with the whole of mankind in accordance with that incomparable and supernatural body of dogmas, sacraments, rites, laws, and traditions, which are pleasing to God because they were first revealed, imposed, requested, instituted or accepted – since the beginning and in their fullness – by His Son Jesus Christ, Our Lord and King. Such is our faith, such are our prayers and our sacraments, such are our laws, the commandments of both God and the Church. Such is our religion, the principle and foundation, the means and the end of our whole life. ’ (p. 89)

Religion is the locus of the “ worship ” tendered to God by His creatures who owe everything to Him :

“ O admirabile commercium ! Yes, wonderful indeed is this interrelationship between divinity and humanity, which begins on this earth and reaches its fullness in eternal life. Our communion with the Godhead has three distinct relationships, corresponding to the temporal missions of the three divine Persons, in their Trinitarian processions. There is the cult of adoration to God our Creator and Father, a worship that is exclusive and entire. There is the attachment of faith and love to the Word, the Son of God made man, Our Lord and Saviour. There is the union of the whole Church, the people of God, with the Holy Spirit, the source of all graces and virtues and the means whereby we are divinised and introduced into the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

“ How could the ‘ cult of man ’ – one blushes even to write such a horror ! – not succeed in disturbing, perverting and eventually annihilating all this captivating and wonderful piety and devotion ? Re-read what you yourself have written and tell me : What remains of divine religion after this ?

“ ‘ The fundamental dimension capable of revolutionising the systems that provide the structure for all mankind and of freeing human existence, both individual and collective, from the threats hanging over it, is man, man in his wholeness, man whose life partakes of both material and spiritual values. Respect for man’s inalienable rights is at the basis of everything.

“ ‘ This man is unique, complete and indivisible. 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 ! ’ (what blasphemy ! cf. Jn 19:5)

“ ‘ Man, in the visible world, is the unique ontic subject (sic !) of culture, and he is also its unique object and term. Culture is that whereby man, as man, becomes more human and attains to a higher state of being... Man, and man alone, expresses himself in culture and therein finds his own equilibrium. ’

“ It is clear that in this speech, delivered before an international audience of freemasons of UNESCO, who would be most pleased to hear you say it, culture for you is the religion of Man, and it is the exact replica of the religion of our God. Culture, in fact, is a whole body of doctrine, artistic and festive expression, custom and tradition, whereby man expresses himself in the assembly of men for the greater glory of Man. ‘ Man does not live by bread alone, ’ you ventured to say in imitation of the words of Jesus in the wilderness (Mt 4:4), ‘ but also by culture. ’ It is the spirit of blasphemy within you that makes you replace the words ‘ every word that proceeds from the mouth of God ’ with the word ‘ culture. ’ In your integral humanism, it is evident that ‘ religion ’ is reduced to its sole function as an ancillary to culture ! ” (p. 89-90)

“ Even if there were perfect harmony and accord between the two cults, between adoration of God and admiration for Man, the two loves – and I cannot write this without my heart failing ! –, in practice there would be rivalry, and in the end the one would have to yield to the other almost entirely, until the one were merely an appendage of the other. One only has to relive those first years of your pontificate to realise that this is so. With their Masonic and cultural adulteries and prostitutions, those years are filled with insults to God our Heavenly Father, with lese-majesty against Christ Our King and Saviour and against His Holy Mother, with horrible contempt and disparagement of the One Holy Church, thereby constituting that ‘ sin against the Holy Spirit, ’ of which Jesus said, ‘ it shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come. ’ (Mt 12:32).

“ For the Holy Spirit and the Church are all one, the latter being a constant creation of the former. Here I opportunely recall that Our Lady of Fatima also deigned to warn our century that the same holds true with regard to sins against Her Immaculate Heart, because such sins are essentially the same abominable crime against the Holy Spirit – the incomparable Heart of Mary being in the very heart of the Church, whose heart is in the Heart of Jesus, in the bosom of the Father.

“ I venture to say to you in all your grandeur, Most Holy Father, repent ! For I can see that your obsessive love of man and your devotion to his culture are inspiring you, even in your most religious pronouncements, with blasphemies against the Father, against the Son and against Their common Spirit, and often precisely in Their relationship with the Blessed Virgin and Holy Church ! Have regard for your soul… ”


“ How can you ceaselessly despise God, Yahweh, the I Am of the Old Testament, God our Father, as Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, making us, through grace, beneficiaries of that ‘ power to be made His sons ’ (Jn 1:12) ? How can you despise and blaspheme against Him by affirming that every man in whatever moral or immoral, religious or irreligious state, he may happen to be, unconcerned at not having on ‘ the wedding garment ’ (Mt 22:11-12), is nevertheless always in ‘ the image and likeness of God ? ’ How can you maintain that man, a creature lower than the angels and who, through malice, can sink to a level below that of the beasts, to the depths of vice worthy of Hell and its demons, is always and in every state in ‘ the image and likeness of God, ’ and that he can recover this likeness and become perfect through his own efforts ? Are you saying that such a man, in whatever state, is a ‘ son of God, ’ that God is ‘ his Father, ’ the ‘ Father of all men, making them all brothers ; ’ and that through his human works man, yes man, becomes God’s co-operator and partner in the creation of the universe and of himself ?

“ All men ? Even those who, in the words of Our Lord, have Satan for their father and not Abraham or Moses or God ? (Jn. 8:39-47), those who will not be recognised on the Last Day by the Son of Man, Who will say, ‘ I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity ! ’ (Lk 13:27) ?

“ At Le Bourget, during your visit to France, you said : ‘ In alliance with Eternal Wisdom, man must grow and develop as man. He must grow and develop starting from the divine foundation of his humanity, – elsewhere, as we have seen, you refer to this as his deity – that is to say, in the image and likeness of God Himself. Man must grow and develop as a son of the divine adoption. ’

“ ‘ As son of the divine adoption, man –you do not specify which man, because you do not intend to confine yourself to Christian man – man must grow and develop through all that contributes to the world’s progress and development ’ !

“ ‘ Our common ideal, ’ you will say to our Muslim brothers, during this same visit, ‘ is a society where men recognise one another as brothers walking together in God’s light and rivalling one another in doing good. ’ Adjusting your error to suit what your hearers can take, you avoid speaking of God as Father, for these Muslims would not accept such language ! Can your deceit really extend so far ? ”

“ ‘ As an image and likeness of God Himself. ’ ” Under this title, a series of quotations serve as a reminder to John Paul II : “ Over and over again, you come back to this theme and develop it in various ways, sometimes naturalist, sometimes Pelagian. Naturalism knows nothing of original or mortal sin, whilst Pelagianism regards all sin as something to be effaced by human effort, and man as his own redeemer. In this way, you multiply the ambiguities, misunderstandings and confusion between atheist humanism and Christian theology. It is an amalgam that is most disconcerting for the faithful and sickening for the theologian. From this confusion there arises the blasphemous idea of every actual living man’s intrinsic and infallible likeness to God today, with man being of one society with God, having rights over God and, as we shall soon see, having a hold over Him. ” (p. 92)

“ You thus exalt human pride in a world that is collapsing under the weight of sin, tirelessly repeating this single verse (Gn 1:27) – I should say these single words ! – from the Book of Genesis, giving it a universal and absolute meaning, which is belied by the very next chapter which tells of the Fall, let alone by the rest of the entire Bible. You quote half the following verse (Gn 1:28) concerning dominion of the earth, but never the other half because man today could not care less about it ! Working, dominating the world, yes ! for one’s enjoyment… As for increasing and multiplying, no, that is too painful ! And filling the earth ? It is full enough as it is !

“ You flatter man and despise God. Thus you say that man must rest on the seventh day, not because God has reserved the seventh day to Himself, but in order to behave like God. Man is not God’s servant ; he is a son and a partner. Let us say, he is an equal filled with the insolent opinion of his own excellence. (p. 93)

How can this “ child, a son of God, a rightful claimant ” be made to accept “ the idea of mercy, divine and human – an idea that is intolerable to such a man, for it is detrimental to his dignity ? ”

By means of the encyclical Dives in Misericordia, “ an Hegelian variation of the return of the Prodigal Son ”, “ you discard the awkward figure of the elder son. It is the elder son, in fact who, in his insufferable pride, arrogance and egoism, and without any doubt his hypocrisy too, is an exact representation of modern man. As we know, the Father did not depart from his ordinary goodness in dealing with the elder son, nor will He spare him the final condemnation of an angered Judge. ”

“ Shall I quote from you ? The whole passage will need quoting, ” to show how “ the old father recognises that he has been routed and is moved to compassion for his young son who is stronger than himself. [ ... ] ‘ The father’s fidelity to himself is entirely centred on the humanity of the lost son, on his dignity. ’ ” This is how, Fr. de Nantes accuses, “ you represent this young braggart as accepting the old man’s tenderness by misrepresenting it as a recognition of his grandeur, obliging the father to recognise him and return to him the place and wealth to which he is entitled. It is a travesty, Honest people are unable to decipher such things, but are delighted to hear their dear Pope speak of the Divine Mercy, like his venerable compatriot, Sister Faustina. ”

This was the case for our Holy Father, Pope Francis, in his speech the other day to the Roman clergy (March 6).


“ There is no doubt – and let this be said once and for all – that ten, even a hundred, of your speeches will allay such a suspicion. ”

In particular for Pope Francis who is preparing to canonise John Paul II !

“ In every homily you give and at every liturgical feast in honour of each of Christ’s mysteries, the mystery is always humanised and profaned, as though you were irresistibly impelled thereto by the Spirit of blasphemy who dwells within you. ”

Each time, it is a “ disfigurement of Jesus Christ, ” a “ transfiguration of man. ” “ Advent is the expectation of Man. And Christmas ? That is the birth of Man, even the feast of Man. Epiphany is the manifestation of Man. Easter is the sign of life’s victory over death, love’s victory over hatred, Man’s victory over the elements. ” (p. 96)

Here is a final, emblematic example :

“ You did not pass over the most poignant moment of the Gospel ; even the most moving words said of Jesus you had to take and turn into a hideous profanation ! These words are, ‘ Ecce homo. ’ ‘ Behold, ” you say again to Paul VI during that Lenten retreat, ‘ Behold Christ facing the truth about His Kingdom. Pilate had said : Behold the Man ! Exactly. In Him at this moment are concealed all man’s kingship and all the dignity of man that He came to express and restore. For it is well known that this kingship (the kingship of Mr. Everyman) has been many times been vanquished, thrown to the ground. and dragged in the mud (making Mr. Everyman a victim, a misunderstood hero, a persecuted saint.) It is well known that this dignity has many times been humiliated (Mr. Everyman’s dignity, cruelly and unjustly treated, knocked down and despised !). As the Council reminds us (a plethora of references to Lumen Gentium, of course), Jesus came to manifest (and you really mean manifest) the kingship of Man, and we behold Him here, crowned with thorns, confronting humanity (He suffers the fate of Mr. Everyman, and that was unexpected ; but it is to be hoped that the fate of Mr Everyman will be improved as a result.) Behold the kingship redeemed, and dignity won, through the Blood of the Son of God. ’ The final ignominy, as we shall soon see, is this : From the fearful passion suffered by the Son of God, we can measure just how valuable and important in the eyes of God is this grand and underrated Mr Everyman ! ”

It ensues that “ every man shares in Christ’s divinity. ” Be he good or bad, be he Christian or not, by the very fact that “ ‘ the Son of God, through His Incarnation, uniting Himself to each man and, as man, becoming one of us and like us in everything except sin. (Hb 4:15) He lived an authentic human life, and we know that His life was not easy. This brings Christ close to those who have been spared neither experience (!) nor suffering in their lives. ’

“ The idea insinuated in this inadequate demonstration – also found in the conciliar texts, it must be said – is that through this purely material proximity, and this purely ideal union of the incarnate Son of God with us men, his neighbours, fellow citizens and contemporaries – down to you and me and every human being that has ever lived – there is effected a veritable incorporation or mystical communion, whereby every man is ‘ in some fashion ’ penetrated with the holiness of the Son of God, and therefore with His divinity.

“ We merrily go along this path as far as we dare. It is the Christification and, therefore, automatic and instantaneous divinisation, of the whole human race, which, of course, makes the work of Christianising the peoples of the world quite pointless !

