“Caveamus!”

AS obedient sons of the Roman Catholic Church, we must answer the questionnaire that our bishops sent to us, “to all of us, the baptised, the members of the People of God” in a straightforward manner. We will do so despite the feeling we have of being subjected to a sociological-religious survey aimed at emigrants who have recently arrived in Beijing to assess their ability to live in a free country, freed from any spiritual subjection to foreigners, after the expulsion of the last Catholic missionaries from France.

First “thematic nucleus:” The Journeying Companions.

“In the Church and in society, we are side by side on the same road.

• In your local church, who are those who “are journeying together?”

Answer: the Little Brothers and Sisters of the Sacred Heart founded by Father of Nantes in 1958 in the diocese of Troyes under the benevolent aegis of the then Ordinary of this diocese, Bishop Le Couëdic.

• When we say ‘our Church,’ who is part of it?

The baptised Catholics in communion with the Pope and our bishop.

• Who is asking us to journey together?

Our Lady of Fatima Who shows us the way that leads to God: Her Immaculate Heart.

• Who are the road companions, including those outside the ecclesial perimeter?

All “the souls that are making their way to God,” fecundated by the blood of martyrs, according to the vision contemplated by Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, during the Third Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima, on July 13, 1917.

• What persons or groups are left on the margins, expressly or in fact?

Answer: no one!

Before coming to the second “thematic nucleus,” we are unable to conceal our disquiet that arises from the certainty that the conclusion of this survey is already written and that a time of re-education has been programmed for the members of the “underground Church” who will give the answers that I have just given.

The second “thematic nucleus” confirms this under the title ‘Listening.’

• To whom does our particular Church “need to listen to”?

Answer: We need to listen to everyone.

• How are the laity, especially young people and women, listened to?

Answer: Through regular sessions held in our hermitages by our brothers and sisters.

• How do we integrate the contribution of Consecrated Men and Women?

Answer: Precisely by the contribution of our brothers and sisters to common prayer, especially the daily Rosary that Our Lady of Fatima requested, and by education.

• What space is there for the voice of minorities, the discarded, and the excluded?

Answer: The Little Brothers and Sisters of the Sacred Heart, being themselves excluded, are on an equal footing.

• Do we identify prejudices and stereotypes that hinder our listening?

Answer: No prejudice, no stereotype, no obstacle, at least on our part. The proof: our unfeigned answers to this questionnaire.

• How do we listen to the social and cultural context in which we live?

Answer: with attention, so as to make regularly a public review of it. For instance, our current events lecture on the Sauvé Report. (the English transcription of this lecture will soon be published on our site)

Here Pope Francis’ ‘synodal’ plan is unmasked. The synod is intended to bring finally to fruition Pope Paul VI’s scheme that Father de Nantes, a disciple of Saint Pius X, denounced even before the closing of the Second Vatican Council (December 8, 1965), under the name of masdu, “Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy.” Paul VI inaugurated it with a view to achieving a truly universal Church at the service of man and the world. The traditional Church was to become ultimately its divine soul: the (national) Church and the (communist) State diabolically concerted, as in Beijing.

The third nucleus clearly reveals this purpose under the title: Speaking Out, and five questions, introduced by this recommendation: “All are invited to speak with courage and parrhesia, that is, integrating freedom, truth, and charity.”

• How do we promote a free and authentic style of communication within the community and its organisations, without duplicity and opportunism?
• And in relation to the society of which we are a part?
• When and how do we manage to say what is important to us?
• How does the relationship with the media system (not only Catholic media) work?
• Who speaks on behalf of the Christian community and how are they chosen?

How can we “speak with courage and parrhesia, that is, integrating freedom, truth, and charity?” Cardinal Sarto, the future Saint Pius X, told his priests in Venice in a Pastoral Letter of September 5, 1894:

“Beware, priests, lest through your fault the doctrine of Jesus Christ lose the lustre of its integrity. Many fail to understand the jealous care and prudence that must be used to conserve the purity of doctrine. It seems natural and almost necessary to them that the Church should abandon something of Her integrity; it seems intolerable to them, that surrounded by scientific progress the Church alone should claim to remain immobile in principle. They forget the Apostle’s commandment: ‘I command you before God the Giver of Life to all things and before Jesus Christ, who bore witness under Pontius Pilate, to guard this teaching undefiled and intact until the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’ When this doctrine can no longer be maintained incorruptible and when the empire of truth is no longer possible in this world, then The Son of God will appear a second time. Until that last day, however, we have the duty to maintain intact the sacred deposit of faith and to repeat Saint Hilary’s glorious affirmation: ‘Better to die in this age, than to corrupt the chastity of the truth.’ ”

If we follow Cardinal Sarto’s recommendations, the answer to the five questions is self-evident: to the first three questions, a “free and authentic” Catholic profession of Faith is the only “style of communication” that is appropriate, “without duplicity and opportunism,” both “in relation to society” and within the community and its various organisations. “When and how?” By recommending ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the daily recitation of the Rosary, and by the reparatory devotion of the first Five Saturdays of the month.

As for the “relationship with the media”... it is to be avoid! Especially with the “ ‘Catholic’ media.” As for speaking on behalf of the Christian community, each of the members of our Communities of the Little Brothers and Sisters of the Sacred Heart is entitled “to speak” on behalf of all, so united are we all in the same Catholic Faith and the same understanding of its corollaries in the “various organisms” of the family, the work place and the homeland.

Fourth thematic nucleus: Celebrating.

“Journeying together” is only possible if it is based on communal listening to the Word and the celebration of the Eucharist.

• How do prayer and liturgical celebration inspire and direct our “journeying together”?

