He is risen !

N° 230 – March 2022

Director : Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

Letter to Bishop Alexandre Joly 
Part Two: The Books of Accusation

THE notification of August 10, 1969, was a potent act of ecclesial defamation. Yet, as it was devoid of any condemnation, it was paradoxically a remarkable confirmation of the legitimacy of Father de Nantes’ grave suspicions against the Council and Pope Paul VI. Hence, it fell to our Father to write a Book of accusation to compel the Sovereign Pontiff to render a sovereign, infallible and liberating judgement in his own case. Our Father would do so three times during the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II.


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

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

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

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

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

“The ruin of morality in the Church comes, as in all periods of decadence, from the marriage of priests. Today, however, for the first time in history, this has taken place with the consent, the complicity and the collaboration of the Vicar of Christ!” The moral scandals that are currently emerging within the clergy allow us to measure the extent of the consequences of this tragic corruption of priestly celibacy. Paul VI’s personal responsibility is considerable.

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

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

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

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

Through Pope Paul VI’s actions, the Catholic religion has become – at least to all intents and purposes – one opinion among others and has actually ceased to govern the world of men. “Its objective quality is compromised. The distinction between Heaven and Hell, between the grace of God and His malediction, between piety and impiety, pales into insignificance,” Father de Nantes pointed out to the Holy Father [...]. “What increases consequently is man’s pride, for by your dialogue you have urged him to make himself judge of divine realities. From the moment that you proclaimed dialogue as the only legitimate method for the new apostolate, the Christian world switched: instead of God being the acknowledged Judge of man, it is now man who is called upon to judge God.”

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

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

This ‘faith in man’ is nothing other than the “cult of man,” which the Holy Father dared to proclaim openly, on December 7, 1965, before the entire assembled Council, during a discourse “unlike any other in the annals of the Church and unlike any other that is ever to come.” The unprecedented nature of this discourse is the reason why our Father, and we following suit, have constantly referred to it. Usually, however, and contrary to what is affirmed in the Warning, we do not simply quote “a fragment of a sentence,” but an extensive excerpt, as our Father did in his Book of Accusation, in order to better realise and make others realise what a new worship the Supreme Pontiff had dared to advocate in the presence of all the Fathers of the Council,:

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

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

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

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

The authors of the Warning, with culpable ingenuousness, point out that “these words were spoken from Saint Peter’s Basilica, the cradle of the Christian faith, a place symbolically among the most steeped in religious significance in the world, at the end of the Ecumenical Council having been celebrated by the greatest number of bishops in the history of the Church. These words were addressed from this very place to the world of the 1960s, marked by burgeoning atheistic humanism.” Then they concluded: “To emphasise this phrase as though it meant a denial of the unique worship rendered to the Father by Christ in the Spirit that characterises Christian celebration shows evident bad faith, does it not?

Excellency, in all sincerity, in good faith, I am ready to follow your analysis and disregard the obvious meaning of the words used by Paul VI in this passage of his Closing Address of the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, intellectual honesty would oblige you to pursue your reasoning by giving us positively the correct, Catholic interpretation of this text. How is this discourse of Paul VI to be understood? Indeed it has immense consequences and is the source of tragedies in the Church. Today, a Decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments dated January 25, 2019, has included it in the Office of Readings. How can it be understood other than as a “denial of the one worship rendered to the Father by Christ in the Spirit that characterises the Christian celebration?

We are forced, Your Excellency, to conclude that the authors of the Warning give no answer to this question, doing nothing more than to specify the very solemn circumstances in which the Pope’s words were pronounced, which only aggravate their scandalous, blasphemous character! So, not the slightest reply is given by the members of the Doctrinal Commission! This, moreover, had been the case for Bishop Le Couëdic. He was careful not to give the slightest response to our Father’ criticisms of the doctrinal novelties of the Acts of the Second Vatican Council, yet he imposed a disciplinary sanction on him in retaliation for him exercising his legitimate and sacred right of appeal before the Holy Office. Nor was there the slightest response forthcoming from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In 1969, this Congregation abstained from pronouncing the requested doctrinal judgement, but groundlessly alternated ultimatum, retraction, submission and finally lies and defamation! In the end, Pope Paul VI himself did likewise, in 1973!

At all costs, this Pope wanted to avoid accepting the Book of Accusation that Our Father had brought to him in Rome on April 10, 1973, for him ‘to refer’ it to his own Tribunal. What was there to fear from a simple French priest who had been deprived of all his functions, suspended a divinis, and whose only ‘strength’ resided in the help and support that a handful of friends could give him? Paul VI feared this book more than anything. He was all too well aware of its contents. They could be inferred from the trial of 1968 during which the ‘zealous,’ the overzealous servants of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were unable to find any doctrinal errors likely to gainsay his accusations. Paul VI knew full well that his innovative, ‘prophetic’ magisterium could in no way boast of bearing the stamp of infallibility because, it was contrary to everything that the popes who had preceded him in the See of Peter had hitherto taught. Paul VI was clearly heretical.

One of these Popes even condemned Paul VI in advance, concerning his doctrine on the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy into which he wanted to plunge the Church: on August 25, 1910, Saint Pius X masterfully settled the whole social question in strikingly clear language, in his Letter on the Sillon, a movement founded by Marc Sangnier. An excerpt from this text alone constitutes a centrepiece in our Father’s accusation against Paul VI:

Stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a generous idealism and moral forces drawn from “whence they can”. When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which have been necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in Heaven, and the rivers of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.”

In its Warning against us, the Doctrinal Commission states that “the teaching of the Magisterium on faith requires religious assent from the faithful and the obligation to avoid any doctrine to the contrary.” Are you, Your Excellency, in a position to tell us whether we should give our ‘religious assent’ to Saint Pius X’s teaching and, in that case, steer clear of Paul VI’s contrary doctrine, in particular his utopic Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy (masdu)? Or should we, on the contrary, consider Paul VI’s doctrine to be Catholic and, in this case, condemn Saint Pius X’s?

Our Father went to Rome to ask the Holy Father to resolve this alternative that is unbearable for every member of the faithful, for every child of the Church who intends to remain faithful until his last breath to the Catholic Faith without which no one can please God. The Sovereign Pontiff’s only response was to send several serried rows of plain-clothes policemen and armed carabinieri of the Italian police before the Bronze Door to prevent our Father from lodging his Book of Accusation. This act alone invalidates the canonisation of him who has been profaning our altars since October 14, 2018.

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

On May 13, 1983, Father Nantes, accompanied by the brothers of his Community and two hundred friends, went to Rome to lodge his second Book of Accusation against His Holiness John Paul II.
On May 13, 1983, Father Nantes, accompanied by the brothers of his Community and two hundred friends, went to Rome to lodge his second Book of Accusation against His Holiness John Paul II.


In the aftermath of John Paul I’s tragic death, on September 28, 1978, our Father hoped that the Cardinals convened for the Papal Conclave would renew the good choice they had made in August. Nevertheless, the traditional orientation that the ‘smiling Pope’ had given to the papacy in the space of a month alarmed many of them, and the possibility of an anti-Conciliar reaction deterred many Cardinals. Negotiations took place. Cardinal Wojtyla, the Archbishop of Krakow, knew that he was papabile. He was well-known in Rome ever since 1976 when he had preached a retreat entitled ‘The Sign of Contradiction’ in the Vatican before Paul VI. From an Eastern bloc country, Karol Wojtyla, was a widely travelled, athletic and polyglot Polish Catholic, and an assiduous worker. When he was elected in the evening of October 16, 1978, and took the name of John Paul II, all the Fathers of the Conclave declared themselves satisfied, “but each one for his own reasons that were no longer the same for all”

John Paul II certainly had, at least apparently, exceptional human qualities that could have made him a very great pope. Our Father’s immense hopes, however, were sorely disappointed.

Studying the complex life of the new Pope, he immediately pointed out the profound divergences that distinguished him from Cardinal Wyszinski, the Archbishop of Gniezno and Warsaw. In 1950, in order to avoid the worst, the cardinal had signed an agreement with the Communist government under which the Primate of Poland fought “on the sole grounds of religious issues and not humanist ones, on Catholic demands and not revolutionary ones (…).” While the young Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was inflaming himself and his flock with incendiary human rights. John Paul II therefore presented himself as the Pope of human rights.

The publication of the inaugural encyclical Redemptor hominis on March 15, 1979 showed that “His Holiness John-Paul II was laying claim to Paul VI’s heritage and making his own his cult of man, his faith in man, his exaltation of man’s dignity and his advocacy for man’s rights, which are the manifest causes of the Church’s decadence and of the divine curse on the world.”

What should be done? Our Father saw the truth too clearly. He could not bring himself to remain silent and align himself with the encyclical by virtue of an “inner and respectful submission.” He had to reveal the definite reasons for his anguish, that is, to opt for what was “the most honest, equitable and charitable.” “It is not we who lead the Lord Jesus our King,” he confided on March 25, 1979, the day of the Annunciation, “but He Who leads us by paths at times we would rather not have taken [...]. His call ‘Come, follow Me’ brooks no delay, no looking over our shoulder, no pursuit our own occupations, but it demands renunciation, a new departure for adventure or rather for fresh sorrows and new calvaries.”

Our Father thus resumed his Counter-Reformation fight, which led him back to Rome, on May 13, 1983, accompanied by two hundred delegates of the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, with a view to placing in the hands of the Supreme Judge of the Faith the Book of Accusation, wherein were recapitulated all his grievances. Although this action was in accordance with the Canons 212, 221, and 1417 of the Code of Canon Law, the authorities have always refused to examine or even to accept this accusation against the reigning Sovereign Pontiff. It is, like the accusation brought ten years earlier against Paul VI, still pending judgement. If the Holy See were to recognise its legitimacy, it would have to forbid the “cult” of dulia that is fraudulently rendered to the “holy” Popes of the conciliar Reformation.

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

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

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

a) Esotericism.

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

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

In order to grasp fully how contrary to the Catholic faith is this alleged “transcendence of man,” the principle of dialogue with atheists faithfully practiced by Pope John Paul II, one only has to read the transcription of the retreat “Sign of Contradiction.” In it, he refers to the words of Simeon to the Virgin Mary on the day of the Presentation:

Behold this Child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign that shall be contradicted.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is obviously on Cardinal Wojtyla’s own admission, “a reinterpretation of the Gospel” that “opens up new ways of teaching. Christians have the duty to fashion the face of the earth and to make life more human. It is their duty to give what is called social progress its true meaning.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1983, Father de Nantes accused John Paul II of stifling religion. Seven years later, the latter himself admitted that “the number of those who do not know Christ and do not belong to the Church is constantly on the increase. Indeed, since the end of the Council it has almost doubled.”

b) Jesus Christ united to all men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Of course,” Father de Nantes commented, “there was ‘not the slightest confusion or syncretism’ at Assisi. There was much worse: in this carnivalesque and gaudy procession of all the Afro-Asian folklore, there was a suicidal obliteration of Christ and of His Church.” When John Paul II justified this meeting of Assisi by a quotation from the Gospel of Saint John: “The Lord offered His life not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad, Father de Nantes protested against “another abusive quotation from Holy Scripture to support a heresy that could not be more contrary to it. Our Lord died on the Cross so that all, Jews and pagans, abandoning their age-old ‘ignorance’ or ‘perfidy’ might yield to the stimulus of Truth and enter the one, holy Church.” 

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

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

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

c) The Wojtylian gnosis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should not be surprised that John Paul II totally disregarded this vision, since he denied Judas’ incontrovertible damnation:

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

d) Heaven is not a place.

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

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

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

If John Paul II only had abstruse words for speaking of Heaven, on the other hand he put all his immense intellectual capacities and his charisma at the service of the utopia of a world of peace through universal democracy of which the Church would be the spiritual animator here on earth! “Breaking with Catholic morality, with the honour of civilised peoples and with the immemorial rules of papal diplomacy,” Father de Nantes observed, “John Paul II has not come out against this revolutionary uprising that uses trade-union demands as a pretext and religion as a guise. He has not, like his valiant predecessors of the last century, demanded that the peoples submit to the powers that be, and ordered the Church to co-operate with the State either in Poland or anywhere else in the world. He has not reserved his solicitude for the salvation of souls and public tranquillity, but has wasted it on the doubtful causes of justice, human rights and freedom.”

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

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

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

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

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

Already, on June 2, 1980, parodying the words of Jesus in the desert, John Paul II had openly proclaimed at the headquarters of Unesco: “Man does not live by bread alone, but also by culture.” By replacing “all the words that proceed from the mouth of God,” (Mt 4:4,) by culture, John Paul II showed that his “religion” is reduced to the sole cultural function of contribution. To be more precise, he said, “it strives to contribute the supernatural component to human cultural elaboration.”

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

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

Thus, the Ascension of the Lord is not a simple departure,” Father de Nantes summarised. “It is first of all the beginning of a new presence and of a new saving action”… those of the Spirit, Who “gives divine strength to the earthly life of humanity in the visible Church.” This appears to be Catholic. Yet, no sooner is this limit of the visible Church recalled than it is circumvented. The fullness of “all the restored creation, the new creation of the world and of man” that “we celebrate in the Sunday Eucharist”, fills “the Church and the world” with no longer any distinction or condition. Here we find this gnostic unanimism in which the dilution of the Body of Christ is total and definitive, while humanity and even the material world assume their stature of “Body” at the breath of the “Spirit;” and the second Coming of Christ, in the Age of the Spirit will soon be about to dawn.

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

Thus the new man in dignity, in contemplation and in adoration, approaches God with confidence, in a great feast of all restored creation. We celebrate the renewed splendour of the full goodness [sic] of the world in God: the risen Christ, in His infinite grace, frees man of his limits. Pasch is the new creation of the world and of man.

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

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

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

Indeed, in the year 2000, John Paul II thought that he would inaugurate a new, definitive era, a new civilisation. On March 26, 2000, he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem with this intention. He celebrated its first “station” on the ancient esplanade of the Jewish Temple, which has become the esplanade of the Dome of the Rock, the “memorial,” according to the Qurʾān, “consecrated so that men may faithfully return there and celebrate thePlace of Abrahamwith prayers.

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

Thus, John Paul II formulated this wish that “the All-Powerful might bring peace to this entire beloved region, so that all peoples dwelling there might enjoy their rights, live in harmony and cooperation, and give witness to the one God in an act of goodness and human solidarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

During Pope John Paul II’s long pontificate, the Church, without supernatural hope, became a movement for the spiritual animation of universal democracy, in accordance with the wish of Paul VI. We can legitimately wonder whether the words of Jesus Christ are not being fulfilled before our eyes:

But when the Son of man comes, will He find faith on earth?

On May 13, 1983, our Father attempted to give Pope John Paul II his second Book of Accusation, which he had completed two days earlier. He was received this time in the palace of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by his secretary, Bishop Hamer. The latter informed him that the Holy Father refused to receive this document instituting proceedings. John Paul II also forbade its publication and ordered our Father to retract not only all his accusations of heresy against Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, but also alleged ‘errors’ which he supposedly had acknowledged. It was the same method that had been used in 1968. Father de Nantes stood up and pointing to the crucifix he exclaimed: “In the name of the Crucified Christ, in the name of my God Who will be our Judge, I say, your Excellency, that you are a liar.” On May 16, a notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was published; it made public our Father’s request for a trial to be opened against the Holy Father for heresy, schism, and scandal, and repeated the points of Bishop Hamer’s verbal declaration.

After a few days of reflection and prayer, our Father announced his resolution to the audience of the lecture he gave at the Mutualité Hall in Paris that despite the orders that had been given to him, he would publish his Book of Accusation. It was a duty, “if I want to confess my Catholic Faith and show the truth that is necessary to the life of the Church. I will now respond to the Notification in an Open Letter to the Pope and justify the publication of the Liber.”

The Letter was sent and received no reply from its august addressee. There was no theologian on earth willing to debate it in public, no authority within the Church to make it the object of a dogmatic condemnation, in short no one to come to the Pope’s defence! The dereliction of duty of the Roman authorities repeating the one committed in 1973 was blatant. Yet, our Father affirmed in his letter, “the fact that we were neither heard nor condemned will also testify that the Church, in the silence of her sacred infallibility, 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.”

Our Father’s fight for the faith was to reach a new peak in 1992 with the publication, on October 11, for the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC, antithesis of the Catholic Counter-Reformation!


Upon first reading of this teaching document, Father de Nantes was captivated “by its perfect mastery of dogmatic questions, its admirable knowledge of Holy Scripture, its excellent choice of quotations from the Fathers of the Church, and better still, if possible! its openness to the best of modern science and theology, always with great moderation, with a Roman sobriety that does not exclude warmth and due enthusiasm.” Nevertheless, on a closer reading the veil was lifted, revealing the venom coated in the sweetest, smoothest honey. “There are chapters, easily recognisable, composed of extensive quotations from the Acts of Vatican II, which our Catholic Faith has increasingly rejected [...] on account of their obvious incompatibility with and contradiction of simple philosophical or scientific truth easily accessible to natural reason, or points of ecclesiastical doctrine that cannot be challenged or doubted, now that they have been defined.”

On this basis, our Father drew up a new accusation against the Author of the CCC in which he listed twelve heresies: The abusive extension of the Church’s infallibility – Error concerning the predestination – the Incarnation – the Redemption – the hereafter being outside the dimensions of space and time  – the Holy Spirit, the animator of the world – the people of God, convened and led by the Spirit – the common priesthood of the faithful – an antichristic cult of man – the so-called Christian democracy – State secularism – and finally, John Paul II’s personal gnosis. 

As in 1973 and 1983, our Father brought this Book of Accusation in person to Rome on May 13, 1993 and was received at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Msgr. Caotorta. Although he did accept the book, it was with the intention of shelving it so that it would never be mentioned again. Ten days later, Bishop Leonardo Sandri, assessor at the Secretariat of State, agreed to receive me. This meeting gave rise to a lively one-and-a-half hour exchange. My aim was to obtain the canonical proceedings that our Father’s accusations of heresy entailed, his was to reproach us for our “too brutal approach... but he ended up making this incredible admission: “If we did what you are asking for, it would mean that it all has a fundus veritatis, a basis of truth. If we began to examine, it would already mean that you are right. We cannot do that. The whole post conciliar Magisterium has explained Vatican II. Father de Nantes must open his mind to all the novelties [...]. ”

Notwithstanding the fact that the Roman Authority had formally accepted this third Book of Accusation of our Father’s, it was going to shirk its duty, as it had in 1968, 1973 and 1983, of judging the case that had been referred to it. It thus even contravened the provisions of the first paragraph of canon 1417 of the Code of Canon Law which authorises any member of the faithful to lay before the Holy See any case, contentious or penal, by virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. The extraordinarily eloquent silence of Rome proves that the Catholic faith has not yet been modified, altered, or corrupted in the virgin soul of the Church.


Between 1993 and 1996, which would be a year of great trials, our Father strove to build a mystical theology that might respond to the errors he denounced, especially in the teachings of John Paul II. He did so through the attractive, ‘enticing’ exposé of all the divine and human goods that the Catholic Faith and morality put at our disposal, so that souls may have divine nourishment in abundance and not collapse on the way.

This was the theme of the retreat that our Father preached in 1993, in which he showed us that the infinite love that circulates unceasingly among the Three Divine Persons, flowing from the Father to the Son, and from Their common principle to the Holy Spirit, finds its ‘reservoir’ in the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This was also the distinctive characteristic of the retreat on the Mass that he preached the following year. He led us further into this “mystery of faith,” explaining to us the importance of the offertory and the great miracle of transubstantiation. Nothing and no one, not even a member of the Doctrinal Commission, will be able to rend these three truths from our souls, which his teaching has inscribed in golden letters: “1. It is Jesus Whom I see, eat and touch. 2. It is Him in Person in His sacrifice. 3. He applies Himself to me in Communion, His Body to my body, to ‘restore’ me, according to His promise.” Our Father extended the benefits of this retreat through his meditation on the ‘Eucharistic Heart of Jesus and Mary.’

It was Fatima, however, its message, I would dare even to go so far as to write, its Gospel – which Our Lady made known to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta in 1917 – that became at this time in our Father’s life the great and powerful light of his Hope, while the conciliar party favouring the reformation of the Church seemed to be prevailing definitively. “Fatima is to be found wherever a soul, a family, a parish, a convent, a nation adheres to Heaven's messages, a veritable catechesis, and fulfils Our Lady’s requests which, through Her grace, are a comprehensive practice of the unchanged true religion. There is plenty of room in this ‘new Jerusalem, come down from Heaven, from God, the holy City, perfect and prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband’ on the day of her wedding. (Ap 21:2-3)” Without being discouraged, despite the apparent failure of the three approaches he made to Rome in 1973, 1983 and 1993, our Father tirelessly continued his activities of retreats, lectures, meditations, drawing on the treasures of the Church. He thus brought the stones, the materials necessary for the construction of a cathedral of light to the glory of Mary, Our Lady of Fatima, Whose message, like that of Paray-le-Monial, “is a fundamental revelation of truth and of love for us.”

In this cathedral of light, our Father erected, next to Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus, a magnificent statue to Saint Francis of Sales, this great saint of the Counter-Reformation, as well as another to Saint Jane Frances de Chantal. He revealed to us the secret of their common and extraordinary vocation: their intimate union of souls that they lived out in complete holiness and chastity, a union wherein God was the organiser and the minister: “Thus, from their ‘one heart’ immediately poured forth, like a cascade, an inexhaustible love for their families, their friends, then for the foundation of the Visitation, and through it a love for all the poor, the sick and the humble. A mystical fruitfulness! [...] Saint Francis de Sales was a ‘living image’ of the charity of the Heart of Jesus, a prophetic image, since his spiritual doctrine would be the antidote to Protestantism which would become Jansenism before finally sinking into rationalism.”

The following year, in 1996, our Father came back to Father de Foucauld. He highlighted the trials and tribulations of his childhood, his slow progression towards conversion, thanks to the mediation of his pious cousin, Marie de Bondy, with whom he would experience a holy spiritual friendship. Our Father, applying his relational metaphysics and his ‘positive purity’ energetically refuted all the modern theories that defile this supernatural affection! He also studied the colonial and missionary work of our Blessed Father, as well as the true causes of his death, which make him a martyr of the faith and Christendom. Our Father was a martyr also, in his own way it is true, without shedding his blood! (To be continued.)

Brother Bruno of Jesus-Mary

The catholic Counter-Reformation no. 108, March 1979, p. 7.

Letter To My Friends no. 28 of March 25, 1979, published in CCR no. 109, April 1979, p. 1 .no. 108, March 1979, p. 7.

The Gospel According to Saint Luke 2:34

The Book of Genesis 2:16-17

Dialogue with André Frossard – N’ayez pas peur, (Be not Afraid, p. 273)

Blazynski, John Paul II. A Man from Cracow, editions Stock, 1979, p. 253

Georges de Nantes, Liber accusationis II, p. 81

Georges de Nantes, Liber accusationis II, p. 88

Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, no. 3

Redemptoris Hominis, no. 14

The Gospel According to Saint John 11:52

The Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 197, February 1987

Sūrah 5:17 and 72

Here our Father was referring to the political and social unrest caused by Lech Walesa’s creation of the independent trade union Solidarnosc (Solidarity) in Communist Poland. John Paul II’s “valiant predecessors” were Gregory XVI and Pius IX who opposed the Polish uprisings of the 19th century.

The Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 145, April 1982, p. 4

Discourse at Camerino, March 19, 1991

The Catholic Counter-Reformation, no. 273, May 1991, p. 16

Discourse at Camerino, March 19, 1991

Sūrah II, verse 125

quoted in Resurrection no. 1, January 2001, p. 11

The Acts of the Apostles 2:38-40

The Acts of the Apostles 9:20

The Gospel According to Saint Luke 18:8

The catholic Counter-Reformation no. 279, October 1995, p. 20.