“ In Redemptor Hominis you write : ‘ Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the One Who, in a unique, unrepeatable way, penetrated the mystery of man and entered into his heart... Image of the invisible God(but are we not all that, according to your anthropology ?), He is Himself the perfect man Who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. ’

“ So, it is all done. God has united Himself now and forever, “ in some fashion ”, with every man. Will God also accompany every man to Hell ? Certainly not ! The conclusion you are most likely to draw is that there is no longer anyone in Hell. ” (p. 97)

Far more “ from Christ’s Passion we learn the value of man ! ” Our Father’s indignation exploded at this thought :

“ It is an error ! It is too gross an error not to be conscious and deliberate. At the reference indicated, Saint Paul writes : ‘ You have been well and truly purchased, ’ or in the words of the excellent Vulgate, ‘ You have been purchased at a great price. ’ Saint Peter likewise explains : ‘ You were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver, from the futile ways of your fathers, but with the Precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled. ’ (1 Pt 1:18)

“ What is precious, what is of great price and of inestimable value is Christ’s Blood, His redeeming love, the grace of salvation. It is the Sacred Heart of Jesus ! In this, however, you see merely the currency, the fiduciary value, of the only object precious to you : Man, who is of such great worth ! He is worth the Blood of a God ! Learn, o Man, your infinite worth ! You have singularly upped the ante ! ” (p. 98)

Our Father ended up accusing John Paul II of “ regicide and deicide, ” not hesitating to assimilate him to Caiaphas : “ For the High Priest and the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death and death on the Cross, the supreme malediction, because they refused to acknowledge His superiority, either kingly or divine, over other men, and over themselves in the first place… and Caiaphas particularly over himself. For them, therefore, Jesus was not allowed to be more than an ordinary common man. So they debased Him to such an extent that, in point of dignity, they preferred Barabbas to Him, and as their king, Caesar !

“ With more praise, and with more apparent consideration, what you are doing is equivalent to their regicide and deicide. He is King, say you ? That, however, is to show us that we are all kings. He is God, the Son of God ? That, however, is to assure us that we are all entitled to make the same claim, and to make ourselves God. Jesus is silent, as He was on Good Friday before dying from so much hatred and contempt... but that is because He recognises your Authority ! ”

He ends this chapter “ with one single example on which I would be prepared to rest the whole case. ” It is a quotation from the encyclical Redemptor Hominis :

“ ‘ The missionary attitude always begins with a feeling of deep esteem for what is in every man, for what man has himself worked out in the depths of his spirit concerning the most profound and important problems. It is a question of respecting everything that has been brought about in him by the Spirit which blows where it wills. ’

“ That is taken from paragraph number 12, and the footnotes refer us to John 2:25 and 3:8 respectively. It is to guarantee the new conciliar missiology, which begins by respecting the works of the Holy Spirit, already admirable in every man, which are represented by the various religions and cultures.

“ Christ, or your conciliar Christ, is presented as the precursor and first of these new missionaries filled with profound respect for what is in every man, namely the excellent works of the Holy Spirit. To gauge the enormity of your lie and your dereliction of duty, one merely has to open the Gospel and read : ‘ When He was in Jerusalem for the Passover, many believed in His Name, seeing the signs that He did, but Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men and did not need anyone to give testimony about man, for He Himself knew what was in a man. ’ (Jn 2:23-25)

“ Am I wrong in saying that you are an antichrist, whose mission is to put Christ to death a second time, in His Church ? ” (p. 100)


“ Your motto is well known : ‘ Totus Tuus. ’ You are all Mary’s. ”

Yet when one listens to Pope John Paul II praying to Her, one might wonder what She is for him.

“ A fertility goddess ? ” In Jasna Góra with its venerable image, “ You address all sorts of words to Her, but it is as though – forgive me ! – you were addressing words to Demeter, the current idol of the Steinerians, or to some tutelary goddess of a particular people. It is something more than folkloric, but it is not Catholic Marian devotion :

“ ‘ The Assumption of the Mother of God is also the feast of the maturity of the Polish land. On this day, sheaves of corn gathered from the fields and fruits produced in gardens are blessed. – I join in this blessing of the fruits of the earth. ’

“ ‘ At the same time, I think of all that is coming to maturity in men, of all that has matured in the thinking and consciousness of my fellow countrymen during these recent difficult years. – Man is called to live in truth and in freedom. God has given him the dignity of a son of God, so that this dignity might mature. ’ (Another breath of the Spirit of blasphemy, twofold and threefold this time : every man is divinised, made a son of God ? so that man’s dignity be brought to maturity ? !)

“ ‘ Mother of Jasna Gora ! I express my wish and I pray that the blessing of the Assumption may rest on all that has matured in the thinking, the consciousness and the hearts of the Polish people. – May it remain as a lasting fruit ! May it be a fruit of maturity of mind that no humiliation or violence can ever destroy or trample underfoot. May this fruit mature still more in the midst of the present trials, as the fruit of the Blessed Maximilian’s testimony matured in the death bunker at Oświęcim (Auschwitz.)

“ ‘ Virgin of the Assumption, we offer You the fruits of the Polish land. Still more, we offer You, on this Your solemn feast, the hard won fruit of the maturity of Polish souls. Accept it, and bless us ! Make the Polish land never cease to bear fruit and make men never cease to mature ! ’ ” (August 15, 1982)

“ A cherished illusion of neurotic women ? ”

“ In the many pilgrimages you make during your journeys, it has been noticed that you show little interest in apparitions, both in the revelations that preserve their memory and lessons, and in the many graces received at those shrines. We need not speak of Fatima again. We think of the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, of Knock in Ireland, of Ephesus in Turkey. Or we could mention the Rue du Bac, here in Paris.

“ After a moment’s recollection – never a rosary recited in common or even proposed to your hosts, never ! – you addressed this extempore prayer to the Blessed Virgin in the chapel of the Miraculous Medal. You began with the words of the ‘ Hail Mary ’ and the invocation, necessary in that place, ‘ Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee. ’ Alas, you went on to add :

“ ‘ Such is the prayer with which You inspired St. Catherine Labouré, oh Mary, in this very place, one hundred and fifty years ago... ’ The rest of the prayer is perfectly banal, a mixture of personal and collective post-conciliar self-satisfaction. As for the actual visit of the Most Blessed Virgin to this very spot, this place in the capital city where She came, this armchair, which is venerated (to the irritation of the local clergy !) because it is the seat on which She sat when She confided the wonderful things She had to say to St. Catherine – nothing ! Or rather there was something ! Your negation. Yes, you denied the reality of the facts – did you allow yourself to be impressed by the scruples of that learned and hypercritical historian, well-versed in all the quibbles of modern science, René Laurentin ? – by ignoring them altogether. Even worse, you spoke of a prayer with which the saint was ‘ inspired, ’ rather than one dictated by a living human voice.

“ Most Holy Father, it would have been better had you never entered that shrine, rather than come to deny the facts on which it is based and to annul all its benefits. After your visit, Satan’s minions, who rage against the site, will feel empowered to destroy it all. In your speech, you promised to go to Lourdes the following year. Is it because She was displeased by your incredulity, that the Blessed Virgin did not allow you to go ? Might it not have been a punishment ? ” (p. 101-102)

“ A militant feminist ? ”

With regards to the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin to Her cousin, “ I wish, first of all, to honour motherhood and that faith in man which it implies.

“ ‘ To honour motherhood means to accept man in all his truth and dignity. – I would like to salute every man and every woman by virtue of the dignity that is his or hers from the very first moment (well ! what about original sin ?)... – This is the cult of motherhood. – Man’s first right is the right to life. We must defend this right and this value. Otherwise, the whole logic of faith in man, the whole programme of truly human progress will be undermined and will collapse ’ (abortion, a crime against man and against progress ! Is this all ? And is this the Pope who is speaking ?).

“ ‘ On the threshold of Zechariah’s house, Elizabeth says to Mary : Blessed are You Who has believed (cf. Lk 1:45). Let us honour motherhood, because in it is expressed faith in man… – the act of faith in man… – The Mother… proclaims her faith in man. – From the beginning, we must believe in man. – By virtue of the very fact that he is man, thanks to that fact and thanks to his very humanity, he is the image and likeness of the infinite God. ’

“ You never speak of grace, never except in phrases such as ‘ grâce à son humanité ’ and ‘ grâce à sa dignité, ’ when you tell us that ‘ thanks to his humanity ’ and ‘ thanks to his dignity, ’ man is great and man is transcendent. Thanks to man, man is man ! and more than man, in some way God !

“ And a revolutionary militant ? ”

“ So, we have fallen from the Virgin ‘ blessed among all women ’ to any woman at all ; we have fallen from the divine Motherhood to motherhood in general ; we have fallen from Mary’s faith in the Word of God to faith in man ; from Jesus the Son of God made man, to any offspring of any human couple without faith or law other than human. You will complete your speech – which is more Masonic than Christian, more Communist than evangelical – with what St. Pius X denounced as ‘ blasphemous comparisons between the Gospel and the Revolution : ’

“ ‘ Is not the fundamental problem of work today one of justice and of the struggle for social justice ? – Today’s liturgy, in the feast of Mary’s Visitation, also speaks of justice in a certain way, does it not ? Does not the truth of God’s justice, as well as the adoration of God, whose mercy is from generation unto generation, ring out through the words placed by the Evangelist, St. Luke, in the mouth of the Virgin (She would not have been sufficiently intelligent, nor even inspired no doubt, to find such words for Herself ! This is a field in which you have no competence, but you want to appear modern in the eyes of the Modernists who might scoff,) Who bears in Her womb the Son of God ? (in contrast with your approach a short while ago, you now need to place them absolutely apart and high above us, She and He, so that Their revolutionary message be made to appear all the more authoritative, divinised and absolute.)

“ ‘ He has shown might in His arm ; He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich He has sent empty away. ” (Lk 1:51-53)

“ ‘ These words mean that the world willed by God is a world of justice. That the order that must prevail in men’s relationships with one another is based on justice. That this order must constantly be brought to realisation in the world. ’

“ But no, wait ! Justice is not of this world, as everyone knows ! Or else it would have been necessary to wait for you, you and the militant Christian-Communists…

“ One thing is certain : not one of your audience will leave that meeting with the least idea or the slightest desire of saying the Rosary with his family. To do that would seem like abandoning the struggle, the noble struggle ! Nor will any of your hearers want to go to Vespers in the parish next Sunday for the joy of singing the Magnificat. To do that would look like sinning against Man !

“ You exploit devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is still very strong in the Church, for the sake of your humanism. As for true devotion to Our Lady, you neither have it nor radiate it. On the contrary, you stifle such devotion in souls to the extent that the cult of Man and of Woman takes root and grows strong in those souls that listen to you. ” (p. 104)


“ If Christ is the exemplary, nay mythical, figure of Man, and if the Virgin Mary Mother of God is the image of Woman, the source of life, the Mother ‘ who has faith in man, ’ what will the Church be for you ? Jesus and Mary have ascended into Heaven and are beyond the reach of God’s enemies. They cannot be touched by the calumnies and insults of their perfidious friends. No one can confound Them, other than by rhetorical blasphemies, with the tainted realities of this world… On the other hand, the Church and her Holy Spirit – her divine Spirit, Who dwells in her and with her, and Who is her very Soul – can be treated as purely human things. He and she are vulnerable to the persecutions of their enemies and to the ill treatment of their perverse sons and hypocritical disciples.

“ Now, he who has sinned will sin again. He who has betrayed will betray again. It would be surprising, and inconsistent on your part, were you not to disfigure still further this divine mystery that has literally fallen into your power. It would be surprising were you not to lower her to the level of a purely human thing, the better to transfigure ordinary human things with divine splendour. This is precisely what we see wherever we look, for the possibilities of sacrilege here are vast indeed.

“ You liken the Holy Spirit inhabiting the Church to a purely natural spirit who is omnipresent in Man, leading all peoples to their ultimate and universal fulfilment. You liken the Church to a work of human genius, one of humanity’s more grandiose successes, to be sure. There is no better way to ‘ extinguish the Holy Spirit ’ and to devalue and discredit the Holy Church of Jesus Christ, our Mother and our only Hope ! ” (p. 104)

For example, by celebrating “ Notre-Dame de Paris, a Masonic building ! ” “ ‘ Here we encounter the genius of France, the genius that was expressed in the architecture of this temple (sic) eight centuries ago, and which is still here to bear witness to man(my emphasis) [...] for eight hundred years : Notre-Dame. ’ ”

“ The shock of the words is deliberate : Notre-Dame bears witness to Man, not collective or abstract man, but to any Man. Secretly, it bears witness to the Freemasons, the supposed heirs to the gnostic traditions of the builders of Solomon’s Temple and of the mediaeval cathedrals, but today the builders of Man, the builders of the Luciferan Temple proclaimed as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. What language for a Pope !

“ The consequences of such papal words, which might be no more than a bizarre mental game, are immense and tragic for the Church. If Notre-Dame is a manifestation of 13th century human genius, the genius of Man tormented by a Spirit urging him to surpass himself in his works of Art, then what can be said about the other architecture along the Seine ! The Louvre, the Arc de Triomphe a little further to the west, and then in an even more modern style, the Eiffel Tower and the Défense ! Since this ‘ Progress ’ of Art down the centuries is the progress of humanist apostasy and the triumph of the Anti-Church, for a Pope to pay homage to it is the deadliest disavowal of the Church that could be articulated. Life today is not to be found at Notre-Dame ; it is elsewhere, at Beaubourg or at the Trocadero !

“ Let us go into Notre-Dame, this exhibition temple to man’s genius rather than God’s dwelling house among men, where the divine praises perpetually resound on the lips of the Church’s children.... What, according to you, is done in this place ? People pray. Yes, but what is prayer ? ”

“ Prayer, humanist recreation ” is a “ ‘ form of sublime spiritual activity wherein man discovers himself, conquers himself, surpasses and divinises himself, under the impulse of the Spirit within him. For such prayer, all temples are equally good, and perhaps the temple of Nature is the best after all !

“ ‘ The Trappist or the Carthusian confess this God in a complete life of silence. It is to him that the Bedouin, wandering in the desert, turns at his hour of prayer. Then there is the Buddhist monk, wrapt in the contemplation that purifies his thought and prepares the way to Nirvana : but does all this come from Nirvana alone ? God is absolutely transcendent and entirely surpasses the whole of creation, all that is visible and tangible. ’ ” He is so transcendent that this justifies the atheists who make it a mystical experience !

“ You make this universal (atheist) mysticism a ‘ truth, ’ to which St. John of the Cross allegedly bore witness, and we already know how, in his name, you have opened the Church to atheists. To do that, however, is to extinguish the Holy Spirit and to devalue the Church. It is even a devaluation of the Jewish, Muslim and pagan religions ! But to make St. John of the Cross stand surety for such a godless mysticism is something I utterly repudiate. His doctrine does not exclude but implies the maternal communication of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments and the teaching of Holy Church, and of her alone ! The highest mysticism has never dispensed anyone from these requisites. Quite the contrary ! Which is why, moreover, there is no true mysticism outside the true Church, and why atheism is the opposite of contemplation ! As for your cherished atheists, they are God’s enemies !

“ If what I say is true, retract. If, on the other hand, what I say is false, then tell me where I am wrong and what my errors are. Condemn my errors from the height of your infallible Magisterium ! But stop discrediting the Church and extinguishing the Holy Spirit ! ” (p. 106-107) Otherwise, “ the missions are ridiculed. ”

“ Instead of the missions, we now hear you talk of converting the Church to the world, of aligning the Church with universal humanism. ”

Furthermore, “ the Church’s holiness is profaned ” : “ Maria Goretti is honoured as a heroine of women’s dignity, but no longer of Christian virginity and chastity ! ”

“ St. Maximilian Kolbe, humanist martyr of the right to life ! ” By John Paul II’s sovereign decision “ his death freely accepted out of love for man ” will make him “ the first Catholic Martyr of the ‘ right to life, ’ of ‘ human dignity, ’ and of the ‘ love of man as man ’ for man himself ! He will be a Wojtylian martyr to be exploited by atheistic humanism, which is Marxist in the East and Masonic in the West. He will be a bridge between East and West, and will also serve as a patron for the world’s anti-fascists, denouncing in the Nazi torturers the deniers of Human Rights and of the Ideals of 1789, which must now be the Creed for all mankind.

“ And yet, there is something in the life of this Saint that prevents such a use of his relics. It is his very vocation, his fight against Freemasonry and its Satanic ideals through the formation of a wholly Catholic Militia, under the banner of Mary Immaculate. This is where you necessarily commit what the catechism calls a ‘ lie of omission ’. This saint, therefore, is against you, both in Heaven and on earth !

“ The martyrs of Otranto, heroes, of human dignity !” It would be the end of religion on earth, if the Church did not fight with all the might of her institutions and of her holy living traditions against this end times apostasy. Yet how much longer can the Church still endure your blows ? ” (p. 111)

Alas ! The canonisation of this Pope is capable of completing her destruction !


It is quite simple : “ Saint Leo’s unforgettable words to the people of Rome on Christmas night, ‘ Agnosce, O Christiane, dignitatem tuam, ’ are completely contradicted by your humanist message ; ‘ Know, O Man, your dignity, your grandeur and your deity ! ’ ”


“ The path of salvation for individuals and for whole peoples has, from the earliest times, been that of religion. From the time of Abraham and Moses, it was the path of Jewish Law and worship that it established. Lastly, for all time and for all peoples, it is, through Jesus Christ, the way of the Church in which the faithful are led and outside of which there is no salvation. This way is Christ. It is He Who told us that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jn 4:6). He is the way to Heaven. ‘ I will show you the way to Heaven, ’ said the Curé of Ars to Antoine Givre, the little shepherd who showed him the way to Ars ! That is just what he did, as you know.

“ However, one fine day You announce categorically and magisterially, ‘ The way of the Church is Man. ’ This is an impious statement, since you put man, whether concrete or philosophical, in place of the Son of God made man. This is a foolish remark, because one can only wonder what sort of way can man possibly be : what are his dogmas, sacraments and commandments ? Where can man lead us, except into the brawls and lowest depths of this world, and thence to Hell ? Finally, this is a revolution in the Church, and the only way you can lead it is to set one party, the party of Man, against the other, the party of Jesus Christ ! [...]

“ The good people [ at that time, Fr. Jorge Bergoglio, today Pope Francis, who is about to canonise you ! ] piously imagine that you are simply talking for the sake of talking. For example, when you say that before the Council the Church was too ‘ disincarnate, ’ and that she needed to get her feet back on the ground a little… To think that, however, is to mistake you for a puppet master. Our knowledge of your ‘ secular anthropocentrism ’ obliges us to interpret this new order as a command that the Church must make a complete change in the direction of Her path. This Church must be converted to man and to this present world. Renouncing the primacy and priority of religious works or of worship, she must plunge into the life of this world and apply herself to the works of secular humanism, in other words to culture.

“ That is exactly what was wrought by that great charter for change, the Augsburg Confession of 1530, that formidable ‘ anti-Catholic utopia, ’ as I called it, not without proving and demonstrating the point in June 1980. It was at a time when the Church herself was foolishly celebrating the 450th anniversary of this charter, and when you yourself dared to say that Someone in you ‘ was living this anniversary most intensely… ’ That Someone, if someone there be, can only be, Most Holy Father, Satan or one of his minions.

“ Luther and Melancthon explained their ‘ Reformation ’ by saying that ‘ the just man lives by faith alone ’ and not by works, by which they meant works of religion and devotion, thereafter proscribed as abominable and impious. The just man, however, proves his faith through temporal works, that is, through war, finance and commerce, and God manifests His blessing of him by making him victorious, rich and clever. Does this apply to you ? Is this the explanation of your super-reformation, of your innovations, of your humanist Revolution ? Most certainly. According to your philosophy, it is through atheism – that is, through the ‘ annihilation ’ of all positive religion, at least speculatively – that a pure immanent faith must be born, one that involves the acceptance of a Transcendence that is not disturbing ; and this will prove itself through the incognito progress of Christians along the highway of humanity towards its temporal fulfilment. You would not dream of denying it, for that is exactly it !

“ Compared with you, Luther, the obscure monk from Wittenburg, was a mere child. ” (p. 113)


“ In order to effect this change of course, you ask for full powers : you establish a dictatorship [...]. Quite simply, it is schism triumphant in the head and at the summit of the Church, rather than in some peripheral place such as Wittenburg, Geneva or London. The schism is in Rome, and it was effected through the work of John XXIII the Unwitting, Paul VI, and now you It is the work of the Council and of the post Council to which you appeal today. ” The ‘ canonisation ’ planned by Benedict XVI is intended to make this work definitive !

“ It is Napoleon making himself emperor in order to consolidate the gains of the Revolution ; it is Lenin muzzling the soviets in the factories and establishing the Checka in the name of Communism. This is where the history of the Church, of human religion and of the world, is cut in two. Everything is either before or after the Council. Or rather, if we read you carefully – due to these implicit contents and these current experiments, which suggest a sort of hiatus before the much-heralded grand reformation – there is a before-Me and an after-Me on a cosmic scale. It is, however, a schism ! It is a death sentence to be ‘ executed ’ on the former Apostolic Church, to be followed by the creation of a new, conciliar, or more exactly, Wojtylian, Church. ” (p. 114)


“ You wish us to bow before this ? Yes, you invoke the Holy Spirit, Who is wholly mobilised in the propaganda service of your dictatorship ; but it is a service which you yourself will supply [...].

“ ‘ We believe that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was with the Council Fathers. We believe that the Council contains, in its Magisterium, what the Spirit said to the Church, saying it in total harmony with Tradition and in accord with the demands posed by the signs of the times. This faith is based on Christ’s promise : ‘ I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world ’ (Mt 28:20.) On this faith is also based our conviction that we must ‘ realise the Council ’ as it is, and not as we would like to see or understand it. ”

“ That is what you say, and that is what I contest. You are deceiving yourself, or rather you are deceiving the Church. You, however, find it absolutely impossible to justify your statements, on which rests your entire revolutionary dictatorship, by appealing to Roman Catholic doctrine. Eighteen years ago, I denounced the deception of this alleged conciliar illuminism, and fifteen years ago to this day, May 4, 1983, I defended my denunciation before the tribunal of the Holy Office. Never has anyone succeeded in articulating a word in answer to this formidable accusation of dereliction of duty and deception, unique in the annals of the Church.

“ No, in none of its parts is the Council an object of faith. Nor can it be affirmed, without falling into illuminism, that the Spirit spoke at the Council. Nothing declared or decided by the Council is binding on the conscience of any Catholic bishop, priest or member of the faithful. Still less can it bind the Popes, who take sole responsibility for their teaching and their decisions. No one can hide behind the supposed authority of this ‘ pastoral ’ Council, the declarations and decisions of which remain uncertain and confused, and which has given nothing but trouble and division to the Church since it ended twenty years ago. ” (p. 115)


“ The high point of your deception, of your revolutionary autocratism, was reached when you celebrated the memory of Paul VI on August 1st and 8 1979, the anniversary of his being summoned before God’s tribunal, as we all shall be, on August 6, 1978, the ‘ Feast of the Lord’s Transfiguration. ’ From the fact of Paul VI’s having died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, you conclude that he experienced his own transfiguration on that day – the height of the most delirious illuminism ! You went on to say that this was only right for one, who through the Council, had wrought the ‘ transformation of the Church, ’ or in other words, its transfiguration ! Teilhard de Chardin died on Easter Sunday ; was that the sign of his resurrection ? ”

If this is the case, it will be necessary to canonise him as well.

“ Why all this extravagance and this deceit ? It is to make the Church accept the apostasy, foretold and condemned in advance by truly saintly Popes, your predecessors, whom you disown and systematically ignore, because they rose up in advance, in God’s Name, and infallibly, against the wicked pride of the reformers of the Church – Paul VI yesterday, and you today. ”


“ After the argument from authority, we come to the argument from reason. The first argument conceals an obvious contradiction. The allegedly divine authority of Vatican II destroys the certain and infallible authority of the pre-Vatican II Church. That prediction is both inept and stupid ! It is used to support another one, the evolutionist discourse on the ‘ signs of the times, ’ according to which things had to change. Through a profound fidelity to the Ancients we had to end in contradicting them by a purely apparent infidelity ! There is evolution even in the midst of contradiction. In order to justify such a volte-face, the entire Church and God Himself would need to be Hegelian ! Another pompous prediction that is as stupid as it is inept ! ” (p. 116-117)

A speech of John Paul II to three thousand German artists and publicists enabled our Father to mark the stages of this turnaround of the Church, from “ the days of Christendom ” when “ the content of the Christian Faith constituted the motives and the themes of art ” until “ the opening to the world of Vatican II, ” while passing through a period of “ regrettable reciprocal aggressiveness of today’s world and yesterday’s Church. ”

“ Thus you relegate what your predecessors defined and decreed to be the inviolable and immutable expression of divine Faith and law to the relative sphere of their historical circumstances, human decisions, temperament, tactics, prejudice and errors. This authorises you to break with yesterday’s religion in the name of a Spirit that speaks to you directly through the signs of the times. Principally, through the Council... ” then through “ your secular and postchristian anthopocentrism, ” according to which “ ‘ the Church can and must always be your partner – a partner in the concern for human dignity in a world shaken to its foundations. ’ ”

“ The whole text leads straight to the last line, where the new humanism, the new Wojtylian Church, is revealed. She is in ‘ partnership ’ with the new world, working for human dignity and, in all sincerity and disinterestedness, for the humanisation of the planet.

“ Regrettably, Most Holy Father, this is precisely the pastoral teaching that was condemned in the Syllabus of the holy Pope Pius IX. It is that supposed ‘ reconciliation of the Church with the modern world, ’ with a humanity said to be autonomous, free, but responsible ! This pastoral teaching is unwilling to recognise that, in reality, this humanity is apostate, anti-Christian, and atheistic. If the Church is the ‘ partner ’ of such a world, it can only be an act of prostitution. ” (p. 118)

To tell the truth, “ you opt for the Church’s disappearance, ” to the profit of “ social atheism as a starting point for a new Christianity. ”

“ You do not scruple to posit straightaway this concept of a prior humanism which, moreover, is the Weltanschauung of Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy. You give glory to Freemasonry and to the 1789 Revolution for having rebuilt this original world, governed by a nameless and faceless Wisdom Who made an eternal covenant with man. ” It was the theme of “ the famous homily that you preached to the French people at the Mass at Le Bourget on June 1, 1980 :

“ ‘ What have the sons and daughters of your nation not done to further the knowledge of man and to express man by formulating his inalienable rights ! The place held by the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity in your culture and history is well known. Fundamentally, they are Christian ideas. I say this fully aware that those who first formulated these ideals did so without reference to man’s covenant with the eternal wisdom. Nevertheless, they wanted to act on behalf of man. ’ ”

“ Man – or society – is thus a lay and secular substance that, from the beginning, has and always will be inhabited by the Eternal Wisdom. A certain religion is nothing other than its epiphenomenon, while a certain Church is simply its superstructure :

“ ‘ In this covenant, man must grow and develop as man. He must grow and develop starting from the divine foundation of his humanity, that is to say, from his image and likeness to God Himself. Man must grow and develop as a son of divine adoption. ’

“ ‘ As a son of divine adoption, man must grow and develop through all that is conducive to the development and progress of the world in which he lives... ’ In so doing, however, he must not ‘ neglect the covenant with the Eternal Wisdom ! ’

“ To read you at length is to enter into the Weltanschauung of your Steinerian anthroposophy (but I nevertheless hope that it is not ‘ Luciferian ’ as are the other Steinerians.) Christ and the Church are merely supernatural, superfluous realities in a world that is already saved through Eternal Wisdom. With all the strength of the theological virtues that indwell my soul since the day of my baptism, hatred, divine hatred, rises up within me as I copy your words…

“ Serenely indifferent to such a negligible reaction, and inhabited by a superhuman force, you continue :

“ The power in Heaven and on earth is not a power that is against man. It is not even a power exercised by man over man. It is a power that allows man to be revealed to himself in his royalty, in the full plenitude of his dignity. It is a power, the specific force of which man must discover in his heart, by which he must reveal his own self to himself in the dimension of his conscience and the perspective of eternal life (I have emphasised those parts where the blasphemy shows through with the greatest insolence.)

“ ‘ Then will be revealed in man the full force of his baptism ; he will know that he is (sic) immersed in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ; he will discover himself fully in the Eternal Word, in infinite Love. ’ ”

“ Thus, at the end of your speech there appear two intermixed fidelities. One of them was understood, retained and applauded by the Catholics : ‘ France, eldest Daughter of the Church, are you faithful to the promises of your baptism ? ’ The other was not understood, and thus was not retained by the Catholics, but it was noted by the brothers of the Masonic lodges all the world over : ‘ France, eldest Daughter of the Church and educator of the peoples (that is to say, mother of every modern revolution,) are you faithful, for the good of man, to the covenant with the Eternal Wisdom ? ’ ” (p. 120)

“ For you, these two fidelities are one and the same, but it is the anthroposophic that comes first ! What you hope for, and what you are pleased to see coming about in the world, is an atheist society, that is to say, a humanity with its ancient and eternal covenant with Wisdom reforged, an ‘ appealing ’ society that will ‘ recover the newness of the Gospel ’ after two thousand years of religious alienation. This is what appears in the grandiose speech you gave to the members of a congress gathered for the theme, ‘ Evangelisation and Atheism, ’ held in Rome from October 6 to 10, 1980. Atheism is the glory of man, and the soil most favourable to the Church’s work of re-evangelisation. ”


“ André Frossard tells us – indeed he gives us the image of you that you want us to have – that ‘ The Holy Father detests polemics and all its summary classifications. It is true that he holds from Heaven two charisms, which dispense him from entering into our wretched quarrels... ’ So Frossard maintains ! ‘ The first charism is the gift of being able to act by his presence alone... Whenever any discussion arises in the Church, he calls the two sides together, sits down at the bottom of the table, says nothing, and in the end the matter is settled. ’

“ That is the legend of your supposed miracle in the Dutch crisis. In fact, however, you allowed the majority to crush the mini-minority.

“ ‘ The other gift is his ability to go back to the causes, very far back in history or very high up the scale in theology, ’ and your friend correctly remarks that at every turn you go back to the first chapters of the Bible. ‘ He never hesitates to refer back to the Book of Genesis, ’ says Frossard admiringly. Little does the good man know that, in so doing, you are going back beyond original sin and taking refuge in the utopia of an earthly paradise, which is : (1) without Church and (2) optimistic, purely humanist according to you, and naturalistic. Following your meeting with the French bishops at Issy-les-Moulineaux, I accused you of being ‘ stratospheric. ’ So were the Bishops on that day, so as to avoid having to give an account of their deplorable stewardship. For you, however, it was a matter of not having to intervene authoritatively, with the risk of causing displeasure. Now I understand it even better : it was to avoid spoiling your public image as a secular humanist amid the paltry controversies of the ecclesiastical world !

“ ‘ The Holy Father, as is known, ’ repeats Frossard, ‘ rejects divisions between Right and Left, between Traditionalism and Progressivism, which he thinks should be avoided at all costs. For him, the Faith has to be lived with simplicity, and following the Gospel does not consist in choosing between what facilitates progress and what hinders it, but in serving the Truth. ’

“ In imitation of you, Frossard puts all the excesses of Right and Left into the same basket, that of people led by fear, fear of what is new or unknown, or else the fear of not appearing to be sufficiently advanced, emancipated and bold. It is a miserable explanation, contemptuous and horribly defamatory. Once deciphered, however, the analysis of your thinking about our divisions within the Church is striking :

“ Faith, for you, is to be lived out with simplicity. This means that Faith, this pure experience of the divine in man and of the Unknowable in its transcendence, passes beyond all our dogmatic debates, liturgical disputes, and our conflict on morality, politics, and traditions. All these things have no interest or meaning for you. What counts is the Gospel. Admirable ! The Gospel consists in serving the truth. Yes, but.. ! The truth for you is the dignity, kingship and transcendence of Man ! Therefore, your service of the Gospel is your struggle on behalf of the Rights of Man, far removed from the ecclesiastical quarrels, which you spurn altogether. ” (p. 121)

This is particularly the case in the quarrel that opposes ‘ integrism ’ to ‘ progressivism, ’ maintaining ‘ a regrettable and detrimental division ’ in the only ‘ fundamental question ’ that of a ‘ particular concentration on man ’ that must lead the Church ‘ to confront the common questions of man. ’ ” (p. 122)

“ For you to be correct in thus presenting the religious war raging within the Church, it would be necessary :

“ (1) for the Council to have made infallible definitions, or at least to have given clear, precise, authoritative and unquestionably supernatural pastoral directives, which is not the case ;

“ (2) that the world apostasy of these last hundred years be a God-given sign of a like evolution to be wrought in the Church by Him, which is clearly not credible, the contrary having been taught infallibly by the Popes prior to the Conciliar Revolution ;

“ (3) that the Church be in a continual state of evolution that no one can predict and that is prophetically dictated at all times by an indefectible Magisterium, connected to the future and to the Holy Spirit, with a view to ‘ the ultimate self-realisation of the Church. ’ This is an absurd and aberrant illuminism.

“ Having said this, you have every chance of being believed by all the faithful, who are opportunely deceived on all three points. Besides, in the surge of their faith, they are bound to flinch before the enormity of any kind of isolated or minority opposition to the Pope, the Council, the totality of the bishops, the clergy and the massive public opinion of believers and unbelievers alike. This panic-stricken terror that holds the people of God in subjection to you also manifests your totalitarianism, your persuasive force and the victory of your party, but not the legitimacy or the truth of what you have to say. ”

Furthermore, this terror manifests the heroic character of Fr. de Nantes’ virtue of faith : he alone opposed this universal apostasy. The history of the Church offers no precedent.

“ In the year 360 of the Christian era, Pope Liberius had yielded to ‘ pravitas haeretica, ’ heretical perversity. It is Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church, who tells us of this. The Councils of Rimini and of Seleucia, which between them had brought together all the bishops in the world, had denied the faith of Nicaea in order to achieve union with the Modernists of their day using vague and ambiguous formulas. Against all odds Athanasius, Hilary, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of Vercelli and the ambitious Lucifer of Cagliari – who was the only one to fall into schism – held firmly to the Catholic Faith, although disavowed by the Pope and excommunicated by practically all the world’s bishops.

“ What we are seeing now is a hundred times worse than what was to be seen then. This was because Pope Liberius only faltered momentarily out of fear, and for the peace of the Church ; the two Councils adhered to specious and accommodating formulas that could be interpreted in an acceptable way as a bare though inadequate defence against heresy ; and finally, at that time, the Church held the unchangeable Catholic Faith to be paramount, not individual illuminism, evolutionism, still less humanist apostasy. Our situation is a hundred times worse. So, your false symmetry between integrism and progressivism is a lie, and the solution you advocate, that of an authoritative rallying of the whole Christian people on the hierarchy’s orders for the fulfilment of the Council, is an odious and insidious proposition aimed at eliminating the last defenders of the Faith, not with the sword, but with contempt and hatred. It is an act for which you will not be pardoned, either in this world or in the next, unless you make public reparation, for it is a death-dealing blow against the Church herself. ” (p. 123)

Thus prevails the “ false symmetry ” between integrists and progressivists, between “ the last defenders of the Faith ” and its “ corrupters ! ”

Among the former, “ you only find weakness, Most Holy Father, and you can squash us all like flies. We shall never leave the Church, nor shall we ever resort to any kind of violence against her. Besides, we are without power, we have no control over public opinion and have no money, other than for subsistence. This party is nothing, can do nothing and has nothing. Yet it is here, and only here, that you will find today’s confessors of the Faith. ”

“ You represent those who criticise, weaken, attack and destroy the Faith [...] as intelligent, generous-minded, and apostolic. To them you show great benevolence. Never any contempt, hatred or distrust ! Their only fault is wanting to go too fast, whereas the others, you say, want to go too slowly. These tendencies, you say, ‘ stimulate each other. ’ Whose fault is that ? It is the fault of the backward-looking, of course, who are selfishly ensconced in their ‘ Catholic City, ’ whilst the others are running ahead to evangelise the modern world ! These latter only incur minor reproaches from you. They scandalise the weak, they are disorderly, they undermine the unity and cohesion of the flock ; and do they know exactly where they are going ? ‘ Towards what progress ? ’

“ To call them ‘ progressivists ’ is to pay them false honour. They are first and foremost ‘ Modernists, ’ that is to say, the most dangerous heretics of all time. They are people who ruin religion in its very essence, who undermine the foundations of the Church and who destroy all human order with their criminal adoption of the principles of modern society : subjectivism, immanentism, liberalism, and that incoherent blend of rationalism and fideism which allows them to live outwardly as Catholics whilst being inwardly apostates. That is something you know about... ” (p. 125)

Although they had been prevented from doing harm under Pius XII, “ all those heretics were rehabilitated and heaped with honours by the Council. They now occupy all the top posts in the teaching and administration of the Church, and have filled all the episcopal sees. They have become the masters. They support one another and are unconditionally aided and protected by those two Satanic powers that are reconciled for the sake of directing an apostate world : Judaeo-Masonry and world Communism. ”

The result is a disaster :

“ For ourselves, we can survive another ten pontificates like yours, with God’s grace, which is not lacking, but the unfortunate faithful and their clergy, the congregations of humble religious, trusting and submissive, in the hands of a hierarchy and parallel organisations all sold out to the Modernists, they cannot hold out. Amid such ecclesiastical pestilence, they cannot keep the Faith. For that, you are the one principally responsible before God. As for those clergy or faithful, whose firmness in the Faith has marked them down for punishment by your bishops, theologians and religious superiors – who expel them from the monasteries, seminaries and parishes, and deprive them of their powers of jurisdiction in defiance of all divine justice and social right (may God overthrow these corrupt and unjust clergy who thus despoil their brethren !) – if ever these persecuted clergy or faithful come to form a sect, to feel disgust for the Church and to contest your authority and legitimacy, to the point where they find themselves excommunicated by you, Karol Wojtyla, – which would be the limit ! – they will most certainly have done wrong, but you will be the one principally to blame for their action, having provoked them to indignation and despair !