Answer: we already said it: by following the “way” traced by God Who “wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart,” declared Our Lady in Her second apparition, on June 13, 1917; this way is the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The “prayer and liturgical celebration” that inspire our “journey together” are the recitation of the divine office and the Rosary, and the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

• How do they inspire the most important decisions?

Answer: “The most important decisions” are inspired by the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, as Pope Francis indicated when he asked the Church to place herself under “the guidance of the Holy Spirit” in order to “discern” what she must do and how she must act. “If there is no Spirit,” the Pope hammered out, “there will be no synod” on Saturday, October 9, the day of introduction, followed by a solemn Mass on Sunday.

• How do we promote the active participation of all the Faithful in the liturgy and the exercise of the sanctifying function?

Answer: by taking part in all the religious ceremonies of the Holy Catholic Church, according to the indications given by our parish priest.

Starting with the fifth “thematic nucleus” entitled “Co-Responsible in the Mission,” we enter a field in which “it is a matter of urgency, for the conservation of our religion and the salvation of souls, that the men of the Church bring their dissensions into the full light of day.”● All the causes of dissension are gathered under the following titles:

Nucleus VI. Pôle VI (Sic!) Dialogue in Church and society. This is the theme of Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam suam!

VII. With the other Christian denominations.

VIII. Authority and participation.

IX. Discerning and deciding.

X. Forming ourselves in synodality.

We have faith in the Church, not in the Church of yesterday but in the Church of all time; not in the Church of our ideas and dreams, but in the One, Unique, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, whose see is in Rome, the Church of Pope Francis, and none other. Our firm hope for our salvation and that of the whole world resides in Her and nowhere else; we love Her with our whole soul; we wish to live and die in Her and, if it please God, for Her. These certitudes and sentiments are a gift from Heaven, a work of sacramental grace, with no merit on our part, for by ourselves we are but wretchedness and sin. Our attachment to the Church is the first of the Church’s benefits: may she never deprive us of it! We are Her children with every fibre of our being and it is our absolute wish to remain so always.

We, however, have no faith nor hope and certainly not the least love for the masdu, this project for a new and universal religiosity for which the Church would become an apparatus in the service of the human City under construction. This “Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy” has nothing about it to delight us. What it has is all too clearly borrowed from Masonic theosophy and, even decked out in Christian symbols, it remains profoundly hostile to Jesus Christ and incompatible with His Revelation. This delirium, this cruel madness, this inversion of the true faith condemned time and again, this masdu can never inspire us with anything but distrust and loathing. We vow to keep away from it, to denounce it and to fight it wherever it appears... in nomine Domini!

In doing so, we are only following Saint Peter’s advice and encouragement:

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right? But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong”●

Pope Francis, successor of Saint Peter, stated that “the Second Vatican Council has so shaped his theological and pastoral vision that it has become the horizon of our belief, our language and our praxis, that is, it has quickly become our ecclesial ecosystem.” He wrote this in the preface to a book published on last September 30 by the Vatican.

The book presents an interpretation of the Pope’s encyclical, ‘Fratelli Tutti,’ on fraternity and social friendship, but also on his social teaching taken as a whole, emphasising its continuity with Papal social teaching and, in particular, the vision of the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church in dialogue with and at the service of the world.

The Council affirmed the vision of “an open Church, in dialogue with the world,” he said. And this dialogue highlighted the need “for a Church that puts herself at the service of humanity, taking care of creation and proclaiming and realising a new universal fraternity, in which human relations are healed of selfishness and violence and are based on mutual love, acceptance and solidarity.”

In short, everything that Saint Pius X condemned in his Letter on the Sillon, became the programme of his successor Pope Francis.

In the same breath, Pope Francis warned that the Christian message can never be reduced to a social programme, nor be separated from real life to the point of focusing only on the spiritual and the afterlife, which nevertheless is “the only goal of all our works” according to Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus for whom Pope Francis feels affection to the point of never separating himself from the edition of her complete works!

“The heart of the Gospel is the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, which is the person of Jesus – Emmanuel and God with us,” the Pope wrote. “For in Him, God definitively manifests His project of love for humanity, establishing His Lordship over creatures and inserting into human history the germ of divine life, which transforms it from within.”

The Kingdom of God, he added, “is a living and dynamic reality that invites us to conversion and asks our faith to move away from the static character of individual religiosity or reduced to legalism, to be, on the contrary, a restless and continuous search for the Lord and His word, which calls us every day to collaborate in God’s work in the different situations of life and society.”

While the Kingdom of God will not be fully established until the end of time, Jesus has already begun to build it and He continues to do so, asking every Christian to participate in the effort, the Pope said. “Each of us can contribute to carrying out the work of the Kingdom of God in the world, opening spaces of salvation and liberation, sowing hope, defying the mortiferous logic of selfishness through evangelical fraternity, engaging in tenderness and solidarity towards our neighbours, especially the poorest.”

In a “Petition for the Peace of the Church” addressed “to our Holy Father the Pope and the Bishops gathered in Synod for the 20^th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council (1965-1985),” Father Georges de Nantes, our founder, denounced this vision under the title:

THE CHARISMATIC APOSTASY
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

“From the time of Adam and Eve, children have always hidden in order to do evil; furthermore, it is always at the deceitful instigation of Satan, sometimes disguised as a serpent, or as an Angel of light according to Saint Paul, or as a Lamb, that is to say, as a high priest, according to the Apocalypse. It seems to me that I have sufficiently proved, Eminences and Right Reverend Lords, that the same was true at the Second Vatican Council and will once again be so during this extraordinary Synod called to commemorate, celebrate and revive even in its charismatic emotions. Beware, therefore, of the Serpent worshiper, of the Angel of darkness disguised as an Angel of light come to preach you another Gospel after the manner of ‘the Beast having two horns, like a Lamb, but speaking like a dragon.’●

“Beware, lest again you find yourselves enlisted ‘in the service of the first Beast’ and led to ‘erect an image,’ to pay him an abominable act of worship, to adore him, in place and stead of the true Lamb, Our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.’ ”●

“He had the body of a snake
And the eyes of an Angel who lies…” (Marie Noël)

“He could be felt roaming around from October 11, 1962. I noticed it on that very day: ‘Everything has become more disturbed and more aggressive within the Church herself. Claiming that the Council is going to authorise their errors or their laxity, many people who for this reason are pretending wholehearted obedience, are in fact preparing, and maybe unconsciously, for rebellion or defection.’ I protested: ‘The Council is not an illuminist séance!’ Yet it heralded itself as such, and in the footsteps of illuminism, liberalism forged ahead: ‘Already, it is alarming to see how, under pretext of the Council, an insane liberalism is authorising – in the meanwhile – every kind of doctrine whilst playing down the Truth. A stupid pacifism precludes all debate and all controversy regardless of the urgency of the temporal and eternal goods that are at stake. Finally, the ravenous wolves and the sheep are enclosed together in the fold under the pretext that the shepherds are off at a conference and will recognise their own at their return!’ ”

“Beware, Horseman, beware!
If he looks at you, it is your death…”

“That should have been a warning not to allow the affairs of the Council to be posed in conditional terms, but in indicative terms. The conditional is always a disintegrating stimulus to imagination and whim; it works for subversion. The indicative strengthens society in advance, placing it on the necessary road of infallible decisions; it prepares people for effort and for submission. When one wants to guide the flock, one does not begin by opening all the gates, but one points out the way. After two thousand years, truth and goodness seem to be sufficiently well-known to allow the aim of a Council to be hinted at. There is every interest in not dissimulating for too long.

“All that is what I wrote on the morning of that day, memorable among all others (Letter No. 120, October 11, 1962), and I ended full of hope in God, of hope in you my Lords: ‘But already the bells of the world are ringing with joy; the awaited Event is happening. Veni Sancte Spiritus.’

“ ‘They are ringing the death knell,’ the friend and master whom the Lord gave me [Father Vimal, one of his seminary professors,] immediately wrote. ‘De Nantes, I am telling you, that the game has already been played and lost.’ ”

“Had he thus seen among that great procession of bishops of the world filing into Saint Peter’s Basilica the Basilisk itself?

“… The innocence of the Lie
subverts, perverts, with its blue-green eyes.
Beware, Horseman! Whoever plunges His life into those eyes, will lose it.”

“It was he who had written, dictated, his famous Opening Address for a fascinated John XXIII. And it was he who, before long, would subjugate you all with his blue-green eyes – oh yes! – and if he then invoked the Spirit so much, it was to divert you from the Catholic indicative and to lure you into the paths of a tempting conditional: ‘And God said, of all the trees of paradise you shall not eat.’ Alas, Eminences and Right Reverend Lords, that is what you did.”

YOU SURRENDED TO THE WORLD WHOSE PRINCE IS SATAN

“Caveamus, the anguished warning of Cardinal Ottaviani and of Cardinal Browne and of several others, has finally resounded, I wrote on November 23, 1963, in the conciliar assembly. Take care brethren! At the moment of carrying out an unprecedented revolution and destroying a thousand years of legal and mystical efforts with a view to unity of governance and cohesion of the Church, think it over! In your pride, are you not going against the will of God? Are you not unreasonably putting to the test that fragile marvel of institutions to which we owe the Church’s freedom and the tradition of revealed truth without division or corruption? Are you sure that your good pleasure with its crushing majority is not taking precedence over the salvation of souls? Beware! Democracy, as was observed by a great political thinker, is the senile sickness of societies. Do not imagine that you are allowed to innovate or impair the Church’s age-old constitution on the grounds of a simple majority, for your august assembly is not democratic in essence but of divine institution; above you reigns the Word of God, of which you are merely the trustees. The Truth of the Faith commands and you have but to respect and serve it.

“Alas, a tree does not stop the wind that blows in the plain, nor can the rocks of Donzère stop the Rhône from flowing impetuously towards the lowlands!

“ ‘There cannot be authority, still less infallibility except in accordance with the Tradition,’ Ottaviani proclaimed. ‘You are hindering the Reform that we want,’ Frings retorted (and in his shadow, his close adviser, Father Ratzinger, is listening), ‘be silent and obey because we are the majority’ The assembly applauded. One would never have believed that such an hour would have struck on the clock of Saint Peter’s. Two thousand years of Catholic Faith had led us to believe with confidence that authority in the Church is a magisterium. How unfortunate we will be if tomorrow someone claims to submit us to an authority which frees itself from the control of the Faith, refuses to provide its proofs of orthodoxy and claims to adhere to a majority vote in order to impose itself! [...].

“The Reformation is now swelling, it is spilling over from the aula to the square, into the newspapers, and throughout the world. The Church is going to change, is changing and has changed.

“Disdaining opposition, which nevertheless still makes its existence felt, the reformists are hastily advancing all their theses as though to make up for lost time. They are pleased to deny that the perfidious Jews crucified Jesus; they are pleased to show understanding and esteem for the Orthodox and the Protestants, but also for the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Confucianists, the Pentecostalists and even the Freemasons themselves, men of good will! And for good measure, Bishop de Smedt is urging them to proclaim the absolute freedom of the individual conscience forthwith, for ‘the World is awaiting’ this liberating proclamation. Pius IX, following Gregory XVI, called it madness. And I assure you, it remains madness to this day.

“Yet who, in the name of what, could still call the assembly to good sense and to the Catholic faith? Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, or the courageous Bishop of Segni, Bishop Carli, who remains intrepid throughout the storm? Whenever they speak, there are murmurings to be heard now. The impulse is coming from without; it is coming from the periti They have promised the ‘World’ a Reformation of the Church that will hand the Church over to the World’s whim. The Church must espouse the World! ‘What, the Church, the virginal bride of Christ, our admirable Mother!’ exclaims Ottaviani pathetically. ‘Yes,’ replies the Other, ‘it is the will of the majority!’ ”●

“On August 6, 1964, when all were wondering, when the pendulum seemed to be faltering in its course, Pope Paul VI published his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, as the charter of his pontificate. ‘Amid our confrontations, what does the Pope think? What opinion does he recommend? What direction is he about to take? Until today, H. H. Paul VI has been reserved, but now he delivers to his brethren and to his sons the fruit of his innermost thoughts and is anxious to persuade us that it is for both himself and all of us a Vocation, a new Way wide open for the encounter, knowledge and mutual love of the Church and of human society.’ ”●

“The matter has now been made public by a French bishop commenting on the Encyclical: ‘This world which is so dear to her, the Church has in some way espoused it’!● The author of this adultery announcement was none other than the good Bishop Le Couëdic, my Bishop, as much subjugated by Paul VI as he was fascinated by General de Gaulle in France. Yet which one of you, Fathers of the Council, cut the better figure then? Who rejected this encyclical and its consequences made worse by the Pope himself personally directing all the bold approaches, tricks and dodges of a Church learning the courtesan’s profession?

“It is not I who accused them, Her and Him, of this; it was a certain Michael Serafian writing a documentary best seller in the year 1964 under the title of ‘Le Pèlerin’ (The Pilgrim). ‘In 1964, Paul VI launched his evangelical appeal on the paths of History at a forced march.’ Then he unveiled the incredible agenda, the lamentable utopia, the dishonourable march behind this appeal: ‘Thanks to Patriarch Athenagoras, Paul VI has crossed the first boundary, which he had set for himself: the establishment of permanent relations with the great Christian communions. The next step is to hitch Rome’s effort on to that of a much wider grouping of Christians, on a patriarchal basis and in an evangelical spirit. Christianity, with its many heads of churches, would coalesce under the same leadership. Following that, the Pope envisaged cooperation with the non-Christian religions: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism and Hinduism. Two of them, Judaism and Islam, present certain features in common with Christianity, namely they have a Holy Book, a monotheism allied to an ethic, etc... But the common factor in all these religions was the affirmation of religious values and moral aspirations, which are not to be found in material satisfactions, nor in social, political or nationalist perspectives.”

“And to that I added: ‘This apostolic effort was meant to go even further to embrace Communist regimes, inviting them to join the human community thus reconciled, through political liberalisation and the suspension of religious persecutions. At Christmas 1964 Paul VI would invite all mankind to overturn barriers and thus rediscover fraternity at his evangelical behest. That was the legacy of John XXIII (but it was even then Montini making a bequest to himself beneath the reassuring mantle of ‘good Pope John’)! ‘God’s wonderful providence,’ he said, ‘is leading the family of men towards the unity to which it is destined.’ ”●

“Since our gods divide us, the great Roman reconciler proposed that we should leave them aside. Let us forget all these debates, obscure passions and narrow fanaticism concerning our various religions, revelations and redemptions, all more or less legendary! Let us hold on to our opinions, points of view and various traditions but learn to look at one another with a fresh look and to recognise ourselves in the human faces of our brothers, without malice or spite. Our new Gospel is Love, Peace and Fraternity!

“And you fell for it? But to force you into the last degree of apostasy, it took a rare form of diabolical malice and perversity; let us admit it. The day will come, and please God may it be during this Synod, when you will excuse yourselves, like Adam, by arguing that you were collegially the victims of deceit. The Pope, in his turn, like Eve, will confess that he himself was deceived by the Serpent. That is only too true. From December 8, 1964 to December 8, 1965 a strange manoeuvre was executed. Firstly it gathered everyone together – even the Progressivists, albeit by force – in a close obedience to and trust in Paul VI, the better to throw everyone – even the Catholics, albeit by force – into the schism, the heresy and the veritable public, universal, and triumphant apostasy of the last days. It was this ‘constraint’ and this ‘robbery’● that led you, despite yourselves, to proclaim Religious Freedom in an act of collective delirium, which was charismatically suggested to and imposed on you for you to celebrate, commemorate, revive and therefore ratify in this Synod in order to keep the Church in Satan’s bondage for another twenty years. And you are going to fall for it again? This time, though, there will be no excuse for you!”

THE BLACK AND PUTRID YEAR 1965:
THE COUNCIL PROCLAIMS FREEDOM OF RELIGION

“December 8, 1964, the centenary of the Syllabus, passed without commemoration, speech or encyclical. There was no act of thanksgiving for this halt made long ago to the revolutionary principles and Luciferian dogmas of Human Rights and Man’s freedom, the freedom of peoples and of states against God, against Jesus Christ and against the Church, the Roman Pontiff in particular.”

NOVEMBER 20, DAY OF THE DUPES.

“It was intended, however, to celebrate that day – not as a great Act of the Pontifical Magisterium, but its abolition! What a celebration that would have been! The rejoicing had already begun: ‘The Syllabus has been shelved, the Syllabus has been quashed. The Syllabus is to be thrown in the fire!’ The Anti-Syllabus was ready; how wonderful if it could be solemnly promulgated on December 8! It was the Declaration on Religious Freedom.

“On the Pope’s orders, however, this schema, having provoked too keen an opposition, was deferred to the following session, and so the manoeuvre failed on November 20. That day, having feared the worst, I thought it was miraculous; the Revolutionary party, having hoped for so much, cried treason. Torn between suspicion of a subtle manoeuvre and hope for Paul VI’s sincere conversion on glimpsing the abyss, I wrote these words on December 8:

“God was keeping watch. The decree on Religious Freedom was ready, but H.H. Paul VI deferred yet again. Deeply anguished by the dark dangers surrounding him, he hesitated and deferred it until later, on the insistence of a minority. Providentially, an article in the conciliar regulations enabled him to push far from himself, from us, from the Church this Declaration which hands the keys of our cities and of the Church over to Satan.”●

“Alas, it was soon apparent that Paul VI had only applied the brakes to the conciliar revolution, so that by blinding the strong minority he could more surely manoeuvre it to his cursed objective. ‘This November 21, worn out by the struggle and crucified by the lack of understanding and the hostility of his friends, the Pope was not so much a Louis XVIII inaugurating the Restoration as a Napoleon imperially consolidating the doctrine and the programme of the Revolution. ‘We have won the war after having lost all the battles’ wrote a holy Roman monk to his correspondents in France.

“ ‘Not yet young man!’ I replied.● The lost battles were Collegially demanded and voted for, the declarations on Religious Freedom, on the Jews, and the three chapters on Ecumenism enthusiastically voted for by a majority of the Council. The great victory was the referral to the dark headquarters of the Secretariat for Unity of all these infernal schemata for their ‘amendment,’ beginning with the schema on Religious Freedom, the keystone of the whole structure.”

THE WORLD AWAITS, THE CHURCH BALKS.

“But, my Lords,” our Father continued, “do you need to be reminded of what it was all about? Nothing less than the Opening to the World, the essential novelty of Vatican II. An ‘ecumenical’ Council, in the strict ecclesiastical sense of the term, it wanted to open out into a world, universal, and therefore pluralist, ecumenism. It was said to be God’s will. ‘I confess,’ proclaimed Cardinal Frings, ‘from what we have seen and heard, that the ecumenical Movement is of the Holy Spirit.’ Now, in order to enter into this originally Protestant movement, the Church had to recognise in all the other religions, anthroposophical, ideological, and even atheist, groups the same rights and freedom that she had hitherto claimed for herself alone.

“So, for the sake of this new ecumenism, for world brotherhood, Your Eminences and Excellencies would proclaim in the Church of Christ’s name the social equality of all religions and total, universal and perpetual freedom for their exercise! Bishop de Smedt had conjured you to do so from November 19, 1963, and again on September 23, 1964, he declared:

“ ‘The world is expecting the Church to pronounce loudly and clearly in favour of religious freedom. The new man, so much talked about at the Council, is expecting a new pastoral… The Church has always claimed freedom for herself; others also make the same claim and their claim must be recognised, for they are all persons as John XXIII proclaimed in Pacem in Terris. Religious Freedom is only one aspect of human freedom. Considered thus, nobody can deny or refuse it. To act against freedom is to act against man.’

“Bishop Colombo, the Pope’s theologian, added: ‘If we did not have this declaration, it would be impossible to dialogue with other men of good will’! And Bishop Garonne, president of the French episcopate, was daring enough to point out the contradiction between this schema and the documents of the Church’s Magisterium for more than a century in order to resolve the problem by appealing to ‘the Church’s historical evolution:’

“ ‘Human dignity has been affirmed everywhere as well as the sense of justice. If the Church’s attitude during the course of history is to be raised as an objection, we can answer that a sense of history has to be discovered there and that the past must not be judged in the light of the present. Because she is human, the Church could profess errors in her human conduct. If there have been inexcusable deeds, the Church has no hesitation in humbly begging pardon for them.’

“The opposition to such a revolution in the Church was very firm and very learned, but, as we noted with already very deep regret, it was restricted to the confines of mutual concessions and arrangements more suitable to a democratic assembly than to a Council where God alone commands […] In fact, through an obvious disavowal of the Church’s two thousand year old doctrine and discipline, a modern philosophy was adopted whereby man becomes an absolute of rights and freedom, without concern for the common good and with total disregard for the rights of God and His Truth. To declare that the Church is going too far in demanding a freedom for herself which she refuses to others is to mislead minds and to deny the true God, the true faith, the one Church of Jesus Christ so as to judge things merely from the point of view of Man, set up in the place of God – autonomous and absolute Man, free to believe as he likes and to act without restriction! If you so exalt conscience and its rights, beware lest you unchain the human beast beneath this mask […] It is absurd and it is alarming.”●

“As though to show what fanaticism and what racism would profit from this new found freedom, the same traitors hastened on September 17, to preach on behalf of Judaism whose ‘continuity and close kinship with the Christian religion they were keen to show: same origins, same revelation, same liturgy of the Word and same sacrifice of the lamb (?!), same eschatological hope […]. In order not to offend Jewish susceptibility, it was necessary to erase from our common and fraternal history the regrettable accident of the Cross and, in order to reconcile our two divergent paths, to pass over in silence that catastrophic cross-roads formerly called the mystery of Redemption.’

“In the wake of this unheard-of exaltation of the Jewish religion, many Fathers asked that the Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu religions be raised to the same level! In other words, it became a religion fair, where only the Catholic religion was condemned as the opium of the people, popular superstition, sectarian totalitarianism and bloodthirsty anti-Semitism. It was enough to instil disgust for the true religion!

“Many other things happened in that frightful fortnight. As of now we say and declare that we reject all that is absolutely contrary to the Church’s authentic and unchangeable faith. Neither the ‘demands of the world’ nor ‘the vital evolution of religious consciousness’ will make us accept them. We separate ourselves from those who put the Christian centuries on trial rather than theirs and ours. With all our strength of our heart, we rise up against any word or deed that openly violates rights of God and of the Truth. That none of all this should be taught infallibly is little consolation to us. We remain in communion with the heroic minority who, in the very thick of the Council, unshakeably proclaimed their Catholic faith, hope and charity against every subversion.”●

THE POPE FORGES AHEAD. THE CHURCH DIVIDES.

“It was all going too fast and too far. It was plain to see that ‘Satan was leading the dance.’ Whence the brakes applied on November 18-20, 1964. Saving brakes! To save the reform that was degenerating into revolution. Hardly had he shaken off his importunate extremists with the Close of the Session, than Paul VI came back to the conciliar Reform, ceaselessly advocating Religious Freedom in particular: ‘Let no one be coerced, let no one be hindered.’ became his indefinitely repeated maxim. Thus tomorrow, thanks to the Council’s ‘wisely’ (sic!) matured decisions; we shall enter upon ‘the civilisation of love.’

“On hearing his voice, the arrant reformists regained all their arrogance. They were so sure of success now. Thus on May 13, 1965, Archbishop Pailler, broadcasting on ‘Europe No. l’ [a French radio station] announced as a certainty that ‘the Council will promulgate the texts on Religious Freedom and on Opening to the world.’ Following which, we shall rebel. He named me as principal instigator of this rebellion. He quoted no other names. ‘A schism is to be feared… not the creation of a new Church or of a new hierarchy, but rather, as at the time of the Action Française crisis, a refusal of obedience that will separate and cut those Christians off from the Church.’

“I replied to him on July 22, with a hint of amusement, so patent is the pride and the stupidity of the Innovators here:

“Bishop Pailler, the coadjutor bishop of Rouen, has declared that we shall go into schism when the Council decrees Religious Freedom, a new dogma awaited by the world, and that the Church will have reconciled this world to herself through the daring overtures of Schema XIII. His Excellency knows in advance. He states it as fact. And as these novelties are quite contrary to all the traditional principles, religious even more so than philosophical and political, upon which our French Catholic convictions are based, His Excellency foresees with equal assurance and unhesitatingly affirms that we shall refuse to submit to such decisions. We reject the tenor of any such decisions even now, as pernicious errors, madness and heresy. If they become Church doctrine, we shall be well and truly caught out!

“He is troubling today’s calm with the tomorrows of his fantasy. Well, with all possible respect, let us bring His Excellency back to a consideration of today’s truth, which cannot be altered by his personal opinions. Today, therefore, as yesterday, Freedom of conscience and of religion is an error, insulting to God and pernicious to human society. The revealed religion can never accommodate itself to such a thing. Any preaching that takes its inspiration from contrary principles deserves our wholehearted and absolute public disapproval right now. Those who profess such contrary principles are innovators, who are suspect of heretical and schismatic sentiments.

“The fact that Bishop Pailler announces to us that error and truth will soon be interchanged leaves us indifferent. If he thinks that he will be inside the Church and we outside, after the presumed decisions of the Council, we are entitled to conclude, pending these hypothetical decrees, that he is the one on the outside, and we inside!

“Having turned him on the grill this way and that, I stopped laughing. ‘Let us make the most of the good time left to us to prove how insulting to God, how pernicious for society, how fatal for the salvation of souls, how deadly to the true Church are these supposedly modern follies. Let us allow no one to reverse roles. Shall we be excommunicated tomorrow? We must not allow this illusory threat to stop us from denouncing those who are excommunicated de jure today.’

“ ‘What if the Council infallibly proclaims freedom of religion?’ Bishop Pailler objects to me. With all my orthodox Catholic faith, I protest that such a thing is ‘impossible.’ It is even criminal to envisage such an eventuality. It is not we, but the supreme Magisterium who will tell the heretics of our time and, behind them, the Tempter: Non Possumus! This doctrine is madness, as is proved by reason. This doctrine is not Catholic: the Council or the Pope will reject it. Have confidence: Haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra!”●

Coincidence? On July 28, Paul VI responded to this firmly articulate Non Possumus by side-stepping the issue.

“There slithered in the grass
The soft belly of a snake – or worse…”

“ ‘We shall not call good interpreters of orthodoxy those who defy conciliar deliberations and who will only accept those deliberations that they judge to be valid, as though it were permissible to doubt of their authority and as though obedience to the word of the Council could only be given where no adaptation of their mentality is required or where it is limited to confirming stability.’

“On August 5, I answered this abject and insane verbiage by renewing my challenge to the Innovators to contradict the Catholic faith thus insulted by an Act of their infallible authority. Then, in order to bring down the Heresiarch, I used the absolute weapon:

“ ‘The triumph of reformism in the Council would be the end of religion. Yes, the Church would contradict herself in this revolution. It was Etienne Borne who said so last November:

“ ‘Since the Syllabus there has been a progression in Catholic thought; but it was impossible that this progression come about by making additions to an incomplete, biased or unfinished document or through a development of the potentialities that it might have contained. This transition from implicit to explicit, which is sometimes the living logic of development, cannot honestly be applied to the unquestionably specific theses and unambiguous themes of the Syllabus. Progress here can only come about through rupture and frank negation of the Syllabus’ no less frank negations.’ ”

“I concluded: ‘If its adherents had obtained the proclamation of Religious Freedom by the Council a year ago by arguing from the development of dogma, today the innovators would honestly proclaim with Borne that there is change and that the Church, having denied her past, was condemning herself. And so it is in so many fields!’ ”●

“On September 15, Religious Freedom again came up for discussion in the Council. The minority examined it minutely in the light of Holy Scripture, of Tradition, of the Church’s teaching and of reason. After that, there was nothing left of it. It was seen to be no more than a dogma of the philosophers of the 18th century proclaimed by the revolutionaries of 1789. A dogma demanded of the Council today by all the Church’s enemies. The heresiarchs were put to rout. Henri Fesquet, writing in Le Monde, recommended the only practical way out of the difficulty: ‘Intellectually speaking, there is only one way out of the situation, and that is to admit that the popes erred on this particular point.’ (September 21, 1965). My comment was: ‘It amounts to saying that in order to praise such a text, henceforth, one needs to have the soul of a renegade.’●

“When the schema was put to the vote, and it was insidiously proposed to amend it in order to make it more consonant with Catholic doctrine (!), there were 228 votes against, expressing a categorical no to religious freedom with or without amendments. The Conciliar apostasy was shattered; the conspiracy of the Devil’s party was discovered and defeated!

PAUL VI THE HERESIARCH FORCES THE COUNCIL TO ADVANCE.

“Paul VI, however, decided to abandon prudence and to force the obstacle, obliging the entire Council to follow him. How did he do that? By proclaiming before the assembly of all the world’s nations what the narrowly and rigidly Catholic assembly in Rome was unwilling to grant him. After his visit to the United Nations, the Council would be forced to move!

“On October 4, the Pope addressing the UNO, recalled, as though in passing, ‘the fundamental rights of man proclaimed here (here was the building at Manhattan, the Masonic temple where Satan, the head of all that world reigns supreme), his dignity, his freedom, and above all his religious freedom. We feel that you are the interpreters of all that is highest in human wisdom. We would almost say: its sacred character. For, it is concerned above all with the life of man, and the life of man is sacred.’

“Thus, the Pope, speaking as an expert in humanity and as a pilgrim of peace, rallied the Church to the philosophy of Freedom in very general terms through a political type speech made in an assembly foreign to our faith, before it had ever been the object of any solemn or ordinary decision by the Magisterium!”●

“There was his home country
And there he came to take his place
And spoke with tender lips
As though he were one of its faithful.”

“But now we have artfulness, supreme crime and robbery schemed well in advance, leaving me stunned with admiration and horror. Hardly had he returned from Manhattan, than Paul VI made straight for the Council, entered Saint Peter’s to general applause like a new Nero, and accepted the proposal made to him by his accomplice, Cardinal Tisserant, that his speech to the UNO should be ranked among the official and authentic Acts of the Second Vatican Council! Whereupon, all stood up and applauded again. They all assumed the heresy of one alone. At that tragic moment, there was no prophet or martyr to be found for the Catholic faith. It was deathly sad. Yet what would we ourselves have done? It would be presumptuous to imagine that we would have been more clear-sighted and more full of love than all the others.

“As though he were honest,
He made as though to mishear…
She had lowered her head,
Pale, the better to be misheard.”

“Did not Albino Luciani, the future John-Paul I also yield? ‘The most difficult thesis for me to accept,’ he later admitted, ‘was that on religious freedom. For years, we had taught that error has no rights. I studied the problem in depth and, in the end, I convinced myself that we had been wrong.’● The shuddering sincerity of these words retain an impression of unappeased dismay. So if he, il Santo, could convince himself that he had been wrong with the whole Church, what about the others! They must have all foundered without noticing, without understanding. All except one, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ Paul VI.

“For what would follow showed him to be obstinate. On October 26 and 27, the negative or reserved votes on this accursed text were considerable: 228 non placet, 543 placet, with reservations, 771 in all, almost one third of the assembly! I quoted with admiration Bishop Velasso, expelled bishop from China: ‘I am proud to belong to the glorious minority. In a matter so grave, the rights of all, even those of the minority, must be respected. It is neither numbers nor persons that count, but only the truth. The Secretariat for Unity will doubtless say that I have misunderstood the text! Let us admit that that may be true; what then will the mass of the faithful make of a text drawn up in such a way that even bishops cannot understand it?’

“For his part, Father Biot of Témoignage Chrétien wrote: ‘This minority is well aware, better perhaps than the majority itself, what is at stake in the declaration on Religious Freedom. It cannot be brought to understand how what was declared to be false and erroneous by 19th century popes such as Gregory XVI and Pius IX could now be recognised as just and true. In the eyes of the minority, such a declaration would put in question the very authority of the popes’ ordinary magisterium.’ Not at all! It would more simply cast doubt on the seriousness of Vatican II (I made the foregoing reflection in my original text of 1965.) And he continues: ‘The tenor of the debate shows the depth of what is at stake in recognising religious freedom: a certain conception of man, a certain conception of the Church, a deeper awareness of its nature and of its history. The issue is very grave. All the Fathers, in fact, feel that this declaration will govern the Church’s history in her relationship with men.’

“And with God? Even then, God no longer counted.

“Here indeed would be the robbery! The thing is recognised as of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, and yet it was still uncertain and under discussion. If it were so vital for the life of the Church, then nothing but a dogmatic definition, with the unanimous Council fully committing its infallible authority, could settle the issue. A ‘declaration’ of no dogmatic bearing cannot be decisive in such a grave matter. Were the Sovereign Pontiff to ratify and promulgate it, he would be acting as a partisan, and his decision would be schismatic in presenting as a doctrine of the entire Church what is in fact no more than the opinion of a shifting majority, preferring a doubtful novelty to recognised tradition. It is impossible.

“We prefer to believe that in the extreme danger of such abuse of authority, the Sovereign Pontiff, despite the terrible constraint, will be able to push aside this poisoned fruit of modern naturalism. Afterwards, it would be too late to excuse the Church’s sacred Magisterium for having failed in its duty.”●

“On December 7, however, when the last Acts of the Council, including that on religious freedom, were being promulgated, there were only 70 non placet left against 2308. So, Paul VI, transported with charismatic joy, promulgated, among other things, this assuredly schismatic, heretical and apostate Declaration even though it was hypocritically known to all that the canonical infallibility of their magisterium was in no way thereby committed. In that way, they thought they were greatly pleasing the world and Satan without failing one jot or tittle in their obligations towards God. Like Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

“ ‘The whole and each one of the points decreed in this Constitution have pleased the Council Fathers. We, by virtue of the apostolic power we hold from Christ, in union with the venerable Fathers, we approve, fix and decree in the Holy Spirit, and we order that what has thus been established in Council be promulgated for the glory of God.’ (Decree on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae, conclusion)”

“And there he was, looking innocent.
And keeping an honest looking face
There, from the height of his summer
Suddenly trampling on his spotless robe
He deserted.”

“My thoughts that evening were that it would have been better for John Baptist Montini had he never been born. I think the same of those who invoke his name since, to scandalise the Church and damn souls.

“During that sad December of 1965, however, I could not confide my indignation nor my certainty of a reparative Vatican III to my readers of that time. For I had just received from Bishop Le Couëdic, acting on behalf of the French episcopate, a prohibition forbidding me to speak or write on these matters under pain of interdict. And so, Freedom of religions got off to a start with the banning of The Religion, to Satan’s laughter.

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
THE CULT OF MAN SET UP IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

“The Church of October 11, 1962 had for her one Lord the thrice Holy God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. During those long years of the Council, or rather from firstly the hidden reign and then the official reign of John-Baptist Montini become Paul VI, there was imperceptibly added to the faithful and holy Bride of Christ’s unique pole of attraction, God, His Son and His Spirit, another antagonistic pole, Man. The day came when the polar orientations and attractions were reversed: they suddenly switched from the ancient fixed point, God, and converged on the new, Man.

“When at last Paul VI spoke, as the proud conqueror, as a newly crowned Nero, on December 7, 1965, the closing day of the Council, the hemisphere of which Our Father in Heaven is the beginning and end collapsed into the darkness, whilst there appeared, dazzling with a charismatic light, that hemisphere of which Satan is the pole. I say Satan, for the God of the modern world, Man, is his idol and his Image. The Pope celebrated this revolution of the terrestrial sphere with an alluring eloquence. You heard it, Fathers, and You too, Most Holy Father. So did we… do you remember:

“ ‘The Church of the Council, it is true, has also been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, living man, man totally taken up with himself, man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the principle and finality of all reality...

“ ‘Secular, profane humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible stature and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against the religion – for that is what it is – of man who makes himself God. What happened? An impact, 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 completely filled with a boundless sympathy for men. 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.

“ ‘At least grant it this merit, you modern humanists who renounce the transcendence of supreme things, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, we have the cult of man.’ ”

“Pride!
But lying is even worse.”

“Fathers and Right Reverend Lords,

“If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for I am your God is testing you, to know whether you love I am your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after I am your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and cleave to him.

“But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against I am your God, to make you leave the way in which I am your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.”●

“Put away the evil one from among yourselves.”● That is what I beg of You to consent to God, to decide and to do, in his Person, if alive and unrepentant, and if he is dead, in his works. For the love of God, for the inviolable holiness of the Church and for the salvation of our souls.

“Otherwise, you would be unpardonable for you have the Sign of the October 13, 1917, the Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima and Her requests to publish and obey.”

I am your Lordships’ servant and brother, Georges de Nantes, priest.

WITHOUT HER, YOU CAN DO NOTHING

This entreaty is addressed today to Pope Francis, with the support of the same ‘sign.’

In his message dated August 22, 2021, on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and published on September 8, on the Feast of Her Nativity, Pope Francis addressed the participants of the XXV^th Mariological Congress: “She is the Mother of all, without distinction of ethnicity or nationality. The figure of Mary thus becomes the reference point of a culture capable of overcoming barriers that can create divisions.”

That is an understatement, Most Holy Father! The truth is that She is the only one that the volcano of our divisions cannot overthrow, because of her promise to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted.” Will it be you, Most Holy Father?

In any case, She will keep her promise – la que no tumba el volcán –, She, Whose monument remains intact despite the eruption of the volcano of San Juan and the lava flows in Las Manchas, in the Canary Islands.

A loud detonation, a crack, and then a question that spread from person to person: “Where did it come from?” Around 3:10 p.m., there was panic during the first seconds following the eruption of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on September 19, 2021, the feast of Our Lady of La Salette. All eyes were staring at the thick cloud of ash spewing from the gaping mountain a few meters from the Virgin of Fatima. Before knowing the exact place where the earth had opened, all thoughts turned to this monument that had been built on the slopes of the San Juan volcano in 1949 after a vow had been made. The parish priest of the time, Father Blas Santos Pérez and the inhabitants of Las Manchas frightened by the fury of this volcano had then implored the help of the Virgin of Fatima, Whose pilgrim statue was voyaging throughout whole world, so that neither the hermitage of San Nicolas nor the inhabited area be submerged by lava. And so it happened: the lava flow changed direction at a specific place and for no reason. At this location, work began on erecting a small monument and the inauguration took place in 1960, just where the lava had changed direction. It is a white granite statue that measures two meters and watches over this valley of Aridane. In this region of Las Manchas everyone knows the Virgin Who resisted the volcano. That is why when the earth opened again at Cabeza la Vaca, they all recommended themselves to Her. The statue has remained intact in the midst of several metres of ash that has covered everything all around. It remains stationary facing this valley that has become unrecognisable and its astonishing whiteness reminds everyone that She is there and that we must have recourse to Her.

As a torrent of filth sweeps over our Holy Church, the warning is clear, given by our Queen, Whom neither the lava, nor the ash, nor the seismic tremors have affected.

Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary.