LA LIGUE

Correspondence

ON April 23, 2019, the feast of Saint George, I received a minatory letter from Archbishop Pontier, the outgoing president of the French Conference of Bishops, obliging me to submit a questionnaire that had been prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to all the members of our ‘movement.’ Each one of us was enjoined to express his personal stance with regard to the Second Vatican Council and to declare himself ready to accept an evolution of our Rule. The brothers and sisters set to work immediately but they entrusted me the task of replying on their behalf. On June 13, 2019, the anniversary of the second apparition of Our Lady of Fatima, I left my memorandum at the bishop’s palace in Troyes and I transmitted it on the same day to Cardinal Ladaria, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Finally, each prior of a hermitage made an appointment with the bishop on whom his House depends in order to give him a copy of this memorandum in person. Since then, radio silence on the part of the authorities. On the other hand, many of our readers, after having read Archbishop Pontier’s letter and my reply have wished to express their total agreement and to explain it to me with an enthusiasm that shows the unanimity of our hearts and minds.

From Saint Bruno’s House

Fons, April 24, 2019,

Dear Brother Bruno,

The more I think about this letter from Pontier, the more I find that it resembles what our Father always received: poorly written letters that denote a hallucinating disinterest in the truth and a total absence of charity for our Father, for you and for the Christians we are.

Fortunately we can count on the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Please bless us, Brother, in the joy of Easter, Brother Michael of the Triumphant Immaculate and of the Divine Heart.

A few ‘individual’ replies, the kind that Archbishop Pontier wished to receive:

June 30,

Beloved Brother,

I briefly spoke once again to our friends about our case and the latest avatars. They understand that this is serious and that our fidelity is at stake. Father N. who knew little about it was distressed, shocked by how the Church persecutes her children, but he is “wholeheartedly” with us.

As for Mr. R.D., he is scandalised by the threats that he considers beyond the orbit of the law, that he has never seen anything like it!

For my part, I feel with more gravity than twenty years ago, these confrontations that are our whole CCR combat and it strengthens piety.

We are totally united with you in these very important days. Please bless us,

Your little Brother Benedict of Jesus the Nazarene.

“A reply to which I subscribe with all my soul.”

Montsaugeon, July 2, 2019,

Feast of the Presentation of the Most Blessed Virgin

To Bishop Joseph de Metz-Noblat, Bishop of Langres,

Your Excellency,

Returning from the Feast of the Sacred Heart [...], it is to you, Your Excellency, that I send a copy of Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary’s reply of June 13, 2019 to Bishop Pontier’s letter. I adhere to this reply with all my soul, and I make it my own, “so that the Church of Rome, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches, powerfully and decisively perform, with all the safeguards of infallibility, a doctrinal work of discernment among the new teachings contained in the Acts of the Second Vatican Council, teachings that Father de Nantes denounced as heretical, schismatic and scandalous, notably in his three Books of Accusation against Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”

Your unworthy son, C. de C., of the Third Order of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart.

An impregnable position.

Maison Sainte-Thérèse, July 3, 2019,

Beloved Brother,

We reap everything from the wisdom of our Father; not only does his doctrine allow you a clear, so to speak exciting, exposition of his combat, but his love for the Church has kept us within parishes, and we are beyond reproach. It is a position impregnable to everything other than slander and arbitrariness, but it would be an honour to be subjected to this.

Friends are enthusiastic. You should have seen the whole family X on their smartphone, consulting the site. Thank you ever so much for everything, my beloved brother, your fatherly blessing, please.

Your Brother Peter of the Transfiguration.

Thank you for this difficult work.

July 4, 2019,

Dearest Brother,

I do not want to delay in expressing my enthusiasm to you after having read your response to Archbishop Pontier and to the Roman Congregation.

It is a magnificent summary of more than sixty years of doctrinal combat! What a struggle!

It is very useful for us to refresh our memories. Thank you for doing this difficult work.

I take this opportunity to renew to you my total fidelity as a Phalangist, praying to the Immaculate Heart of our Mother to keep me in the Phalange until the last breath.

With all my religious affection. Your devoted,

G.B.

Three times masterly!

Valle d’Aosta, July 21, 2019

Dear Brother Bruno, dear brothers and sisters,

Masterly! Three times masterly!

I must confess that I devoured this July issue of the CRC, No. 200, in one go, or almost, for I had to take a nap to give my neurons a rest! This detective novel is so captivating! As I read, I smiled as I thought of these French bishops, and their crestfallen look, when they realise that our Father’s three ‘Books of Accusations’ could come out of the drawers of the Holy Office!

I noted that Archbishop Pontier wrote to ‘Mr.’ Bonnet-Eymard.

I rejoiced when I saw that your file is an explosive summary of our Father’s prodigious work.

But what is this Cardinal Prefect of the Holy Office worth? Will he dare to search the ‘forbidden’ archives?

Let us pray for this to happen.

Thank you and thanks to all the brothers and sisters who through this obstinate work have been able to produce this foolproof document.

It is certain that the founding of new CCR priories in France and Canada poses a challenge to them in the face of the Vatican II disaster; and has held up to ridicule their obstinate attitude towards Father for nearly sixty years. Deo gratias.

Thank you again for these moments of hope and this divine surprise.

United in prayers and for the triumph of Our Lady of Fatima, our beacon in trials. R. B.

From Maison Saint-Louis-Marie.

Magé, August 3 2019,

Dear Brother Bruno,

It goes without saying that we are more proud than ever to be the disciples of Father de Nantes, overwhelmed to have been called to this vocation, but full of thanksgiving, and humming like our Father: “Je n’donnerai pas ma place pour un boulet d’canon!”

For all this I kneel down to ask for your blessing.

Your little Brother John Duns of Saint Anne.

Only one commentator on public affairs, to the best of our knowledge, has reacted in an article published in the August 1 edition of Monde et Vie, entitled:

“ARCHBISHOP PONTIER, THE CCR AND THE COUNCIL

“The Second Vatican Council is being talked about again as a bone of contention and once more we hear about the CCR, the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21^st Century, because the CCR, in the line of Father de Nantes, its founder, has still not accepted this Council. By Father G. de Tanoüarn.

“Archbishop Pontier, of Marseille, and president of the Conference of Bishops until the September resumption of activities, undoubtedly has suicidal tendencies, despite his low profile. Before taking leave, he imagined that he could definitively close the file of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, founded erstwhile by Father Georges de Nantes. His 120 religious remain faithful today to the thought of their deceased founder. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which undoubtedly initiated this latest development, proposed a questionnaire, which each of the 120 religious had to complete by writing personal answers.

“A few weeks after the expiry of the prescribed time, Brother Bonnet-Eymard, the present superior and successor of Father de Nantes, offers to the subscribers of his publication, He is Risen, in the 200^th issue of the periodical, a clarification that appears to be extremely sound to whoever accepts to immerse himself in these fifty pages of theology. It is as though the spirit of Father de Nantes were alive again under his pen, with this motto: offensive is the best form of defence. I personally wish the best of luck to the Roman Congregation that will have to analyse this long text from the point of view of its conformity with the Catholic Faith. It will not be easy to find heresies in all of this!

“In all likelihood, Archbishop Pontier has bitten off more than he could chew. Undoubtedly he will have to leave this doctrinal polemic to his successor, Bishop Moulins-Beaufort, an astute theologian who, before becoming the new leader of the bishops, was in charge of the Doctrinal Commission of the French episcopate. In the meantime, beyond the threats and the insults – under Pontier’s pen, the superior of the Congregation of the little brothers of Jesus and Mary is not entitled to his religious although quite modest title. He never calls him ‘Brother,’ but ‘Mister’ – a lot of water will flow under the bridges of the status quo. It is not so much the disciplinary problem posed by a congregation without priests that is at stake, as the doctrinal quality of the synthesis proposed by Brother Bonnet-Eymard, to the extent that we cannot really see what francophone theologian in the conciliar Church, apart from this or that old progressivist Jesuit, would today be able to answer point by point to such a challenge.

“I would like to give a brief survey of this Nantist theology to the readers of Monde & Vie. As a member of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, I have, with my confreres, received the mission of elaborating a ‘constructive criticism’ of the Council [...]

“Would we have obtained this right to a constructive criticism if Vatican II was deemed to be a dogmatic council, and as such infallible? The answer is obvious.

“Infallible or not.

“The present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seems today to insist on the dogmatic infallibility of the Council. It seems to me that the second question that Archbishop Pontier asks to the Brothers of Jesus and Mary, via Rome, too readily postulates this infallibility: “Do you recognise the dogmatic and Magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council, in particular with regard to the doctrine of the Church, Divine Revelation, the liturgy and religious freedom?” [...]

“The four chapter headings that are proposed to the Nantists as being ‘dogmatic’ are precisely the questions about which debates were far from having taken place. They are the Church, Divine Revelation, the liturgy and religious freedom. On each of these important themes, on the way they were treated at Vatican II, on the way they are transmitted by the Tradition, Brother Bruno may be considered a master hand at synthesising. His text will have to become part of theological status of the question.

“Here is an example of a constructive criticism of Vatican II. It is a summary of the criticism of Dei Verbum:

“ ‘Despite some admirable formulas inserted in a deliberately ambiguous text, the Constitution Dei Verbum, intentionally distorted the classic doctrine of Divine Revelation with the aim of freeing itself from the encumbrance of dogma, in the name of Scripture and the vital experience of present-day Christians. The Constitution, emancipated from Church Tradition by means of a surprising glorification of Scripture and a presentation of the ‘Word of God ’ currently uttered by the men of the Church as though it were a real and contemporary presence of the living and acting Christ, substituted a Word that does not exist personified, structured, or objective in our common experience for the teaching of the Church that had been firm until then.

“ ‘Here is the result of this thesis that emanates from illuminism: an immense and scandalous confusion of language, the substitution of a hundred opinions for the unique Creed, the crumbling of the Faith.” End of quote!

“The crumbling of the Faith: what an admirable phrase! It says all in two words [...]

“Religious freedom.

“The other chapter headings are dealt with in magisterial summaries [...], in particular the question of religious freedom: ‘The Church has always recognised that every man has the right and duty to follow his conscience,’ but ‘in our modern world, the whole tradition of atheistic Humanism and of the Revolution – Satanic in its essence – is the refusal of the sovereignty of the God made man, by man who wants to make himself god. The charter of this revolt is the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the substance of which is more metaphysical than political. Its political content aims at attacking our religion and ending with the substitution of the cult of man for the cult of God. Thus, it is normal that the main adversary of the Revolution, more than families and thrones, is the Church, the work of God and Christ among men. This does not mean that the Church has denied human freedom through absolute contradiction of a Revolution that has proclaimed such freedom to be sovereign and employed it against God.’

“[...] Such discourse is wholesome. It allows us to understand that the total crisis, that the moral crisis that the Church is undergoing is first and foremost a doctrinal crisis.”

The demonstrative strength of your reply.

Rambouillet, July 13, 2019,
3^rd apparition of Our Lady of Fatima,

Dear Brother,

I would like to thank you forthwith for the July-August issue of the CCR; I was obviously thrilled by your reply to the letter and questionnaire of Archbishop Pontier.

“Agreeing nevertheless to hear the substance of the case, reserving our judgement on the admissibility of the proceedings and the action” as we say in our “jargon,” it seemed to me that your letter could well be analysed, since you have sent it to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as a reiteration of our Father’s three previous acts of accusation making them your own. Undoubtedly this is more or less the reason for your approach, apart from the fact that Archbishop Pontier, having availed himself of the authority of this Congregation, forced you to keep it informed. Certainly such an idea may be inconsistent with the canons organising the instituting of the doctrinal proceedings as our Father had done, but the fact that he did not respond to the previous Books of Accusation could force this august authority to consider it as such. It is a case of the biter being bit!

In any case, it is quite funny to invoke a canon relating to the failure to appear in court when the accused has never hidden and has always been at the initiative of the trial! ! ! Silence? as a result of a denial of justice, not a judgement in absentia [...] !

Beyond these circumstances, it seemed to me that you have marvellously placed the debate on the essential, the relational metaphysics of our Father, which justifies the criticisms, rules out any desire for an integrist schism and, on the contrary, demonstrates our Father’s determination, your own and then us in your wake, to work to restore the Church. She will emerge from this conflict more beautiful than before, as our Father liked to say when he concluded his studies on the different crises of the Church [...].

I thanked you, but it is more precisely a thanksgiving that I should express, because your answer is decisive.

Please accept my entire filial affection in the Heart of Jesus and Mary, in union of heart and soul with our Father, F. R.

Admiration upon reading your answer.

V., July 6, 2019,

Dearest and beloved Brother Bruno,

I hope your health continues to improve, Brother.

Above all, however, I would like to express my admiration upon reading your letter in response to Archbishop Pontier. I have not yet read it all, but for several days now I have spoken about my admiration to those around me but get no reaction! This is because they had not yet read it! Today, however, M. started reading it and she was overcome by the same enthusiasm.

How did you manage to make such an extraordinary, precise summary of what the Father taught us? It is ingenious! In the true sense of the word. As M. told me, “you can really linger over it for a long time to meditate.” Yes, that’s exactly what it is. We understand well, for example, what the Church is, it brings tears to our eyes everything you say is true and beautiful, and then you say the disasters of the Council, and we understand everything that is happening.

Brother, please bless us.

N. and F.

Seriousness and clarity of your answers.

Sunday, July 7, 2019,
Saints Cyril and Methodius,

Dear Brother Bruno,

I understand that the bishops where our hermitages are located were probably impressed by the seriousness and clarity of your answers, and especially by your humility, when, after having exposed the foolproof demonstrations of our Father on the sources of faith, the Church and religious freedom, you simply conclude that we cannot pronounce with certainty on the authority of these acts, leaving it to the Magisterium of the Church to make this discernment. It is really forcing them to answer you and they must be very annoyed! How could they think they could confuse you with their five little questions!

Please keep us in your heart and your precious prayers as we do for you.

Sister W.

Your limpid and clear answer to Archbishop Pontier.

July 3, 2019,

Dear Brother Bruno,

I do not write often, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your limpid and clear answer to Archbishop Pontier. It strengthens us in the position that our Father has always defended, and of which you are the remarkable disciple!

In great union of prayers in the Most Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, for all your intentions, and more particularly the defense of our Mother Holy Church, and the truth!

I. M.

An excellent summary of Catholic Counter-Reformation doctrine.

Argentina, July-August 2019,

“... We were able to read Brother Bruno’s reply letter to the Archbishop of Marseille. It is an excellent summary of all the doctrine of the CCR! Congratulations!

“Finally, we wish you to know that no matter how far away we are (Argentina, Brazil,) you can count on our full support and our humble prayers. We are carefully keeping abreast your publications to be aware of this controversy. The hierarchy will have to take the time to sit down and consider what answer can be made to you, but the tone of the questions seems to me to foreshadow a desire to reduce you to silence rather than to establish the truth ...” T. and M.

Your answer: a great work in the service of the Church.

Jesus! Mary! Joseph! Thérèse!

Wednesday, July 3, Toulon,

Brother,

As the CRC battle rages on, allow us, Brother, to renew our full and complete fidelity to you. Thanks to Brother Michel, we are keeping abreast of the great work you are doing to answer the questions of the Bishops of France: it is enthusing! Indeed, for us who have known only the great silence of the Church and the inaction of her pastors, we are now plunged into the past, a few decades ago, into the tumultuous times of the League, the public meetings at the Mutualité Hall and the Books of Accusations. Whatever the outcome God wills to give to this fight, its fervour will have steeled the still too tender convictions of your young Phalangists. What pride it is for us to see your letter: to a questionnaire that only too well betrays the lack of knowledge of the file, you respond with a veritable comprehensive survey of Counter-Reformation doctrine in which our bishops, if they read it in good faith, would find the causes and remedies for the evils that are ravaging the Church today and whose effects they deplore without finding their root.

Be assured of our prayers and our complete docility in this difficult struggle,

Your little N.