“ Am I inventing dramas out of nothing ? I shall quote you one example, one name. A certain Jesuit, by name of Xavier Léon-Dufour, has produced three enormous scholarly books over the last three years. These books are wholly Modernist. The first of the three is entitled Jesus and Paul, Faced with Death (Parole de Dieu series, published by le Seuil, 1979.) It is a Modernist negation of the Mystery of Redemption. The second, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Paschal Message (same series, 1971) is a negation of the physical, objective, historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The third is called The Sharing of the Eucharistic Bread in the New Testament (1982.) Its title says it all. It is a total negation of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Real Presence and of the mystical union with God wrought by Christ’s Body and Blood.

“ This is a Modernist who certainly does not fit in with your attractive description of a ‘ progressivism, ’ which ‘ advances too quickly. ’ This Jesuit is completely heretical and perfectly obstinate, refusing – and oh ! how meekly – to yield to the least request that he should rectify his works, as suggested to him by his learned confreres whom he intentionally consults. He is thus destroying the Catholic Faith with impunity. I denounce him to you. If you do not order an enquiry, followed by a condemnation and public prohibition of his works, we shall know that you are ‘ Satan’s eldest son ’ treacherously mounted on Christ’s very throne. ” (p. 126-127)


“ You have great plans for humanising the planet. Your plans, however, demand the Church’s material and cultural well-being: buildings, money, recruitment and general administration. Not that you desire this for the Church herself which, for you, is nothing more than a means, a servant of You, of Man, and of the World. Nor do you desire the salvation of souls or the conquest of infidels, in which you have no interest. Nor is it for the honour of God, which you place elsewhere, in the ‘ life of man, ’ in his earthly happiness and in the construction of the city of the future, prosperous and cultural.

“ You need the Church, but you imagine, like our French bishops forty years ago – as I well remember – that the institution operates of itself by perpetual motion : births, baptisms, catechism classes, vocations, conversions, closed retreats, pilgrimages, alms and donations, the support – or the fear and calculation – of the civil power. You thought there would always be Catholic material to serve your Grandeur and your designs. Now, however, we are touching rock bottom. Children are not being born, baptisms are down, marriage is out, divorce is in, and abortion is rampant… There are no more conversions, and the catechism is no longer taught. People have ceased to practise their religion, they no longer go to Mass, and there is no more money in the collection. No one is entering the seminaries and convents. Everywhere people are abandoning and losing the Faith. Evangelisation has come to an end. It is a catastrophe. ” (p. 127)

After “ your abandonment of the catechism, ” Pope Francis discovers today that children no longer know how to make the sign of the Cross ! “ Parents no longer teach their children how to pray or how to make the sign of the Cross. ” (catechesis of March 5, 2014)

“ Finally, the abandonment of the Mass, ” which is tangible in our parishes, has dried up the source of grace. John Paul II, however, worried little about it : “ You are somewhere else : on the side of the new humanism, which tomorrow will be the new religion of a new and much vaster Church. ” (p. 130)


“ The forces of religious cohesion, labelled integrism, have been crushed and driven out. The disintegrating forces of Modernism, relabelled progressivism, have been supported. Your lack of interest for ecclesiastical and liturgical quarrels has hastened the Church’s degeneration as a religion and as a visible, organic, hierarchical, Christian community established for our supernatural salvation. Under your pontificate, the Church has become a mere storeroom or reservoir from whence militants can be drawn for your mass demonstrations. Alas, the only worry is that, having lost its religion and the memory of its identity, the tired old horse may collapse under its rider. The branch on which the woodcutter is sitting, the better to saw it off, will crash down with him on it.

“ For the moment, however, you can still show the Church to the World, to the U.N., to Unesco, to the Trilateral, and declare that she no longer is what she was in former times, and until quite recently. You can demonstrate to the world that she no longer ranks the salvation of her members as the number one priority, but as number fifty-six. You can present the Church as no longer claiming to be the sole, exclusive means of well-being for all humanity and for each individual person, but as one among many means, not necessarily the first. Some future international jury adjudicating a world competition of major religions in the service of mankind can decide the order of priority.

“ The Church is the friend and the servant of every man, whoever he may be. The Church is the friend of man’s dignity and freedom… and ‘ she has now broken with the celebrated formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, which was not so terrible after all [ N’ayez pas peur (Be Not Afraid) ] since no one knew the exact limits of the Church. ’ Nevertheless she was still a residue of fanaticism, but all this is forgotten now. Under your guidance, the Church today has become fully human, in both her ends and her means, and she knows how to tell this to the world, on all the rostrums of its great organisations.

“ The Church of today is concerned to show herself characterised by an absolute and even religious liberalism, and by an ecumenism that is open to Christians, to monotheist and polytheist believers, and to atheists, whose unbelief is only an inverted form of belief. Finally, the Church is the servant of a one-worldism, ready for any sacrifice in the interests of a truly human civilisation. The Council had laid the foundations for this threefold enterprise ; Paul VI had created the commissions for the necessary dialogue and co-operation ; and you have followed all this and consolidated it with your speeches and bold initiatives. ” (p. 132)

“ Religious liberty, human liberty. ”

I have said many times : “ It is the focal point of our opposition to the Council :

“ If anyone says that liberty, and religious liberty in the first place, which consists in the social right to practise, proclaim, and spread one’s convictions in matters of religion or in related moral, political and social matters, is a natural, fundamental right of man living in society, let him be anathema. ”

“ Most of those who follow you imagine that your many speeches, meetings and journeys are aimed at having oppressive human powers accept the Church and the freedom of her truth. Not at all ! It is the other way round. It is the Church who no longer wants to have any truth other than that of Man’s liberty in order to gain the satisfaction of philandering with this world. ” (p. 134)

“ Ecumenism has no more frontiers. ”

“ In this atheistic humanism of religious folklore, all religions are henceforth related, all Churches and Counter-Churches have a real, human, essential bond, compared with which their ideological constructions, said to be dogmatic, are clearly secondary. All must belong to this U.N. or this spiritual Unesco, which will soon manage the religious and sentimental phantasms of mankind for the greater good of men, for their harmony and common spiritual development.

“ Philosophically, this is what you have accepted by wanting no more than a ‘ noumenal ’ God, and by impressing with a subjective relativism all religion that is of the order of ‘ phenomenal ’ representations. . If there is no longer any objective and historical revelation and religion, then they are all called upon to coalesce.

“ Your ecumenism is based on this level of fundamental principles and is regarded by you as an ineluctable necessity for modern times. Your secular humanism holds on to you in all your initiatives and will allow you no deviation. Every man is my brother. ” (p. 134)

“ Everywhere, the Pope also brings an awareness of the universal brotherhood of all men, in the name of which all men should feel themselves to be united concerning the great and difficult problems of the whole human family : peace, freedom, justice, hunger, culture and other problems which, with God’s help, I dealt with at length when I addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations at the U.N. Headquarters in New York on October 20 last year (...). The Gospel is the great fundamental charter of this awareness. ”

“ That is an example of your ecumenical encounters, taken from one of your speeches to the Sacred College, of June 28, 1980.

“ ‘ Everywhere, ’ you say, ‘ the Pope bears within him a profound awareness that... ’ One wonders how the cardinals in the Curia can listen to speeches of such relentless and insolent Modernism. Thus, your ‘ awareness ’ makes you regard as certain the union, the harmony, and the shared finality, – real, earthly, and natural – of the whole human family. Such is your basic anthroposophy, determining your truly boundless ecumenical conduct. Whence – yes, truly whence – your restructuring of a theology, come what may, for your ‘ awareness ’ inspires you with this strange doctrine that all men are already saved, not just in title but in deed, through the redeeming Incarnation of Jesus the Son of God. All are saved, you say, believers and unbelievers alike.

“ Thus, you turn inside out, like a glove, the ecumenical question, which is otherwise insoluble. All people will therefore be saved, or are on the way to salvation, within their motley religions... Each individual, therefore, is saved by his religion. Your awareness also tells you that, does it not ? This is a matter on which Father Congar, a professional theologian, would only advance with the utmost hesitation and guile, in the correspondence I had with him on the question... ‘ If one looks at it from the side of men, of the faithful belonging to these Communions, it can be said that those who belong to them in good faith are united to God and can work out their salvation, not only in these Communions, but by using the means of grace to be found therein. In this sense, it can be said that these Communions are salvation communities. ’ You see how prudent he is ! Journet, on the other hand, formally contradicted him (in times past !) : ‘ Alongside the bad materials there are also some good materials, but even these good materials are put into operation in a spiritual form that is to be wholly rejected. ’

“ If Journet is right, there is still only one Church, ‘ outside which there is no salvation, ’ that is to say, there is no other community, church, sect or religion by which one can be saved. This condemns all top level ecumenism among ‘ Churches ’ and among religions, although there are certainly multitudes of human beings, born into those sects or religions, who are touched by Christ’s grace and the Church’s influence, and who are saved by ways other than those of their false religions or dissident communities.

“ You, however, have no such hesitations. For you, everyone finds in his own sect, church or religion – even his atheism ! – his necessary and sufficient ‘ means of salvation ! ’ So, you greet the Lutherans as brothers on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confession of Augsburg, and you go to Canterbury to celebrate your common baptism with ‘ Archbishop ’ Runcie – but is he an archbishop or not ? That is a question you would not answer for all the gold in the world, preferring to deceive both the Anglicans and the Catholics for as long as possible. Your participation in the Canterbury service was an act of ‘ Communicatio in sacris, ’ for which I vehemently reproached you, calling you ‘ a Public Sinner, ’ Most Holy Father, and I do not regret it. ” (p. 135)

“ A one-worldism of anthroposophic love or a return to the global Jewish alliance ? ”

“ By pushing just a little further, your ecumenism will truly gather in all men – an extension pushed to the limits of the universe – and will show them feelings of esteem, love and support. These feelings, alas, will be marked by superficiality bordering on absolute meaninglessness. You know that the ‘ comprehension ’ of a term is in inverse proportion to its ‘ extension ’ or, as the popular wisdom puts it, ‘ Grasp all, lose all. ’

“ ‘ On all sides – Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish – America opens its heart to me, ’ you said, as you descended from the aeroplane at Boston. ‘ For my part, I come to you, America, with feelings of friendship, respect and esteem. ’ Then, in the course of the Mass celebrated on Boston Common : ‘ I greet all Americans without distinction ; I desire to meet you and to say to you all – men and women – of whatever religious faith or ethnic origin, children and young people, fathers, mothers, the sick and the aged – that God loves you and that He has conferred on you, as human beings, an incomparable dignity. I wish to say to each one of you that the Pope is your friend and the servant of your humanity. ’

“ What can be the meaning of an ‘ incomparable ’ dignity bestowed on each and every one of those two hundred million American citizens ? Their demagogues tell them the same… and even more ! Outside the Catholic Faith, they are just empty words. What are this friendship and this service directed to the ‘ humanity ’ within men, rather than to their hearts and souls ?

“ Whoever declares that he loves, admires and serves all men has a certain category of men in mind, who are most distant from him, most hostile and opposed to him, and with whom he wishes to be reconciled. What in all the world is most powerful, most contrary and most hostile to the Catholic Church of Christ, the Son of God made man ? To ask the question is to answer it. The Church, in your one-worldism, is seeking out the Synagogue. In so doing, the Church lowers herself, she kowtows to and denies herself before the other, which will never renounce its pride and ambition for world domination, and will only respond to the Church’s advances the better to prostitute her, before putting her to death a second time. ”

“ As for your preferential seeking after the Jewish Alliance, I have only to quote your own words, used in a hundred speeches. At Mainz, you said, ‘ Christians should feel themselves to be the brothers of all men and behave as such. This sacred obligation, however, is all the greater when Christians find themselves faced with those who are of the Jewish people ! In their Declaration on the relationship between the Church and Judaism of April of this year 1980, the bishops of the German Federal Republic began with this statement : Whoever encounters Jesus Christ encounters Judaism. I would also like to make these words my own (...). The depth and richness of our common inheritance are particularly revealed to us in friendly dialogue and trusting collaboration (...). It is not simply a question of rectifying the false religious vision we have of the Jewish people, which has partly been the cause of so much misunderstanding and persecution in the course of history. Above all, it is a question of dialogue between two religions, which – together with Islam – have given the world faith in the one ineffable God, Who speaks to us and Whom we wish to serve in the name of the whole world. ’ ”

“ There we have a one-worldism that sees in Judaism and Christianity ‘ the privileged religious whole, ’ on which has devolved from Above the priestly role of praising the one God (together with Islam). Islam apart, since it rides alone, two powerful religions deserve consideration and two alone : the one has conquered Heaven and the other intends to dominate the Earth. The former wants the conversion of the other, and the latter wants the annihilation of the former. You, Most Holy Father, are the supreme head of the One Holy Church, which you propose to deliver into the hands of the other, the Synagogue, to share out world domination between them. Everything else is of trifling importance. ”


This last chapter offers in advance a striking picture of the world of 2013 that Pope Francis inherited !

Our Father wrote, concerning John Paul II : “ From his first appearance on the balcony of Saint Peter’s, he, whose very name was as yet unknown to the great majority, knew how to win the hearts of the Romans, urbi. One year has passed, and he has won over his people. Et orbi. In Mexico, Poland, Ireland, North America and Turkey, the real Church, those masses and millions of the faithful, only reveal themselves through the Pope, in the Pope and for the Pope, a free man, a judicious man, a kind-hearted man... Onward the Pope ! ” (p. 137)

We are reliving this situation word-for-word thirty years later… In the intervening period, however, the Church offers the spectacle of “ a large city half in ruins, ” according to Our Lady of Fatima’s prophecy in 1917 and to Fr. de Nantes’s prediction in the light of John Paul II’s words and acts, in 1983 :

“ Happiness-merchant, ” “ doctor of illusion, ” the Pope ran counter all the warnings of St. Pius X :

“ The City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it ; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work ; no, civilisation is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions ; it has been in existence and still is : it is Christian civilisation, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually on its natural and divine foundations against the unremitting attacks of unsavoury utopia, revolt, and impiety. Omnia instaurare in Christo. ” (Letter on the Sillon, § 11, of August 25, 1910)

What John Paul II wanted to promote was a new world humanity programme, Nova spes, “ New hope, ” from the name of a philanthropic Viennese society meeting in Rome, in 1982. Its president was Cardinal Koenig :

“ ‘ Yes, ’ the Pope told them, ‘ your initiative may well represent a new hope, nova spes, since it includes a project for the qualitative development of man in the original sense of his being, in his wholeness, in the dynamism of his existence ’ ”

Our Father commented, “ Such indeed is the way in which all ‘ societies of thought ’ operate. Their efficacy escapes notice, and yet their effects have been decisive in the history of all peoples struck by Revolution since the 18th century. It is a game of very high-sounding and noble principles, philosophically propounded, but it thus gains entry into every question : family, work, national and international life, and religion. Once it has entered, it adopts positions secretly decided in the Lodge, in the name of Reason, and so irresistibly leads world opinion in the desired direction, as though it were purely spontaneous and a matter of intelligence alone. ” (p. 143)

“ Nova Spes must be a federation of ‘ deist ’ Masonic lodges, open to the ‘ values ’ of Christianity, of which you would have been a member or correspondent at Lublin or at Cracow ? Whatever you may have been, surely that is not what you are in Rome ! ”

Here are the foreseeable consequences : “ Tristitia et luctus, weeping and gnashing of teeth over the end. ”

“ You are mistaken in your understanding of the world, of the forces that really dominate the politics of nations, and consequently the joys or the tears, the hopes and far more often, alas, the anguish, the fears, and the despair of peoples ; the torrents of blood, the charnel houses of Auschwitz, which you talk about, and those of Katyn, to which, of course, you never refer. ” (p. 145)

Along with the Council, “ your desire was that Joy and Hope should reign first. If, however, they are not from God but from man, these two, as is well known, give rise to nothing but weeping and gnashing of teeth. In the next world ? Already in this world ! You think of being Pope in the year 2000. Perhaps you remember Leo XIII, whom you resemble in many circumstances and features, and who, having been elected Pope in 1878, turned the century and died in 1903. You often speak of entering upon this third millennium, as though it were going to be the Dawn, fixed by you in advance, of this ‘ Civilisation of Love ’ finally brought to successful completion by men through their own wisdom and virtue.

“ This is the dream in which you live, and this dream, indefinitely repeated, is stifling religion, demolishing the Church and subverting the age-old order of civilised nations. ” (p. 145)

John Paul II’s canonisation by Pope Francis seems to deny all the predictions that Fr. de Nantes made under the title : “ You will be the most hated man on earth. ”

Yet, one might think we were reading the picture of the present situation in the reasons given for this detestation :

“ Entire peoples sinking into the abyss of slavery and falling prey to Communist persecution [...], their miseries as peoples exploited by the great international capitalism and the powers of Freemasonry. ”

Fifty years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council, how it is possible to deny that “ happy world of the days of conciliar and Montinian illusions are wasting away beneath the blows of destiny – I mean the stupidity and egoism of some and the ferocity and pride of others. From the four corners of the former colonial empires refugees are pouring in, only too eager to recover the order, justice and kindness of their former colonial masters ! ” (p. 146)


“ Your action is rooted in your anthropocentric and solipsistic philosophy. You overlook, however, the first two words of the Christian prayer : Pater Noster. God is first. He is anterior and superior to us ; He is The Father. ”

One might think we were listening to Pope Francis !

“ We are many, and we are brothers of one another ; together, we are the adopted sons of our Father. For you, Man is a concrete-abstraction, universal and absolute. ‘ It is not the faith that I primarily defend, but Man, ’ you said at Cracow. That is troubling.

“ In the beginning, there is Man. You enter as Pope into the arena of world politics, not in the Name of God, of Christ, or of the Church, nor, of course, in the name of the sovereign Vatican State, but in the name of Man, with your many elevated titles giving you an unparalleled moral authority. ‘ All political activity, whether national or international, proceeds from man, is exercised by man, and is on behalf of man. The raison d’être of all politics is the service of man. ’ Such was the obsessive theme of the speech you addressed to the U.N. on October 2, 1979.

“ Faith in man, the religion of man who makes himself god, and the cult of man all find expression in the service, the propaganda, and the struggle on behalf of the Rights of Man. On every horizon over the last two centuries there has arisen a whole host of those defending the oppressed, among whose number you now rank yourself. All the exploited, all those whose human rights are not recognised, honoured or respected are entitled to your solicitude, as well as the solicitude of all those powers who, like you and with you, so generously work for the liberation of the oppressed. They work against those enslaving oppressors who are reigning still, still ! in various parts of the world, much more numerous than might be imagined.

“ In Argentina, for example, there has been much for the defenders of Human Rights to do over the last ten years since the methodical and relentless war against the Montenero Communists ended in victory. You, however, regularly echo the efforts of these Monteneros by speaking in favour of those who have ‘ disappeared ’ and of their wives, the ‘ madwomen, the Mothers of the May Square. ’ It is a well-staged and exemplary propaganda struggle on behalf of man. To the whole world, you proclaim your feelings :

“ ‘ We pray that the Lord may comfort those who have lost all hope of finding their loved ones. We fully share their pain and we will not lose hope that these distressing problems will be cleared up, for the good not only of the families concerned, but also for the peace and prosperity of those communities so dear to us. We ask that information be quickly made available, as promised, concerning the situation of those in prison and that, in all circumstances where one seeks to maintain respect for the law, there should be a rigorous commitment to respect the person both physically and morally, even if that person is guilty or is accused of having violated the law. ”

“ Whether guilty or innocent, but especially if guilty, it is man who is threatened and to whose aid and defence you come. What comfort you give to all the world’s criminals and terrorists ! What a valuable collaborator and encouragement you are for all those agitators and revolutionaries who, with pen or kalatchnikov in hand, work for man’s freedom ! ”

“ In his speech of March 10, 2014 to the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, Pope Francis recognised that “ in Latin America, we experienced a very poor administering of utopia which, in certain places, though not everywhere, and during a certain time traumatised us. At least in the case of Argentina, we can count the youth of Catholic Action who ended up in the guerrilla movement in the 1970’s because of a poor management of utopia… ”

Fr. de Nantes established the fact that the person responsible for this “ poor administration ” was unquestionably Pope John Paul II. I mean that no one challenged his demonstration ; Cardinal Ratzinger, in charge of the case, countered him with… a silence “ of principle, ” which is the equivalent of a response, in virtue of the immemorial adage : silence gives consent.

The future Benedict XVI consented too fully to this “ utopia ” of John Paul II – whom he assisted with all his strength, all his mind and all his soul,– to do justice to Fr. de Nantes !

The latter did not obtain the slightest answer from “ the Pope of human rights, ” from “ the Pope of the dissidents, ” (p. 147-148) from “ the Pope of the East, Communism’s willing dupe. ” (p. 148-149)

“ Your illusion with regard to Marxism is disconcerting. It more readily accepts Communism than capitalism, and capitalism even more readily and in every case than any kind of dictatorship, be it the absolute monarchy of a king or the military dictatorship of a Catholic subject in all things to the law of the Church (the true one !). ”


“ Every day another parish dies. Every month another monastery closes. Morale among the faithful is at a low ebb. Priests age with sadness knowing that, since no one will replace them after they have died, it is no longer the time to sow, plant or lay foundations.

“ It is all very sad [...]. These effects are not perverse, but expected. They are the consequence, Most Holy Father, of your ‘ secular anthropocentrism, ’ of your philosophy of man, and of the methodical practice that flows from it – the deterioration of religion, of the Church and of our still civilised and Christian society, already so singularly maltreated by the previous reformers and revolutionaries. For convenience I shall, classify these effects as white, red and black. ”

“ EROS. ”

“ I say “ white, ” remembering that these first effects have always accompanied the political success of the White Party in Poland, that party of aristocratic and bourgeois liberals, Freemasons for the most part, infatuated with Germanic and Jewish ideas, whose rise has always led to a sudden growth in the cult of the god Eros and a subsequent dramatic collapse of morality.

“ The call to happiness and success in life, to the self-realisation and self-development of everyone in perfect freedom, is always paid for by an explosion of sensuality – and today by a gigantic explosion ! The age-old consequences of this are a falling birth rate, abortion, divorce, sexual aberrations, licence on the beaches and in the theatres, co-education, declining religious practice, the falling away of priests, and religious abandoning their vocations. Following on from this, we have the feverish claim for ever higher salaries, social agitation, the abandonment of the countryside and the rush to the city, increasing criminality, drug addiction, laziness among workers, inertia among the elite, and the rejection of all traditions. It is Sodom and Gomorrah on the eve of their destruction. It is Babylon at the moment of its fall.

“ ‘ Liberty, ’ you said at Philadelphia on October 3, 1979, ‘ is the supreme principle of all political and social order, in relations between governments and people, and among persons themselves. ’

“ One would rather have thought that the supreme principle of life in society was something like obedience to God and the fraternal charity that follows from it ! But liberty ! If only somewhere else you were to teach us the supreme principle of life with God, or of the moral life. But no ! Nothing exists outside social life, and that is governed by liberty ! So what does Christ have to add ? Joy !

“ At Turin, you recounted on your return from a journey, you had had the following experience that you hastened to communicate urbi et orbi during the Regina Cæli on April 20, 1980, as ‘ the fruit of this paschal pilgrimage and of this visit : ’

“ ‘ It is a new experience of faith in Christ, Who constantly gives man the joy of being man. Yes, Christ gives man this joy. That is the greatest of all gifts. It is the foundation of all that men desire and of all that they can realise through any of their programmes or ideologies. ’

“ Most Holy Father, it is the Spirit of blasphemy and frenzy that makes you speak thus ! Am I myself misled ? Every time I happen to re-read you – and here I am simply copying these words from the French edition of the Osservatore Romano for April 22, – I say to myself : It is not possible ! It just is not possible ! Did the whole world hear or read those words ? Everyone accepted them with neither surprise nor demur !

“ ‘ Yes, this is at the basis of everything. Man must be reconciled with his own humanity. He cannot be deprived of this, whatever path he may take. He cannot be deprived of the acceptance of his own humanity. Man cannot be deprived of the simple and fundamental joy of being human. Christ gives man this peace. He gives him this joy. This, strictly speaking, is the Paschal Joy... ’

“ Here we have mankind burdened with two principles : one, belonging to the politico-social sphere, is liberty, and the other, belonging to the Christian Faith, is the joy of being human. With principles like those, the Curé d’Ars would have said in his forthright language, the human race will end up worshipping the beasts !

“ This is all the more so since you have not ceased, from the time of your arrival, knowingly and subtly to titillate the flesh ‘ in its masculinity and femininity, ’ in its complementarity, its reciprocal attraction and its union one with the other. It is the Spirit of impurity that instructs you and pushes you to utter these most audacious words, like a dart which pierces hearts and there releases its venom, whilst your discourse continues with its empty appeals to dignity, grandeur and self-exaltation.

“ ‘ Young people of France, ’ you wrote in the Message you addressed to them after that mad evening at the Parc des Princes, ‘ bodily union has always been the strongest language with which two beings can speak to each other. ’

“ It is impious, it is antichrist, it is anti-Marian, and anti-religious. Does the Holy Being of the Three Divine Persons experience bodily union ? Did the Blessed Virgin Mary have any experience of that which you talk about so precisely ? Did St. Joseph regret not experiencing it ? Did all the saints ? Ah, how odious you are, how hateful in your corruptive teaching ! How do you expect these young people whom you have filled with enthusiasm for your Person, and whose imaginations you have excited with the pleasures of the flesh, to find any restraint for their carnal passions in your eulogies of human dignity and self-mastery, which lead to the proud contemplation of their own beauty and grandeur ?

“ You, however, can continue in this line, debauching the whole world, made giddy with your caresses, and you with its applause, for every time I denounce your ‘ erotic obsession, ’ I earn for myself, not you, the indignation of all… ” (p. 154)


“ Red. The colour of the party of the Polish Reds, brothers of the carbonari. You stir up everyone : children, the little people, proletarians, half-castes, primitives, students and women. Gradually you incite everyone who could have more and who could be more. At your call, they all vibrate, stir, become aroused, and prepare to rise for a struggle. They know not which, but it is the Revolution! And you are its prophet and legendary athlete. You are more the athlete of this insurrection than you are ‘ the athlete of God. ’ Listen to yourself dreaming as you talk, and recognise the torrents of blood and tears that are being marked out by your tourist itinerary across the five continents ! ” (p. 155)

The picture of Africa is one that all can read in the newspaper of this morning :

“ Wherever you go, you are like Lammenais, lost in his dreams of liberty, equality and fraternity, and blind to the earth beneath him and to the crowds who hear him. In Africa, corrupt, decadent, disorganised and still suffering from the shock of the brutal and fatal decolonisation project programmed in New York and in Moscow, you sing of the joys of being free, stirring up racial wars that never end...

“ ‘ A few days ago, before setting out on this pastoral visitation, I expressed my joy at being able to visit the peoples of Africa in their own countries, in their own sovereign states, where they are the true proprietors of their own land and the helmsmen of their own destiny. In Africa, most nations in the past have experienced colonial administration. Without denying the various achievements of that administration, the world rejoices in the fact that that era has reached its end. The peoples of Africa, with a few painful exceptions, are in the process of assuming full political responsibility for their own destiny – and here I particularly salute the recent independence of Zimbabwe. ’

“ You were addressing the ‘ diplomatic corps ’ of all those new African States, and you, the Pope, insulted the white colonisers. Since I have vowed to declare my mind fully, I must say, You disgust me ! You, Insulter of all our sailors and missionaries, of all our soldiers and colonisers, doctors and planters, thanks to whom Africa had a promising future. You spit on the graves of our forebears, of all our tortured, violated, impaled and eaten brothers, who met their end because emissaries from Moscow, New York… and from Rome had come to stir up the negroes against their benefactors. I must stop before I become ill-tempered and sarcastic.

“ As I wrote to Paul VI who stretched out his arms to the Red Guards of the Chinese Cultural Revolution : Henceforth there is a river of blood separating us, the blood of our martyrs shed by those dogs, by those demons at your call ! ”(p. 155)


“ Black is for death. The keystone of your optimism and of your humanism is pacifism, just as the keystone of your ‘ faith ’ is the negation of Hell. There is no peril of damnation in the next world, and no peril of war in this. For us, it is prosperity, ease and joy ! I hope that your pacifism, your neutralism, and your leftist intellectual anti-militarism are no more than an immense frivolity on your part. Anything more would be crime – the crime of high treason.

“ You call for disarmament. Like your predecessor, Paul VI, you prefer the Coué method, so dear to him. By dint of bleating peace, the lions will turn into sheep :

“ ‘ To take up the challenge imposed on all mankind by the hard quest for peace, more than words are needed [...]. The true spirit of peace needs to penetrate. At the minimum, there must be an agreement to stand by a few elementary but firm principles such as the following : ’

“ ‘ Human affairs must be treated humanely and not with violence. Tensions and conflicts must be regulated by means of reasonable negotiation and not by force. Ideological opposition must be faced in a climate of dialogue and free discussion [...]. Imprescriptible human rights must be safeguarded in all circumstances. Killing is not to be permitted as a way of imposing a solution. ’

“ That is a ‘ much noted ’ passage from your Message to any international assembly devoted to disarmament.

“ On another occasion, you adopt a very solemn language, but for all its pontifical solemnity, the speech is none the less absurd. One would let pass this flood of idle literature, proceeding from another ‘ Peace Pilgrim, ’ as Aristide Briand was once called, if it were not for the fact that these disarmament speeches are preparing for yet another Dantesque cataclysm, engulfing all mankind ! Here, therefore, is a passage from a certain speech of yours. I have called it absurd, because I am speaking here from the standpoint of a political analyst and a war specialist. If, however, I am to speak as a priest, I ought also to call it impious and atheistic.

“ ‘ By virtue of my universal mission, I wish to make myself once more the spokesman of man’s right to justice and peace, and of the will of God that all men be saved. I renew the appeal I made in Hiroshima last February 25 : let us solemnly commit ourselves, here and now, never again to allow, still less to seek, war as a means of resolving conflicts. Let us promise our brethren in humanity to work untiringly for disarmament and for the banning of all atomic weapons. Let us replace domination and hatred with mutual trust and solidarity. ’

“ You abominate all integrism, all fanaticism, chauvinism, racism, nationalism and militarism. You weaken all that is on the side of God, on the side of good, and on the side of civilisation which, after all, is the true side of ‘ man. ’ In the meantime, all the forces of Evil are arming, in contempt of Your Holiness.

“ What is going to happen ? The fall of the world, which you will have lost. It will be said that you had no hand in the matter, just as was said of Leo XIII in the 1914 War and of Piux XI in the 1939 War. One can say what one likes, but you will well and truly have been the cause. I can hear in my mind’s ear the cries of all the French as they tramped the way of the Exodus in June 1940 : We have been betrayed ! Down with the traitors ! Death to the traitors ! ” (p. 156)


Fr. de Nantes appealed to the infallible authority of the Church in her sovereign magisterium.

“ Most Holy Father, through my negligible person, the Church, the Holy Church, our Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church of all time, accuses your novelty and its corrupting influence on the Faith, on morality and on the world’s order. ”

It seems that this appeal was in vain.

“ There is, however, one Person Who judges you. Yes, who judges you on behalf of God, in Whose Glory She is enthroned, and Who will do justice to Her people. That Person is the Most Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

“ She has come down from Heaven on many and various occasions in this 20th century, and all Her words, miracles, deeds and desires are contrary to yours. This already provides a sufficient judgement on the whole matter, while we wait in expectation for the Church Militant’s infallible sentence, which will certainly not contradict it.

“ I am well aware that your theologians vie with one another in declaring that Heaven need not intervene in the government of the Church – it must really be in contradiction with them for them to refuse it ! – The Church, they say, is founded on Jesus Christ and has received the fullness of Revelation from the Apostles, and she is now assisted in her hierarchy by the Holy Spirit, and also by the charismatic laity. ‘ Private revelations, ’ they say, can be of no use except to arouse the piety of the faithful. They cannot be imposed on the theologian, still less can they claim to dictate how the Pope or the College of Bishops should act ! ” (p. 161)

Thus it is that until the assassination attempt of Mai 13, 1981, of which he was the victim, Pope John Paul II ignored the events of Fatima.

“ And yet, as in the Gospel, it is through unprecedented miracles that God manifests His will to be heard and believed by us. Not since the beginning of the world has there ever been such an astonishing miracle and terrifying sign as that of the sun seen falling from the sky ! The Pharisees asked for a sign from Heaven. We have one. How is it that the Pharisees of the Church pay no heed to it ? ‘ There will be signs in the sun, the moon and the stars… The powers of heaven will be shaken. ’ (Lk 21:25)However, since your Modernist theologians no longer believe in the literal truth of the Gospel, how could they read the ‘ signs of the times ’ that fulfil the Gospel today ? This unheard-of miracle, predicted three months in advance as the certain proof and heavenly guarantee of all the Blessed Virgin’s apparitions and words, occurred punctually at midday on October 13, 1917, and was witnessed by about seventy thousand people… One might also recall other sweet and consoling cosmic miracles, but let us speak of that auroral light that illumined the night of January 25-26, 1938, foretold by the Blessed Virgin Mary as the sign heralding the war that would be waged by Bolshevik Russia against the whole world, after having warred against her own self.

“ At Fatima, as is the rule, miracle and prophecy go together to prove the divine authority of the Mother of God Who appeared there, intervening as a Sovereign in the Church and for the whole world, as a Sovereign Who must be listened to, believed and obeyed by all... and by the Popes in the first place, surely ! Now could you, who call yourself ‘ All Hers, ’ be ignorant of Fatima ? How is it that you, who travelled all over the world both before your election as Pope and since, have never gone there ? – unlike your holy and much loved predecessor, John Paul I. You had to wait until that horrible assassination attempt was made on your life. When you asked to see, whilst in the Gemelli Clinic, documents on Fatima – which you had doubtless been led to treat with contempt as a result of the lies of Fr. Dhanis, sadly become the official truth of the postconciliar Vatican – you admitted that it was all unknown to you. ” (p. 161-162)

“ The ‘ Documents ’ of Fr. A. M. Martins were immediately sent to you. A year later, however, we read in l’Homme Nouveau, a publication wholly devoted to you, that ‘ on March 18, certain French bishops questioned him about petitions originating in their dioceses concerning the consecration of Russia in union with all the world’s bishops. The answer they received from him was that he was having further research done to establish the authenticity of this particular part of the Fatima message. ’

“ When you yourself visited Fatima between May 12 and 13, 1982, your speech testified, I will not say to the same incredulity, but to the same revulsion against hearing and believing the heavenly Sign and Words of Fatima. In your speech the event itself is minimised, distorted, and misunderstood, or rather disregarded. The proof ? Your words display more malice than ignorance. – Fatima, you say, is a shrine like so many other shrines, like Lourdes, Jasna Gora (of course !), and ‘ the many other Marian shrines scattered throughout the world ! ’ – The historical events you reduced to practically nothing. All your strange expressions give us to understand that it is not really the Most Blessed Virgin Who appeared. ‘ The words of the message were addressed... In the words of Fatima.... The Lady of the Message, the Lady of Fatima... ’ An unbelieving hypocrite or Modernist would speak no differently. Would a devotee of Mary speak like that ? Never ! Either he would say quite bluntly, I do not believe in it ! Or, if he were a believer, he would use different language ! On your lips, however, the message is made impersonal, and so loses all authority and urgency, to the point of becoming banal, or even sinister. ‘ It is an invitation to penance. It is a warning. It is a call to prayer. It recommends the Rosary, ’ etc.

“ Not a single phrase of Our Lady’s was quoted literally or completely by you. You made no allusion to the apparitions of the Angel, only the vaguest references to those of the Blessed Virgin, and none whatsoever to the further and very important apparitions of Tuy and of Pontevedra. You neglected the sanctity of the little seers, who are already in Heaven, Jacinta and Francisco. There was not a word about the ‘ Dance of the Sun ’ or about the prophecies authenticated by that miracle, except for this miserable evasion : ‘ The Lady of the message seems to read with special perspicacity the signs of the times, the signs of our times. ’ ” (p. 162-163)

“ The most Blessed Virgin Mary, our Queen and Sovereign, Who has been entrusted with the Judgement of God upon us, because of the stubborn deficiencies of the ecclesiastical judges and of the Judge of Rome, revealed on July 13, 1917 all that was necessary for the eternal salvation of souls, for the temporal salvation of nations and for the victory of the Church over Hell unleashed. You set little store by this and felt only contempt, horror and hatred for it. For these three truths and acts of justice stand there to accuse you and to bring you down. ”


“ The Blessed Virgin began by showing those three young children a vision of Hell. I defy you to read out this description of Hell in any of your solemn speeches. You will not, for it dashes all your human optimism and reveals its venom for souls ! For here is its conclusion :

“ ‘ This vision lasted but an instant, thanks to our good Mother of 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. Terrified, and as though pleading for help, we raised our eyes towards Our Lady Who said to us so kindly and sadly : You have seen Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. ’ ”

“ Sister Lucy relates the words spoken by little Jacinta : ‘ There are so many souls that go to Hell. ’ Sister Lucy herself told Father Lombardi, ‘ Many are those who are damnedMany will be lost. ’ More recently she said :

“ ‘ It is a truth that needs to be recalled at this present time, for it has been forgotten : souls fall into Hell as though sucked into a whirlpool. ’ ”

“ This is of primary and supreme importance, because the faithful seer of Fatima and confidante of the Blessed Virgin will go on to say – and these words are the authentic words spoken to Father Fuentes, witnessed to by Father Alonso : ‘ That is why, Father, my mission is not to tell the world of the material chastisements that will certainly come if it fails to pray and do penance. No, my mission is to tell everyone of the imminent danger we are in of losing our souls for all eternity if we remain obdurate in sin. ’

“ If this is true, then the Sovereign Pontiff should place on the Index, for its grave danger to the eternal salvation of millions of souls, The Sign of Contradiction by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, where the teaching on Hell in its twentieth chapter, The Glory of God is the Living Man, is most misleading. Similarly, he should place on the Index the book Be Not Afraid, in which André Frossard dialogues with John Paul II, for its practical negation of the danger of Hell and its errors on the Judgement in pages 100 to 108 of the chapter entitled ‘ Faith. ’ Similarly, the Constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, quoted in support of the heretical theses of the above-mentioned book, should also be placed on the Index for its paragraph 48.

“ Your belief in Hell is only theoretical. You do not fear it, and you will not teach that it is to be feared. Hence, you do not wish to authorise or spread the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was given by the Most Blessed Virgin Herself as the unique way of salvation for souls… Your theologians, Most Holy Father, are in no position to cavil about this Divine Will, which is expressed in the words of our ‘ Empress and Mistress : ’

“ ‘ In order to save souls, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I am going to tell you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. ’

“ It is a devotion of reparation, another notion that you habitually ignore, and therefore despise, since your ignorance cannot but be affected. The prayer of the Angel begins exactly as you cited it – I do not say ‘ recited ’ it – during your pilgrimage to Fatima : ‘ My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You. ’ It continues, however, and this is still more important and characteristic of the Catholic religion, re-taught at Fatima for our century, ‘ I beg pardon for those who do not believe, who do not adore, who do not hope, who do not love You ’

“ It is expiation, and that is contrary to your cult of man, to your faith in man and to your praise of agnosticism and atheism… Accordingly, all your books, most of your homilies, your encyclicals even, would have to be, will one day be placed on the Index as contrary to the Catholic dogmas reaffirmed by the Virgin in Her revelations.

“ Thus Our Lady’s Precursor, the Angel, insisted on the need for penance, as did Our Lord’s Precursor. ‘ Make of everything you can a sacrifice, and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners. ’

“ The Immaculate Virgin Herself says : ‘ Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and often say to Jesus, especially when you make a sacrifice : Oh my Jesus, it is for love of You for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. ’

“ Most Holy Father, I am going to lay aside the defiance that controversy necessitates… I beg of you to say, to repeat often this Prayer in your homilies and prayers to the Blessed Virgin ! I beg you to do so as a witness to our common faith and for the salvation of souls !

“ I am not defying you, but I am begging you to authorise and make official in the Church the reparatory devotion of the five first Saturdays of the month, ‘ in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, ’ as requested by the Blessed Virgin Herself for the salvation of souls and the peace of the world during Her apparition to Sister Lucy at Pontevedra on December 10, 1925. Did She not repeat, with an insistence worthy of our utmost attention and obedience : ‘ The souls condemned by God’s Justice for sins committed against Me are so numerous, that I have come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray. ’ ”

“ You, however, Most Holy Father, never say a word about this terror of Hell – the ultimate remedy for the sin devouring the world, the salutary awakening of the fear of God lulled in souls, and totally absent from the preaching of the conciliar Church –, about this devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary willed by God’s good pleasure for our century, or about the reparation to this offended Heart demanded by God as a condition for our pardon. What is more, you did not even speak about these things in Fatima.

“ In none of your speeches was the fear of Hell awakened ; nor, consequently, was the desire for Heaven either. For it is a general law, constantly verified : He who fails to speak of Hell cares nothing for Heaven. ”

“ If there is a ‘ Gospel revelation ’ to the world for our times, this is surely it and nothing else. Is it not, however, the pure and simple negation and contradiction of that ‘ great Messianic message about man, ’ of that ‘ revelation to man of the total truth about himself and about his vocation in Christ, ’ which you proclaim everywhere, invoking the ‘ Joy and Hope, ’ Gaudium et Spes, of the Second Vatican Council ? It is as different as night and day. Fatima is the daylight of God’s noonday Sun. So what is Vatican II, and what are You ? ” (p. 165)


“ Starting from this fundamental contradiction over the Absolute, over the divine religion, everything diverges. The Blessed Virgin Mary, always sad and anguished, reinforces and actualises the oracles of the Old Testament prophets, as well as those of our Divine Master and of His Apostles, whereas You and your Council announce only prosperity, peace and freedom. Thereafter, incomprehension is total, and from a human perspective the enmity seems incurable.

“ Let us not forget the second part of the Fatima ‘ Secret ’ revealed by Our Lady on July 13, 1917 :

“ ‘ The war is going to end.If people do not cease to offend God, however, another, a worse one, will begin in the reign of Pius XI... ’

“ After all, you have known this terrible Secret since May 13, 1981, but it appears to have made so little impression on you that you have forgotten it. Thus, I shall continue the quotation :

“ ‘ When you see a night illumined with an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation of the first Saturdays of the month. If My requests are heard, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and many nations will be annihilated. ’

“ It is these that are the ‘ signs of the times ! ’ Here we have the Church’s path marked out and, what is more, here she is warned of what is threatening her, of what she must guard against or repent of, and of what she is called to do by Heaven itself. Oh ! Thank You, my God, thank You ! Thank You, Blessed Virgin, thank You ! ” (p. 165)

“ The apparition at Tuy on June 13, 1929 completed the revelation of God’s will and designs. ” The Pastors of the Church, however, have increasingly diverged from the path traced by Heaven. On August 29, 1931, Sister Lucy wrote down this new and urgent message from Heaven :

“ ‘ Make it known to My ministers that since they are following the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My request, they will follow him into misfortune. (Nevertheless) it will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary... ’ Well, fifty years have passed, fifty years of appalling suffering and a further fifty million dead in the Soviet Union. Has the Church done anything ? Another warning from the same period : ‘ They did not want to heed My request !... Like the King of France they will repent and do it, but it will be late... ’ So far, it still remains to be done. ‘ Russia will have spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer. ’

“ On May 18, 1936, Sister Lucy was stirred and emboldened. ‘ I asked Our Lord why He would not convert Russia without His Holiness making this consecration. ’

“ ‘ It is because I want the whole Church to recognise this consecration as a Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so as then to extend Her cult and to place devotion to this Immaculate Heart alongside devotion to My Divine Heart. ’

“ ‘ But, my God ( I said, ) the Holy Father will never believe me unless You Yourself move him by a special inspiration. ’

“ ‘ Oh, the Holy Father ! Pray much for the Holy Father. He will do it, but it will be very late. However, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia ; Russia is entrusted to Her. ’ ”


It is this promise that we see coming true in the reigns of Vladimir Putin and Pope Francis, despite “ the consecration of Russia refused ” (p. 167) and “ the well kept Secret ” (p. 170.) Today it is revealed, and it is of itself capable of cleansing the Church of the fifty years of apostasy through which we are living, under the staff of Pope Francis, the “ bishop dressed in White, ” and the fruitful dew of the “ the blood of the martyrs gathered up by the Angels and poured upon the souls that are making their way to God. ”

Whatever the immediate future may hold – the world-wide expansion of Chinese communism or of Islam, or the immanent apostasy of the modern Church, – one thing is certain :

“ ‘ In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted and a certain period of peace will be given to the world. ’ ” (p. 171.)


“ Most Holy Father,

“ ‘ Secular, profane humanism has 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.

“ ‘ 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 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. ”

“ Thus spoke Paul VI at the close of the Council on December 7, 1965.You applauded, and, since then, You have made your own this cult of man associated with the cult of God. I expressed my vehement indignation at this to Paul VI, in my first Liber Accusationis : ‘ This discourse is unlike any other in the annals of the Church and unlike any other that is ever to come... ’

“ The Church then appeared to be facing the modern World, like David facing Goliath. Without waiting for the Giant to fall wounded into the ditch, Paul VI wanted the Church to be like the Good Samaritan towards the hate-filled and defiant adversary : full of good works and eager to serve. It all rang very false at the time.

“ Today, with You, it is even clearer. The Church is openly lying there, calling to her lovers one after the other to come to her. It is the prophecy of Ezekiel in chapter sixteen :

“ ‘ You have become infatuated with your own beauty ; you have used your fame to make yourself a prostitute ; you have offered your services to all comers... In all your abominable practices and your whorings you have never remembered the days of your youth… ’

“ Read on, Most Holy Father, and consider all of your journeys :

“ ‘ You have lain down for those big-membered neighbours, the Egyptians ; you have piled whoring on whoring to provoke Me... Still unsatisfied, you have prostituted yourself to the Assyrians... You have piled whoring on whoring with Chaldaeans, and even then not been satisfied... ’

“ Read on and consider this ecumenism :

“ ‘ A prostitute is paid. Yet you, in your whoring, have given your presents away to all your lovers ; you have offered them gifts to attract them from everywhere. In your whoring, you have done the exact opposite from other women ; no one was running after you, so you went and paid them ; they did not pay you since your behaviour was so outrageous ! ’

“ Read the future, Most Holy Father ! Learn to read the Signs of the times in the Prophet :

“ ‘ Well then, whore, hear the word of Yahweh. The Lord Yahweh says this : For having undressed and let yourself be seen naked while whoring with your lovers and with your filthy idols, and for sacrificing to them your children’s blood – for all this, I am going to band together all the lovers who have pleasured you, both those you liked and those you disliked... I intend to hand you over to their fury… They will whip up the crowd against you ; you will be stoned and run through with a sword ; they will set your houses on fire and execute justice on you in the sight of all the nations. ’

“ As long as your prostitution lasts, it is we who will be regarded as the pariahs, outcasts and prophets of woe. So much the better. Our Fathers before us were treated thus, and more than all, so was Our Lord Jesus Christ, our unique Model and Master, in company with His Blessed Mother, our gentle and Immaculate Mother and Mistress, the Most Holy and ever Virgin Mary.

“ Yet when the divine Chastisement falls as a work of mercy and the beginning of our salvation, there will be satisfaction that someone wrote this Book and that a few people brought it to Rome in an attempt to remind the Pope of the day about the Catholic Faith, about supernatural Hope and about saving Christian Charity. The fact that we were not received will testify against the men of ‘ this evil and adulterous generation. ’ ‘ They will ask for a sign, and a sign will not be given them except the sign of the prophet Jonas. ’ Yet the fact that we were neither heard nor condemned will also testify by the silence of the holy and infallible Church, that she recognised in us the witnesses to her indefectible Truth, and later, it will be in this silence and this secret maternal benevolence, that the Church’s unfailing fidelity to her only Spouse and Lord, Jesus Christ, will be recognised.

“ Most Holy Father, you believe in the truth of the Freedom of Man. We believe in the freedom of the Truth of God. We are not of the same religion. If we are of the same Church, it is because of the fundamental malice that dwells within you. I pray God that it depart from you before the hour when this redoubtable and terrible Judge summons you before His Tribunal.

“ Forgive me for the insolence and violence of my writing. I cannot always control my pen or my indignation. I have the honour of greeting you,

“ Fr. Georges de Nantes
“ Br. Georges of Jesus + ”
On Friday 13, May 1983.

Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary.