He is risen !

N° 240 – February 2023

Director : Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

Ratzinger-Benedict XVI:

It is he who is responsible
for the ruin of the Church

ONE might think, to hear the chorus of praise that followed Pope Benedict XVI’s death, at least in some conservative and traditionalist circles, that he may one day be proclaimed a doctor of the Church. “He was a Pope,” writes the journalist Laurent Dandrieu, “who stood firm ‘before the wolves,’ to re-root (sic) the Church in Christ and leave her more ‘firm in the Faith,’ more apt to fulfil her mission of being ‘the salt of the earth.’” Pope Francis himself describes his predecessor as “a master of the Faith” whose “thought and magisterium are and will always remain fruitful in time.” He affirms this in the preface to a forthcoming collection of quotations of Benedict XVI.

We think, on the contrary, that for both the very necessary purification of the Church and the restoration of the dogma of the Faith, it will be necessary to cast an anathema on his writings and speeches.

Yet, can a Pope condemn one of his predecessors? Certainly, since such has already occurred, for example in the 7th century:

“Honorius is, among all the Popes who were guilty of heresy, the best known and probably the most culpable. The phrase he used when justifying his compromise with the heretics has a surprisingly up-to-date ring about it, for all that, it was spoken in 634: “We must be careful not to rekindle ancient quarrels.” On the strength of this argument, he allowed error to spread freely, with the result that truth and orthodoxy were effectively banished everywhere. Saint Sophronius, bishop of Jerusalem, was almost alone in standing up to Honorius, and formally accused him of heresy. Eventually the Pope came to his senses, but he died without having repaired the immense damage caused to the Church by his about-faces. For this reason the Sixth Council of Constantinople cast its anathema upon him, in 680, and this was confirmed by Pope Leo II. All the great Ecumenical Councils confirmed this condemnation until modern times. It is a prodigious token of the truth that the Church of Rome thus gives by keeping one of her Pontiffs under anathema through the centuries, because of heresy, at the moment when she declares herself serenely infallible.”

Let us now return to Benedict XVI. In 2010, five years after his election to the sovereign pontificate, when questioned by his friend, the journalist Peter Seewald, he said that a pope should not resign when he encounters difficulties:

When the danger is great, do not take flight. It is surely not the moment to retreat. It is precisely in times like these that we must stand firm and dominate the difficult situation. That is my conception. We can retreat in a quiet moment, or when we are simply exhausted. We, however, must not take flight in the midst of danger and say:Let someone else deal with it’.”

Nevertheless, three years later, on February 28, 2013, faced with all kinds of serious scandals, sex scandals in particular, he evoked the “disfigured” face of the Church and resigned from his office. Benedict XVI, however, was determined to ignore the cause of these appalling disorders within the Church herself. He renewed his enthusiastic support for Vatican II at the very moment that he announced his resignation.

Indeed, in the talk he gave to the Roman clergy on February 14, 2013, he still pinned his hopes on the “real Council” that he contrasted with the “Council of the media” and with the “Council of the journalists” both of which he described as the “virtual Council. We know how this Council of the Media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, and it created so many calamities, so many problems: seminaries closed, convents closed, etc.” he charged, before concluding: “The virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. Fifty years later, our own task, deriving from the real Council, has become apparent: to ensure that this true, real Council might veritably renew the Church.

Even before the closing of Vatican II, Father de Nantes had announced the fruits of the real Council, namely apostasy, a consequence of the opening of the Church to the modern world, to the world of 1789: the doctrinal novelties introduced in its Acts could only cause a collapse of Christian life and morals. Most certainly, the serious disorders, immorality and corruption within the clergy and even at the highest level of the hierarchy, were the wages of the “cult of man” proclaimed the day before its closing (December 7, 1965).

The post-Council years characterised by appalling decadence form a sad chronicle:

“‘Jam fœtet.’ It already smells, just like Lazarus after three days, Father de Nantes wrote. After three years of Reform, the Church of Vatican II already smells. It is the decomposition, the auto-demolition of religion wrought by its own ministers.

“It would be long and despairing to assess the past year [1968]. The immense thirst for licence and mental disorder that characterises the human animal when it is too well nourished and satisfied has now taken hold of the men of the Church. We find an admission of this in these new catechisms that have been published this year in several nations, and those that do not yet have their own are working feverishly away at them. These catechisms are evidently in flagrant contradiction with the Catholic catechism for which they are being substituted as a matter of urgency. No matter in what ineptitudes, errors and heresies they abound, no one is willing to ban them. Rome may point out their essential shortcomings, but she dare not proscribe their use! It is ‘irreversible’. In line with Vatican II, in keeping with the synarchical pact that binds Paul VI and the episcopates of the [conciliar] majority, the world must be gratified and given a new religion, one that is agreeable and flattering.

“It would take a new Elijah and his zeal for the House of God.”

The future Benedict XVI was quite the opposite. As we shall see, one of his most serious faults as a peritus of Vatican II, was to have worked for the destruction of the supreme Roman Inquisition, namely the Holy Office.

By refusing to recognise the total failure of his Council and his pontificate, he persisted in his errors until his death. His testament is a thanksgiving for creation and the graces received during his long life, but it contains no mention of the real state of the Church and her collapse. There is no concern for souls who are suffering therefrom and are being lost, nor even a semblance of soul-searching to evoke his responsibility in this universal shipwreck. In short, it contains no retraction.


It was in 1959 that Pope John XXIII announced the convening of a Council. After having collected the wishes of the episcopate, theologians of the Holy Office prepared, within a Preparatory Theological Commission, schemata dealing with the major dogmatic issues. The traditional orientations of these texts, however, displeased Pope John XXIII who wanted a Council to adapt the Church to the modern, democratic world, and to reconcile it with the Protestant communities. To reorient the future Council, to bypass its preparation by the Holy Office, he created the Secretariat for Christian Unity that would deal with ecumenism and draft new schemata.

It was then that the young Father Ratzinger was recruited by Cardinal Joseph Frings, Archbishop of Cologne and President of the German Bishops’ Conference, to be his private expert.

In Germany, however, Ratzinger had already been identified as a Modernist in 1956, during his Accreditation for Teaching, with his dissertation on The Theology of History in Saint Bonaventura. One of the examiners, “Michael Schmaus,” retorted to him: ‘Your subjectivist way of interpreting Revelation is not really Catholic!’ Schmaus considered him almost dangerous. Ratzinger was seen as a Progressivist who undermines entrenched bastions.” 

In his autobiography, Ratzinger himself recounted the criticisms he received: “Schmaus, who had undoubtedly received exasperated echoes from Freising on the modernity of my theology, saw in no way the faithful restitution of the thought of Saint Bonaventura in these theses, but a dangerous Modernism that was about to make the concept of revelation a subjective notion. The faculty met to deliberate around my thesis, and the session was somewhat stormy. Unlike Söhngen, Schmaus could count on strong support among the teaching staff. However, the condemnation was mitigated: my work was not refused; it was only returned to me for correction.”

“Alfred Läpple, one of his former professors, confirms Schmaus’ judgement: “Ratzinger is for a theology based on sentiment, he avoids clear definitions. He never adhered to the medieval motto Sic et non: it is thus or it is not thus. He does not like dry definitions, but wants to reshape theology and construct it as an artist composes a painting. He is constantly inventing new words and is happy to move from one formulation to another.”

In his biography of Cardinal Frings, Norbert Trippen showed how, even before the opening of Vatican II, Ratzinger engaged in a denigration of the schemata that had been prepared by the theologians of the Holy Office under the direction of Cardinal Ottaviani.

It was in 1961 that Cardinal Frings began to appreciate the young Father Ratzinger when he prepared for him a lecture on the Council that he was to give on November 20 of that year in Genoa. “He quickly provided me with a draft,” Frings related, “which I found so good that I only touched it up in one place. The lecture was entirely forward-looking. When I showed it to Cardinal Döpfner, he said, ‘Well, it’s a history-making document!’ By that he meant: these are beautiful dreams for the future, but almost none of them will come true. These dreams seemed far too revolutionary at the time.” Alas! This was ultimately the programme that Vatican II was to accomplish.

Cardinal Frings had been summoned by John XXIII on February 23, 1962. “As I entered the room, the Pope quickly came to me, clasped me to his breast and said: ‘I read your speech in Genoa last night and I wanted to thank you for these beautiful ideas.’ ” Obviously, this conversation encouraged Frings to call on Joseph Ratzinger from April 1962 as an adviser to the Central Commission, which was revising the preparatory schemata.

The Archbishop of Cologne wrote in his Memoirs: “When the sessions of the Central Commission began (November 1961 to June 1962), we quickly saw that the schemata presented (about seventy) had all been drafted in an entirely conservative spirit. We ended up in violent confrontations with the conservative group mainly led by Ottaviani. These clashes mainly concerned the theses elaborated by the Secretariat for Christian Unity, chaired by Cardinal Bea. These theses were hotly contested, particularly on the question of religious freedom.”


What Professor Ratzinger had been doing by “moving from one formulation to another,” the Second Vatican Council would do it in a big way

« From the opening of the Council on, John XXIII had invited the Fathers to find a new language, one better adapted to the modern mentality than the ancient dogmatic language : ‘It is necessary for this certain and unchangeable doctrine, which must be respected faithfully, to be studied and expounded in accordance with the research and modes of presentation that modern thought employs, etc.’ To affirm the necessity of new expressions of the Faith, of pastoral style, was tantamount to discrediting the ancient dogmatic formulas. The Pope immediately announced that the Church would no longer condemn errors, on the grounds that they ‘exclude each other’ and, ‘as quickly as they arise, they vanish like fog before the sun’ (sic!). To change the formulas and then to announce that the Church would no longer condemn! What would you say about a pharmacist who gives orders to his employees to change the labels of all the flasks of his pharmacy, guaranteeing them impunity in case of error or crime?


On May 27, 1962, Professor Ratzinger was the first to reply: “On the whole, I would like to say that the four schemata outlined by Cardinal Bea seem to me to be an excellent work. If we could succeed in getting Vatican II to adopt these texts as its own, the Council would have already been, it seems to me, extremely profitable and real progress would have been made. Here, we are really speaking the language that our time needs.”

Quite different were his opinions concerning the schemes prepared by the Theological Commission.


In the Council schema on the Church, chapter 8, number 3, Ratzinger challenged traditional inquisitorial procedures, calling for “protection of the individual against anonymous denunciation [for heresy]; it should be established because up to now it has been too neglected.” At the end of the chapter, “a certain dissatisfaction remains, for, as Karl Rahner writes, the Church does not belong to those ‘absolute States in which external power and obedience exercised in mortal silence are everything, and freedom and love are nothing’; thus, such a document should not be totally bereft of a call for freedom and love.”

In his address to the Central Commission on June 19, 1962, Frings echoed Ratzinger’s suggestions: “We should also mention the care to be given to Christian initiative among the faithful, because in the Church, it is not fear alone that should prevail, but rather the freedom of the children of God, love and generosity.”


On June 19 and 20, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea submitted their plans for the schema on the Church, summarised under the title ‘On the Relations Between Church and State and on Religious Freedom.’ These two projects were radically opposed.

“While Cardinal Ottaviani, in chapter 9, wanted to oblige the State to respect and ensure respect for the ‘truth’ as defined by the Church, Cardinal Bea’s chapter 10 on religious freedom had a completely different orientation.

“According to the view of the Holy Office, there are ‘religious obligations on the part of the civil power’: ‘The civil power cannot be neutral towards religion. Since it is established by God to help men acquire human perfection, it must not only help them to obtain temporal goods, but also to receive spiritual goods for the religious conduct of human life.’ ”

Father Ratzinger criticised this by committing himself fully to ensuring that the Church would undergo a Copernican revolution by proclaiming the human right to social freedom in religious matters. It meant taking the opposite view of the teachings of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius X and Pius XII. He was well aware of this:

It is a question of getting out of the Middle Ages, of putting an end to the Constantinian era in Saint Peter’s Basilica. Few things have been as damaging to the Church over the past hundred and fifty years as the obstinate defence of the State religion status where it survived. It is clear that those [in the Holy Office] who were not so much opposed to [interior] freedom of conscience as to freedom of worship [social right] were fighting for a world [Christendom] that was collapsing [the world that you, Ratzinger, were determined to destroy] while the other side [represented by Cardinal Bea] was opening the road to the future [pardon me! the road to the ruin of the Church].”

This did not prevent Ratzinger later on from developing a “hermeneutic of continuity” between tradition and Vatican II. Because for him “continuity” is simply perfect harmony between the Church and the society of the moment. If the society of the moment changes, the Church must change and it is this concern for adaptation that ensures “continuity.” Harmony between the Church and the world takes precedence over any other considerations. This is the height of liberalism: the criterion of truth is no longer the dogma of Faith, fidelity to the doctrine transmitted by tradition, but harmony with the world, adaptation to the world of the moment, since God loves this world, since His Spirit is constantly at work in it!


Concerning the Virgin Mary, hundreds of bishops had asked for a special schema to proclaim Her privileges, which seemed very necessary to them “in our time when the conflict is so great between the faithful and Satan.”

Father Ratzinger opposed it: “I believe that, in the interests of the Council, this Marian schema must be abandoned. If the Council’s essential goal is a delicate incentive to the separated brethren to seek unity, it must be pastoral in the choice of the truths to be proclaimed and let itself be guided by charity [a false charity!]. This schema would be a new obstacle to the return of those who have separated [a return? Yet what kind of a return would it be if there is no sincere and full adherence to the truths of the Catholic Faith that the schismatics have denied?]. I suggest that a doctrinal chapter be totally abandoned – the Romans must simply make this sacrifice [the sacrifice of the privileges of the Immaculate!] – and that a simple prayer to Our Lady for unity be placed at the end of ecclesiology.”

To pass over in silence the privileges and glories of the Virgin Mary, to conceal them, is to oppose the revelations of Fatima and Pontevedra, therefore the divine demands for our time.


Ratzinger wrote to Frings about several schemata, including the one on The Unity of the Church: “They seem too scholastic and take too little account of the opinions of the separated brethren.

Of all the schemata, the one on the complete preservation of the deposit of Faith appears to be the least appropriate, even so insufficient [insufficient for promoting a new, heretical, ecumenism! Yet it was sufficient and even perfect for preserving and defending the dogma of the Faith] that it cannot yet be submitted to the Council [to this new type of Council, all acts of which had to please the Protestants].

The schema on The Sources of Revelation must be revised so that no preliminary decision settles the internal controversies of theologians [controversies with Lutherans are not internal controversies of the Church!].

With regard to the schemata 3- The Christian moral order, 4- Chastity, marriage, family, virginity and 6- The means of social communication, it will be necessary to answer the most urgent questions briefly and, as far as possible, neither judge nor condemn, but, speaking as a mother would, spread the riches of the Christian Faith and its consolation.”

The real Council, to use Benedict XVI’s expression, would be precisely this Council that would adopt the orientations desired by Pope John XXIII and Father Ratzinger, breaking with and even contradicting those of the theologians of the Holy Office who had prepared the condemnation of the errors of our time. It is this liberalism and these doctrinal novelties of the real Council that produced the disastrous results and are still producing them today.


Cardinal Frings invited Father Ratzinger to join him before the opening of the Council: “It is now clear that I will fly to Rome on Tuesday, October 9; Will you fly with us? For Wednesday, October 10, I invited all the German Council Fathers to a meeting at the Anima at 5 p.m. May I ask you to voice your opinions on the draft of the dogmatic constitution on the sources of Revelation and, if possible, to make positive counter-proposals?”

His conference to the bishops on October 10, 1962, on the sources of Revelation prepared them to accept the counter-schema that he had drafted with Karl Rahner.

For a very young professor,” he later confided, “it was a really immense and difficult matter. The responsibility of charting the course that the German bishops would follow rested heavily on my shoulders.” He added that he “felt a great responsibility before God and history.” He therefore knew that he was perfectly responsible for “the inevitable storm [sic] that would soon break out.”

Together with a few other periti and the decisive support of Pope John XXIII, Father Ratzinger triggered this storm: from the first days of the Council, he very cleverly manoeuvred to conceal his counter-schema [on the sources of Revelation] from the scrutiny of the theologians of the Holy Office, and then to obtain the rejection of their schemata.

Disavowing Cardinal Ottaviani, who wanted the assembly of bishops to approve them without delay, John XXIII satisfied the reformist minority by deciding that the schema on the liturgy should be studied and discussed first.

Liturgical questions are not clearly circumscribed. The liturgy does not have the perfection of divinely inspired Scriptures nor the immutability of dogmatic definitions. The innovators would therefore be able to easily propose reforms, innovations, and thus set in motion the aggiornamento of the Church.

Ratzinger recounted: “The schemata of the Theological Commission, the first of which [on the sources of the Revelation] was now available to the Fathers for study, were imbued with the spirit that had marked the end of the 19th century, that is, a spirit that isagainst’ [i.e., against the errors that had been condemned in the Syllabus in 1864]. This spirit must have seemed glacial, even shocking, by comparison with the great blossoming of the schema on the liturgy. The tension provoked by the fight (against Modernism), a fight certainly necessary in those days, had marked these schemata and drafted them in an essentially negative [but Catholic!] theology. With the schema on the liturgy, this spiritwhich is against’ [i.e., against the heresies of the neo-Modernists that Pius XII had condemned in his encyclical Humani generis, of 1950], this negative spirit disappeared in favour of a new positive opportunity offered to the bishops.

The words of the Pope in the opening address: nowadays, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.... all that had previously been considered an expression of John XXIII’s personal disposition now took on its full meaning, becoming understandable and significant.”


On October 25, 1962, Father Ratzinger presented his counter-schema on the Revelation to a group of German and French bishops: it was duplicated in several hundred copies and began to circulate among the bishops.

It so happened that our Father became aware of this text thanks to a Roman seminarian who, charged with cleaning the apartments of the Fathers, found one day in a wastepaper basket a paper of a bishop, a text in Latin, which he hastened to send to him. Father de Nantes, then parish priest of Villemaur, was astounded when he read these pages, and he wrote his Letter To My Friends no. 132:

“There were ten little pages of very dense Latin text, requiring very careful study. The Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Holland are submitting this schema to the Council Fathers as the subject for their forthcoming review. It is – so they say – ‘certainly very positive and pastoral in tone,’ and this implies that it differs from everything hitherto canonically proposed. Well! This schema appears to me to present the fundamental religious principles of Progressivism and of Teilhardism as infallible definitions of the Christian Faith.

“This is the event of the century. The Revolution is now offering its gift to the Church undisguised.”

On November 20, 1962, John XXIII violated the rules of the Council to support the reformists enabling them to obtain the definitive rejection of the schema on The Sources of Revelation. Ratzinger exulted: he and his confederates had won. He could later publish his chronicles of the sessions of Vatican II, under the significant title My Council.

The historian Ruggieri noted “that the period from November 14 to December 8, and especially the week of November 14 to 21, 1962, devoted to the debate concerning the schema on the sources of Revelation, was the moment when a decisive change took place for the future of the Council and, consequently, for the Catholic Church herself: from the Pacellian Church [the Church of Pius XII], still essentially hostile to modernity and which was the last heir of the 19th century’s Church of the Restoration [the Church of the Syllabus], we have passed to the Church which is the friend of all men, even if these children are those of modern society, its culture and its history,” in short, the Church of the Masdu.

At the second session of Vatican II, in 1963, Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal Frings’ secretary: “I think that we can be very satisfied with the schema on the Church. Progress can already be detected just by comparing the composition of the old and new schema. In the former, 90% of the content belonged to the 19th and 20th centuries; Now it is patristics that dominates; the Middle Ages and modern times are still present in appropriate proportions.”

90% of the content belonged to the 19th and 20th centuries,” that is, it bears the mark of the condemnations of modern errors fulminated by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius X and Pius XII.

Patristics dominates”... This means that we are taken back to the time before the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, promulgated to condemn heresies and to explain the divine truths contained in the deposit of Revelation. With the Fathers of the Church, we can disregard such definitions.

Thus, the Council followed the guidelines given by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address of October 11, 1962: it would no longer condemn anyone and would reformulate Christian doctrine.


To condemn no longer is to betray the Faith of the Church, our Father protested:

“The faithful, priests, bishops and even the Pope are only members of the Holy Church, insofar as they adhere to the apostolic Faith and reject all that contradicts it, insofar as they are faithful to the Unique Bridegroom of their souls and hostile to impious seducers and idols of Satan. They owe their Master and Lord this twofold witness to their fidelity, to profess everything that the Holy Church their Mother holds to be revealed and to condemn with anathema all that she has reproved. ‘He who is not with Me is against Me,’ Jesus declared, ‘and he who does not gather with Me scatters.’ No one can refuse to condemn error, on whatever grounds, without outraging God and reducing His Word to the level of the diverse and uncertain opinions of men. A ‘liberal’ faith is neither sincere nor upright, its hope diverges from divine will, and its charity is nothing more than crime and adultery.

“The Church always revived and safeguarded the purity of her Faith by means of a public and implacable condemnation of the error threatening to corrupt everything like leaven. There is no possible struggle and no salvation today except through the same measures that the Church has used when faced with the dangers of heresy, namely for the sacred hierarchy to pronounce anathemas in which the pernicious novelties and falsehoods hitherto spread among Christians, will be clearly defined and condemned.”


As the Holy Office was the ministry of the pontifical government that was charged with overseeing the preservation and defence of the Faith within the Church, the Modernists waged a war to the death on it.

In the perfidious attacks launched against this institution during the second session of the Council, the role played by Ratzinger was discreet – unlike Küng – yet decisive. As Cardinal Frings’ personal theologian, he prepared the Cardinal’s declaration of November 8, 1963, which was frantically applauded in the conciliar aula by a few dozen Fathers who had signed a petition for its destruction, a few dozen out of the 2,400 Fathers present!

In his speech, the President of the German Bishops’ Conference strongly affirmed that “the Holy Office’s manner of conducting itself in many spheres is not in step with our times, is detrimental to the Church, and is a cause of scandal for many.

“It seems appropriate to me to demand that no one should be accused, judged or condemned, before this dicastery on account of his faith, whether correct or erroneous, without having been heard beforehand, without having been informed in advance of the accusations brought against his person or against his book, and before he has been given the opportunity to amend himself or the book which seems to be prejudicial to him.”

A few minutes later, Cardinal Ottaviani, secretary of the Holy Office, protested vigorously against cardinal Frings’ assertions:

“Allow me to protest energetically against the words that have been spoken against the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, the Prefect of which is the Supreme Pontiff. (Applause in the conciliar assembly)

“These words were spoken out of ignorance, I do not use any other word so as not to offend, out of ignorance of the procedure of the Holy Office, out of ignorance of the number of persons questioned before passing judgement, of the number of consultors and qualificators, the great majority of whom come from outside and are professors of the principal Roman universities, and that are heard before any judgement is submitted to the most eminent Fathers of the Holy Office, so that they may give their opinion in full knowledge of the cause proposed to them and whose decision the Fathers themselves propose to the Supreme Pontiff.”

The eminent prelate’s protest did not prevent Pope Paul VI from initiating the reform of the Holy Office that very evening, by asking Cardinal Frings to make proposals to him. Four days later, he and two theologians, one of whom was Ratzinger, discussed it with a canonist from Louvain, Msgr. W. Onclin, who agreed to write a Pro memoria. On November 18, it was a fait accompli, the cardinal submitted a four-page draft reform of the dicastery to the Pope.

Father de Nantes immediately understood the fatal consequences that the assault launched against the Holy Office would have. In his chronicle of the second session of the Council, he wrote:

“Cardinal Frings, pressing home his advantage, clearly demanded the Reform of the Roman Curia and in particular of the Holy Office, which is responsible for watching over the purity of the Faith in the name of the Pope himself. It is the passionate wish of the reformers to reduce this supreme tribunal to powerlessness under the control of the bishops. Thus we were no longer to see these brutal interventions that the cardinal claimed were a cause of scandal throughout the world.

“Our French journalists give us a typical example of this inhuman repression: did not the Holy Office condemn Father Jean Steinmann’s The Life of Jesus, even though it bore Cardinal Feltin’s imprimatur, without either of them having been warned, much less consulted or heard! These are the inquisitorial and medieval methods that the Episcopal College will be able to do away with! Yet what neither the journalist Fesquet nor the theologian Laurentin told you, dear reader, is the crux of the matter: what impious errors, the dreadful theories of Ernest Renan, are republished in this book written by a priest! And what is more, they are sanctioned by the Parisian imprimatur and nihil obstat! This book was going to poison thousands of souls irremediably. Paris had not seen or had not dared. Rome was vigilant! As for the wretched, the unfortunate author, while at the bottom of a parched wadi in the cursed desert of Moab where he was on an excursion, he was swept away by torrential waters. What a sign of God’s wrath!

“Henceforth you can praise Islam and say that Mohammed is a genuine prophet of the true God, you can collaborate with the Communist Party, support Polish Progressivism, and God knows what else! The heroic barrier, the only tenacious and sure one in the Church over the last twenty years was the Holy Office. Now its eyes are gouged out.”


A few weeks later, in Rome, Bishop Romoli, the Dominican Ordinary of Pescia, explained and justified its procedure, in an interview granted to the journalist Wiltgen:

“As I asked him,” the journalist relates, “if it was true that the Supreme Court of the Church condemned an accused without having heard him, Bishop Romoli replied: ‘It is necessary to distinguish. If one member of the Church accuses another of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Holy Office, the accused is always heard and has every opportunity to defend himself. He may be assisted by a lawyer who is approved by the court. The precautions taken to safeguard the accused are in this case so broad and meticulous that they could sometimes seem excessive.’ 

Bishop Romoli, however, pointed out, that the situation was quite different for the condemnation of published works, “because these are theories which, considered in themselves, risk compromising the integrity of Church doctrine and the salvation of souls.” In such cases, “when Orthodox Catholic doctrine is not clearly stated, or is called into question, the Holy Office does not always hear the interested party before delivering its verdict.” In such condemnations, it is not the author’s intentions that are being questioned or condemned; the court considers only his theories taken in themselves.”

When asked if it would not be more humane to question an author before condemning his writings, Bishop Romoli replied that this was perfectly possible in the case of a manuscript not yet published. “But once uncertain or false doctrines have been spread, what would be the point of such an interrogation?” It would not change the influence exerted by the published work on the Catholic world. “Before condemning a published work or issuing a solemn Monitum about it, the Holy Office conducts a long, thorough and scrupulous investigation, consulting highly qualified experts belonging to various linguistic and national groups, so that its judgment may be unquestionably objective and certain. Sometimes these investigations last several years, so great is the thoroughness with which the Holy Office deals with these cases.”


Despite the well-argued defence of the inquisitorial procedures by the best Roman prelates, the Holy Office would be neutralised, dismantled, annihilated at the end of the Council by the motu proprio Integræ Servandæ of December 7, 1965.

If Paul VI reformed the Holy Office, it was not to increase its powers, but to satisfy point by point the requests made on November 8, 1963 by Cardinal Frings.

The Motu Proprio Integræ Servandæ transformed the Holy Office into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and its new Code indicated that administrative measures could no longer be taken against publications without their authors having had the opportunity to defend themselves. The Congregation of the Index commission disappeared.

In his Motu Proprio, Paul VI affirmed: “Because perfect love banishes fear (1 Jn 4:18), the protection of the Faith will be better ensured by an office charged with promoting doctrine.” This perfect love, which the Pope wanted to establish in the Church and in the world, was only the diabolical caricature of Christian charity, namely ‘solidarity’: let all men be respected in their uninhibited behaviour both public and private.

By dismantling the Holy Office, on the eve of the closing of the Council, Paul VI protected himself and shielded with him all the neo-Modernists and Progressivists, such as Father Ratzinger, who triumphed.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not responsible for fulminating condemnations but for “creating doctrinal progress on the basis of the achievements of culture and the social sciences.” With such an objective, the new Congregation fostered the proliferation of heresies in the Church.

In his Memoirs [1973], Cardinal Frings writes: “The Holy Office was dissolved as such and, in its stead, a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was created. The new Congregation has acted with great restraint ever since. Once, it very strongly called a right-wing Frenchman to order. With regard to the Dutch and even German reforms, however, which go much further than the conciliar reforms, the Congregation took no action.”

This right-wing Frenchman was Father de Nantes.

All this is enough to show that Benedict XVI was in the wrong and he was deceiving us when he dared to affirm that the real Council was not the cause of the appalling decadence of the Church. It was his reform to adapt it to the modern world, decreed at the Council, and the decisions it entailed, including the dismantling of the Holy Office, that allowed so many errors to destroy the Faith and morals in the Church.


After a pilgrimage to Rome, Father de Nantes demonstrated the essential role of the Holy Office in the life of the Church. Describing the architecture of Saint Peter’s Square, he focused “on the colonnade and the two wings that prolong it, built by Pius XII precisely to house the papal dicasteries.

“Two palaces complete this majestic ensemble, on the right and left, the Holy Office and the Secretariat of State; the latter is moreover symbolically occupying part of the Popes’ Palace. The first is the ministry of the Faith, the second that of Church’s political policy.”

At the Holy Office, “Cardinal Ottaviani, immediate dependent on the Pope, has the task of defending the Faith. His mission is of the utmost importance, because all its strength and its very existence depends on the Church’s fidelity to its head Jesus Christ.”

At the Secretariat of State, “Cardinal Cicognani explains to the Pope every morning how the world is going, what men do with their freedom, what the heads of State declare and decide, in short that other absolute composed of the events and facts on which the Church must take a stand.

“Each of these ministries devotes itself to the mission entrusted to it and adopts its character. In the Holy Office intransigence, in the Secretariat flexibility; in the former, the assertion of God’s rights, the reprobation of every error, the superb assurance that the Truth alone will lead the Church to victory and worldwide prestige, in the latter on the contrary, the reminder of the temporal power of the enemy, the will to compose, to compromise, the thought that the Church will only be able to maintain herself in the midst of so many difficulties by prudence, measure, sense of opportunity, even opportunism.”


“Contrary to what superficial people might think, it is the Faith that is the creative element, the driving force, the principle of renewal and enrichment in the Church. For the moment, it draws only difficulties and persecutions on those who serve it alone, but at the same time the Faith revives holiness, arouses heroism among the children of the Church, multiplies conversions, and exalts missionary zeal. It is the Holy Office that is the minister of this principle of life!

“A Papal State, a papal policy, a papal diplomacy are necessary, but they must be subordinate to the virginal, honest preaching of the Faith. The apparent successes, the easy appeasements brought about by concordats and compromises due to the skill and tenacity of Roman diplomacy lead to the temptation of believing that the era of persecution and struggle is over, that the reconciliation of the Church with the world is at hand. This policy might be considered a mysticism with a total disregard for the Faith. Yet a short time later, the Church, anaesthetised by all the temporal powers and the contented false religions, was dying of starvation, since having failed her God, her inner life was lost in the long train of her political successes.

“Rome has not reached that point. On the other hand, the vehement criticisms that the militants of the Council are uttering against the Curia are disturbing.”


“The advocates of a new reformation attack Roman legalism in the name of charity, but translated into plain terms, these fine words amount to removing from our hearts the holy rigors of the Faith, the salutary norms of morality, in order for us to attend to the apparent facilities of diplomacy and the false victories of political compromises. Let us lose the Faith and reconcile ourselves with everyone.

“This upsetting aggression implacably reveals the strength and weakness of contemporary papal institutions. The Holy Office does not, alas, have the strength we believe it has. No doubt it has in hand the most formidable anathemas, but it is difficult and sometimes forbidden for it to use them: Teilhard de Chardin was a test and proved to be more powerful than the Holy Office, Témoignage Chretien [a Progressivist review] likewise. Unfortunately having been confined for so long to the sole function of repression, it leads to effective results. It seems engrossed in suspecting, obstructing, stopping what has been done outside of it. It is recognised that it is a necessary curb, but this assessment itself disfigures its mission and does it a disservice. If a reform of the Curia is necessary, it must be diametrically opposed to the one that the reformists of the Council are demanding.

“Rather, the ministry of the Faith should recover some of the positive attributes and direct powers of sovereign power from the ministry of politics. Ah! If only the Holy Office had its legates as the Secretariat has its nuncios, if it chose bishops according to its orthodox and valiant spirit, if it could effectively support, with money and honours, those who fight for the Faith, then no one would have dared to cry out against it, then especially the Holy Church would give her children fortifying sustenance! She would fearlessly enter the fray!

“There will be salvation for our generation only by restoring the ministry of the Faith to its rightful ascendancy over the ministry of politics, and it is a matter of urgency.”


Fifteen years later, in 1981, when Cardinal Ratzinger, then Archbishop of Munich, was named Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by John Paul II, he was determined not to engage in the inquisitorial work that the Prefect of the Holy Office accomplished in the past by detecting errors and their authors in order to condemn them.

Never,” the Cardinal would confide later on, “would I have accepted dedicating myself to this ecclesial service if my task had been primarily one of control.”

Father de Nantes commented:

“You are eager to let it be known that you would never have accepted the office of Prefect of the Holy Office if it had not been understood, sworn and promised that there was no question, and never would be, of sanctioning or condemning anyone except the enemies of Liberty.

“Thus it is with your Eminence reigning, at the Congregation (founded for the defence) of the Faith. There is no longer that primary charity that consists in defending the Church from the invasion, domination and ravages of the Prince of this world, Satan.

“It is under cover of this papal and conciliar liberalism that the Beast of the Apocalypse invaded Rome where it camped with its armies.”


It should be noted, however, that this papal liberalism made one notable exception. In 1966, Father de Nantes had succeeded in having the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith undertake an inquisitorial work against himself. The Supreme Tribunal of the Faith was to render a doctrinal judgement on all his writings, especially on his Letters to My Friends in which he denounced the Acts of Vatican II as heretical. The trial was conducted in Rome, but ended with a deceitful Notification published in the August 10, 1969 edition of the Osservatore Romano. The supreme authority endeavoured to defame Father de Nantes while refraining from judging the substance of the case.

In fact, the reason for the disqualification was a false accusation, namely the presence of errors in his writings. According to the Roman notification, Father de Nantes had refused to “subscribe to a formula retracting his errors…” It was a double lie. Let us reread the Roman documents of the trial. None of them, neither the formula of retraction, nor Cardinal Seper’s Letter of summons, nor the final notification, indicate what errors Father de Nantes would have had to retract. These alleged errors are neither formulated nor mentioned, for the sole reason that they do not exist!

Thus, after having heard the plaintiff’s request, even though the state of the proceedings permitted the supreme authority to judge the case, it refused to decide on its merits and to render a dogmatic sentence. Father de Nantes’ trial ended in a denial of justice, an abuse of authority in the strict sense of the term. To commit a denial of justice is the worst possible disgrace for a judge.

This denial of justice showed that the Holy Office had really been destroyed by the conciliar reformation. There was no longer a supreme tribunal of the Faith in the Church to render doctrinal judgements! However, the outcome of Father de Nantes’ trial was of tremendous significance. The theologian of the Counter-Reformation in the 20th century being a Roman Catholic, and his accusations having been legitimately brought in the Church against Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, they remain pending.


What was Cardinal Ratzinger, defender of the rights of the accused against the Roman arbitrariness, going to do when he learned of the complaint brought to Rome by Father de Nantes against Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1983?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added a second lie to the one in the 1969 notification by publishing a notification that claimed to justify the unjustifiable! – i.e., the evasion and dereliction of duty of the Accused, the Sovereign Judge in his own case.

A final word on Cardinal Ratzinger evading Father de Nantes, let us recall that at the beginning of 1985 a German woman wrote to the Cardinal: “Your Eminence, I learned that Father de Nantes, a great French theologian, offered to help you to restore the Faith in the Church. I do not understand your silence toward him.”

The Prefect of the Holy Office had his secretary, reply on February 5, 1985: “It is not possible for Cardinal Ratzinger, for reasons of principle, to receive Father de Nantes.


It is also for these reasons of principle that the Cardinal took no action against the new French catechism ‘Pierres Vivantes’ that our Father severely criticised for its undeniably Modernist content. 

Contrary to what Jean Sévillia claims, there was, at the time, no “tussle between Ratzinger and the French episcopate. In fact, in response to our denunciation, Cardinal Ratzinger contented himself with giving an elegant speech. Our Father commented:

“I this opportunity to express to Your Eminence the enormous disappointment caused amongst the great majority of good French Catholics by his recent, amazing evasion in the affair of the French Catechisms. For my part, I already found it very abnormal that a Prefect of the Holy Office should make a matter of the Faith the object of an elegant speech rather than a supreme sentence of proscription banning the incriminated heretical texts. Your volte-face and your actual complicity with our prevaricating bishops did not surprise me. But the faithful, whose confidence in Rome remains, were greatly scandalised. If that could make you reflect, I should be happy to have warned you of the fact.”

It was thus that Father de Nantes referred to Ratzinger’s speech of January 16, 1983 in Paris, and to his “joint communiqué” with the Archbishop of Lyon ten days later in which they affirmed that there was no question of challenging “the admirable catechetical effort” undertaken in France!

Our Father noted: “There is no longer anyone at the Curia in Rome who does his ecclesiastical work. They pretend to do it.”


In 1968, during the interrogations that Father de Nantes underwent at the Palace of the Holy Office, he had been impressed by the seriousness and competence of the members and consultors of the Congregation. They were still pre-conciliar theologians! It was no longer the case in 1983 when he met Bishop Jerome Hamer to present the Liber Accusationis Secundus to him:

“Here I am now in the presence of the second personage of this Sacred Congregation, Bishop Hamer. This time, however, as the Pope’s accuser! I feel no reverential fear for this high official, so what is lacking in him? Everything.”

Father de Nantes observed the appalling consequences of the way the Pope and the bishops had been managing the people of God since the Council: without obligation or sanction:

“There is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not claim to adhere to the Council in order to commit his deeds now in broad daylight, with full immunity, as a recognised pastor and master This is especially true in the liturgical field through all the orientations, liberties, and creativity opened up by the conciliar reform, particularly with regard to drastic changes in the liturgy of the Mass and the suppression of all Eucharistic ceremonies and devotions. This subversion denounced by Pius IX, Pius X and Pius XII has been ignored by the Popes these last twenty years, just as they want to ignore those pontiffs, their predecessors, who did so much to combat it.

“Thus, today there are bishops, nay cardinals, theologians, priests and religious, known perfectly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and personally known to the Pope himself, who absolutely do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, impetrative and propitiatory, who do not believe in the real Presence, in transubstantiation, and by that token not in the Sacrament of Order either.” 

In his Liber Accusationis Secundus, Father de Nantes denounced one of these heretical theologians by way of an example: “A certain Jesuit, by name of Xavier Léon-Dufour, has produced three enormous scholarly books over the last three years. These books are wholly Modernist. The first of the three is entitled Jesus and Paul, Faced with Death (Parole de Dieu series, published by le Seuil, 1979.) It is a Modernist negation of the Mystery of Redemption. The second, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Paschal Message (same series, 1971) is a negation of the physical, objective, historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The third is called The Sharing of the Eucharistic Bread in the New Testament (1982.) Its title says it all. It is a total negation of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Real Presence and of the mystical union with God wrought by Christ’s Body and Blood. This Jesuit is completely heretical and perfectly obstinate, refusing – and oh! how meekly – to yield to the least request that he should rectify his works, as suggested to him by his learned confreres whom he intentionally consults. He is thus destroying the Catholic Faith with impunity.”

These heretics, however, “retain their functions in the Church, they celebrate Mass – the New Mass! It suits them better. John-Paul II accepts these heretics and apostates in his communion.”

This led our Father to specify the necessary conditions for a true Catholic renaissance. Certainly, it will be necessary to eradicate within the Church the heresies of the “Real Council” and the post-Council, and to restore the Holy Roman Inquisition.

“We do not ask authorisation for ourselves to make experiments in our own little corner. We will not be muzzled and we will not be brought to capitulate by being granted a few ceremonies in Latin, on the side, and the right to make three genuflexions instead of one.

“In order to bring about our reconciliation, one must first seek reconciliation with God by avenging the insults that He has to suffer officially from heretical theologians and perjurious priests in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, by putting an end to the many profanations and sacrileges committed officially leading multitudes down the path to eternal damnation.

“Now, we note that John Paul II’s Letter on the Eucharist, which shows that he is aware of so many sacrileges, and of such great abuse, treats them all too lightly. As is the case in all ecclesiastical Acts since this baneful Council, affronts to God and the scandal of souls being led to their eternal ruin are never taken into consideration, but only the sociological repercussions of our internal dissensions. Consequently, there is never any question of imposing on all the members of the Church, however lofty an office they may hold, however distinguished they may be, a public profession of the Catholic Faith and respect for the divine law under pain of immediate excommunication.

“Thus all recommendations for rectifications remains a dead letter whilst heresy and apostasy run their course, with John-Paul II reigning spiritual son of Paul VI the Innovator.”


In 1984, the journalist Vittorio Messori published an interview of Cardinal Ratzinger in the Italian monthly Jesus. In it, the prelate sounded the alarm, revealing to the general public the appalling state of the Church, characterised by apostasy.

Father de Nantes then wrote him an ‘Open Letter’ of adhesion, which was published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation of January 1985: “All your affirmations of the Faith of the Church, we profess with heart and mind; all that you have stigmatised, denounced and gainsaid, we reject with the same indignation, with more horror even, since we are not bound by any dutiful reserve.”

Nevertheless, our Father showed how astonished he was to see the Prefect of the ex-Holy Office talk privately about the heresies that invade the Church, whilst he was on holiday at Bressanone, away from his work desk and divested of all his signs of authority, like some dilettante. “By talking about them in that way you seem to be giving them legitimacy and recognising the demons who propagate these errors as ‘valid interlocutors’, as is said and done in politics concerning terrorists who are about to become Heads of State!”

Father de Nantes then formulated a request:

“Eminence, if this great assault against the Faith is to be contained and vanquished again, it will be necessary not only to know the heresies but also the heresiarchs, not only to publish the theses but also the names of the doctors. Who are these molti teologi, these countless theologians throughout the world working for the ruin of souls and the corruption of the faithful? Who are these priests, bishops perhaps, and, dare I say, cardinals? Certain princes of the Church are among their number, Eminence, are they not? We need to know; it is high time.”

Our Father beseeched the Cardinal to proceed from a journalistic interview to the manifestation of the truth in his official capacity as Cardinal Prefect for the defence of the Faith by means of the solemn condemnation of the heresies and the heretics. Otherwise, he told him, “what are you other than a bankruptcy trustee or a liquidator, and no longer a minister for the defence, a judge of the Faith, in the service of God alone and for the salvation of poor souls?


The republication of two of his books a few months later showed that he himself shared the Modernist errors of Pierres vivantes. One would think that he had prompted them! Indeed, his major work, from 1968, The Christian Faith Yesterday and Today, contains a German dialectic to rationalise the mysteries of the Faith. Their ancient representations supposedly did not make any sense to modern man.

“The word Modernist is not a benign one, without venom,” Father de Nantes explained. Since the encyclical Pascendi (1907) it has designated, using the ostentatious name by which they designated themselves, a party of heretics of the very worst kind, determined to entrench themselves within the Church by means of pretence and false oaths, the better to destroy her traditional faith and thence the entire institution. This is in order to replace them with a purely subjective, individual and democratic religion, where all is sentiment and freedom, adhering charismatically to the Christian mysteries whilst eliminating them, by means of reason and science, from the world of physical and historical reality.

“This is because the modern mind is incapable of accepting anything that is outside the ordinary course of things and inexplicable by the rational sciences. To ‘divine revelations’, however, it was admissible to grant a certain adherence of the heart, an emotional sensitivity for what is welcomed by the human community as ‘divine’ in certain very sublime experiences, so exalted that they can only come from the Spirit that blows where it wills.

“Such is the faith of the Modernist Ratzinger, full to bursting with German phenomenology, so, beware of the havoc!”


“Believing in the bodily Ascension of the risen Jesus, in His Body and before the eyes of His disciples, has become the touchstone of the true Catholic Faith,” our Father wrote.

Now, Ratzinger affirmed: “To talk of the ascension into Heaven or of the descent into Hell reflects, for our generation, awakened by Bultmann’s criticism, a three-story image of the world that we regard as mythical and as definitively obsolete [...]. It is no longer possible to speak ofaboveandbelow, ofleftandright’ ; the cosmos no longer gives us any fixed directions.” In short, “the concept of a three-storey world, in the spatial sense, has disappeared.”

Father de Nantes shattered this “pseudo-scientific apparatus” by asking a question, one single question: Has gravity disappeared?

Here now in one sentence, Ratzinger conveys “an indelible summary” of the heresy: “This concept of a three-storey world has certainly provided the images whereby the Faith has represented these mysteries.”

Father de Nantes commented: “The Cardinal Prefect of the Holy Office is just as Modernist – and therefore formally heretical, and should be hounded out of Christ’s Church like any other Luther – as are the authors of the French catechism, Pierres vivantes. The Cardinal denounced its shortcomings again the other day with a colossal hypocrisy by which I would prefer to be taken in yet again.

“For him, in 1968 as in May 1985, when he republished his ideas translated into French to encourage the episcopal clique itself flagrantly perfidious with regards to article of the Creed, the Ascension is an image to say that...”

Father de Nantes stressed the insane character of this theory: “At the origin of Christianity, there is ‘the faith’ of the community (what faith? and of what community?) that believes in ‘these mysteries’ (which mysteries? come from where?) which have to ‘be represented’ (since no precise idea can be had of them, no view, no sensible apprehension) with the aid of ‘images’ (unreal vehicles of ideas that they can only evoke by betraying and materialising them), ‘provided’ by eminently misleading physical appearances bound up with ‘definitively outdated concepts’. ‘Of course’!”

“I shall believe Ratzinger when I see him in Saint Peter’s Square, watched by his thirty collaborators at the Holy Office, fall into the sky and disappear in a cloud, thus proving that ‘above and below’ are fallacious, outworn concepts responsible for the Church’s stupid faith these last two thousand years in the real miracle of the Ascension and in its divine mystery signified by this very miracle. 

“Here, Ratzinger rhymes with liar. His perfectly Modernist hermeneutic makes the Evangelists, Saint Luke above all, to be liars. It makes the Apostles, who are the first guarantors of our baptismal Creed, to be liars. The entire Church that has believed in such things, from those baptised on the Day of Pentecost down to our present day guardian of the Catholic Faith, is one fantastic collection of idiots or impostors, presided over by despots imposing on an ignorant people, by means of the Inquisition and torture, stupidities which they themselves do not believe.

“The liar seated in the Vatican does not believe in the historical, physical, objective reality of the event of the Ascension. Thus, he refuses to believe, with the Church, like the entire apostolic Church, in the perfect honesty of the first eyewitnesses, in the inspiration of the sacred writers and in the inerrancy of their accounts. Cardinal Ratzinger is a patent, public and stubborn heretic. In 1985, he re-edited his formal heresies voiced in 1968.”

After having denounced Cardinal Ratzinger’s Modernism, our Father recalled that in other circumstances he had been enthusiastic about his stands:

“I am happy to have allowed myself to be taken in by certain of his superbly reactionary texts. I cannot be accused of prejudice or of a priori hostility. Now, those reactionary texts look to me like the sleight of hand that is habitual with Modernists and like backfires set in a forest to check a forest fire, they are intended to remove all influence from our alarms and all authority from our persons by denouncing the very things that we condemn. It is very clever!

Such is the duplicity of Modernists: “It is always the same: they wish to remain in the Church and to maintain themselves therein at all costs, and in order to reach their ends they occupy university chairs and gain the highest positions in Rome itself, lying about the Faith and about themselves until they are caught in the never-ending confusion of successive and contradictory sincerities.”


The duplicity of the German Modernist can be found in his Spiritual Testament, written in 2006, when he had been on the throne of Peter for a year. In it, Benedict XVI urged “all those who have been entrusted to his ministry” to “stand firm in the faith.

But what is this “faith”? For he adds: “Faith has learned, in dialogue with the natural sciences, the limit of the scope of its affirmations and thus to better understand what it is.”

What are these natural sciences? For the Pope, these are the negations and theories of Freemason scientists, as Father de Nantes pointed out when criticising his work The Principles of Catholic Theology:

“Too many allusions or appeals to modern science are totally devoid of seriousness, causing unease about the overall value of the ensuing theological reasoning. Unpardonable, among twenty others, is the reference, on page 389 of the Principles, to someone whom I know well enough to despise him utterly: ‘Jacques Monod, in his fundamental book on evolution, has shown in a most impressive manner…’ Be a sycophant, if you like, but not with the hateful enemy of all that you profess to honour and believe! What astonishing servility towards modern scholars.”

Let us continue the criticism of the Testament. Let us be serious: the Faith in itself is incapable of learning anything. It is not “the Faith that learns in dialogue...” It is you who claimed to dialogue with rationalists and Protestants until you yourself became a rationalist and a Lutheran! It is you who have yielded to their demands and who, in order to please them, have limited the scope of the affirmations of the Faith.

How far did you go in yielding?

Did you yield to the point of denying transubstantiation?

Assuredly, since according to the natural sciences, bread remains bread after the Consecration.

Which leads you to reject the anathemas of the Council of Trent:

The Council of Trent ends its declaration on Corpus Christi with a sentence that rings painfully in our ecumenical ears and that has certainly contributed more than a little to discrediting this feast in the eyes of our Protestant brothers. If, however, we purify this formulation of its passionate elements proper to the 16th century…”

In short, it is always a question of reformulating dogma to satisfy the requirements of the modern, Masonic world and of conciliar ecumenism. This reformulation, however, empties the dogma of the Eucharist of its content. This is why the visit to the Blessed Sacrament no longer had any raison d’être for you: “One cannot reasonably consider that Eucharistic adoration, or the silent visit to a church, consists simply in conversing with God Who is imagined (sic) to be present in a given place,” you explained in a lecture given at the time of the Council.

Statements such as God dwells hereand colloquy with God who is imagined (sic) to be locally present, the basis for this affirmation, express a misunderstanding of the Christological event as well as of the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is present only there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man.”


In his study of Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, Brother Bruno analysed his chapter on the institution of the Eucharist :

Here the formulation of the Pope is clearly Lutheran: “The so-called institution narrative, namely, the words and actions by which Jesus gave Himself to the disciples in the form of bread and wine, lies at the heart of the Last Supper tradition.

The Pope seeks in a source that is not the pure Catholic doctrine an explanation to satisfy his (Protestant) friends with whom he is in ‘dialogue’. After having recalled that everything begins with the benediction uttered by Jesus when taking the bread before breaking it, as He did at the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:11), he writes:

From her earliest days, the Church has understood the words of consecration not simply as a kind of quasi-magical command [behind this adjective that serves as a foil, it is a miracle that is implied. There is no miracle since Jesus is ‘in the bread’. The bread is still bread. There is neither magic nor miracle. What remains of the ‘consecration’, of transubstantiation? We shall see…], but as part of her praying in and with Jesus [not “through” Jesus but ‘with Jesus.’ Thus, the priest is not acting ‘in persona Christi’]; as a central part of the praise and thanksgiving through which God’s earthly gift [the bread and wine that are ‘offered’ to man by God the Creator] is offered to us anew in the form of Jesus’ body and blood [in the cult that God renders to man, He offers him the bread and wine], as God’s gift [what a reversal of roles!] of Himself in His Son’s self-emptying love.

It is still bread and wine, yet it has another ‘significance’. Here, we find the modern and Modernist theory of transignification or transfinalisation, according to which the bread, which was for eating as man’s natural food, no longer speaks this natural language and becomes clothed concretely in another finality or another meaning.

Again, in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI dealt with Christ’s Resurrection as a perfect Modernist: “It is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus.” It is “an evolutionary leap.

Brother Bruno pointed out:

If Christ’s Body and Blood made an “evolutionary leap into a new dimension” the dogma of transubstantiation according to which, at the consecration during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the entire substance of the bread is changed into the entire substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His Precious Blood, ceases to exist. This dogma no longer has any consistence or raison d’être.

Moreover, in his Testament, not only did Benedict XVI not retract his absolutely Lutheran theory of the Church, but he persisted in his heresy, by speaking of the Church’s “imperfections.” To counter him, our Father put forward the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council, in its dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith.


It is well known that Benedict XVI was impassioned over the Fathers of the Church and the liturgy, but he was a committed adherent of the Masdu. It seemed absolutely obvious to him that the world has changed, that democracy is a progress for society, that the rights of man are a theory inspired by the Gospel. He was liberal and Christian democrat.

Nevertheless, here is how, by acting as a university professor at Regensburg in order to reflect on the relationships between faith and reason, he aroused the religious fanaticism of which he has such a horror. In the face of this unprecedented reaction of the Arab world and the chancelleries of the whole world to his speech in Regensburg of September 12, 2006, the Pope found himself at the crossroads: he either had to denounce the true causes of this renascent religious fanaticism, namely the Council’s proclamation of ‘religious freedom’ as a social right that is inherent in the dignity of the human person, and to turn towards Fatima as the only remedy; or to persist in the utopia of the Masdu in order to bring about universal peace through democracy. It was this second choice that prevailed, and that became a priority in his pontifical action.

Far from freeing himself from the ‘conciliar pact,’ Benedict XVI subscribed to it once again in its totality, by upholding the theological errors and doctrinal ambiguities of the Council that support this gnosis. For example, in the speech that he gave to the University of the Lateran on the occasion of the beginning of the new academic year on October 21, 2006, he re-established what he had suppressed from the Compendium of the Catechism, the famous sentence from Gaudium et Spes 22, 2: “The Second Vatican Council acutely recalled this: For, by His Incarnation, the Son of God has in some fashion united Himself to every man. 

In Turkey, the Pope confirmed the “European vocation” of this Muslim country, and above all, on November 30, 2007, at the Blue Mosque, all the television viewers throughout the world – and above all the Muslims – saw him move his lips, facing towards Mecca. 

I addressed the one Lord of Heaven and earth,” Benedict XVI said later on, “the Merciful Father of all humanity. May all believers recognise that they are His creatures and witness to true brotherhood.

Jesus Christ and the Church are eliminated. The Pope re-explained the vision of the Council, according to which humanity is no longer divided into two camps, the Church and the anti-Church, but disposed in concentric circles around Christ:

In the innermost circle, the Successor of Peter strengthens Catholics in the Faith; in the intermediate circle he meets other Christians; and in the outer one he addresses non-Christians and the whole of humanity.”

Thus, Benedict XVI resumed Gaudium et Spes’ unanimism that our Father so vigorously denounced in the Auto-da-fe. There would no longer be any condemnation, but a general invitation to ‘dialogue’, to the ‘quest for truth’, in the greatest brotherhood and respect of others. This explains the pontifical speech of December 22, 2006 for the Christmas wishes to the Curia: after a lucid depiction of the state of the world, the Pope appealed “to the true conquests of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the rights of man.

Benedict XVI favoured ecumenism and interfaith dialogue to establish a common front against all the evils of humanity – without any concern for the worst of them, which is to march towards Hell! – not so as to obtain the eternal salvation of all men, but to establish peace and harmony here below.

To conclude, let us return to his book Jesus of Nazareth. This work clearly shows that the See of Peter was not vacant, but legitimately occupied by a person who refused to assume his functions as Pope, the first of which is to defend and proclaim infallibly the dogma of the Faith.

He wrote it not to teach the Catholic Faith, but to convey his “experience,” and he did not make it an act of the Magisterium. This book, which was published under the signature of Benedict XVI was thus received massively by the faithful as though it were ‘Holy Writ,’ while it was replete with questionable exegetical and theological stands that run counter to twenty centuries of Catholic Tradition. The literal commentary on the book, published by Brother Bruno, constitutes a veritable Liber Accusationis Quartus, for this book provides plenty of matter for the threefold accusation of heresy, schism and scandal, that numerous quotations of his speeches and homilies corroborate.

Brother Bruno denounced five denials in it: The denial of biblical revelation in favour of Talmudic Judaism, The denial of the Church in favour of the synagogue, the denial of Christendom in favour of the Masdu, the denial of the Cross of Christ in favour of a naturalism, finally the denial of the Last Things as Our Lord taught them.


As soon as Cardinal Ratzinger made his first statements on the third Secret of Fatima, Father de Nantes discerned his treacherous opposition to the revelations of Our Lady: “I fear that you yourself, indoctrinated in the diabolical criticisms of the gentle Father Dhanis, consultant to the Holy Office, would prefer not to put faith in the message of salvation since you make no mention of Heaven’s requests, which are essential to it. It is on fulfilment of these requests that God’s grace to our distressed world depends: the conversion of Russia! peace! the universal reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and, given to the world once again through Mary, that of the Sacred Heart of our divine Saviour and King Jesus.”

His commentary on the Secret, of June 26, 2000, shows that he did not believe that the Immaculate Virgin Mary came in Her glorious body to the Cova da Iria in 1917: “In the visions of Lourdes, Fatima, etc., it is not a question of normal exterior perception of the senses: the images and forms which are seen are not located spatially, as is the case for example with a tree or a house.”

However, as early as June 13, 1917, the Virgin Mary gave the first pilgrims to join the three seers, astonishing signs of Her invisible presence in their midst. During the vision the branches of the tree sagged down all around it because the weight of Our Lady was really resting on them!

The Cardinal’s commentary was imbued with the Modernist theories of Father Dhanis, to whom he referred explicitly. He presented the visions of the Secret as being the product of the “projections of the inner world of children, brought up in a climate of profound piety but shaken at the same time by the tempests that threatened their own time.” He insinuated that the visions of the Secret were but stories fabricated by Lucy whose imagination was nourished on infantile devotions: “The concluding part of the Secret uses images that Lucy may have seen in devotional books and that draw their inspiration from ancient intuitions of faith.”

Sister Lucy stated exactly the opposite in her Calls from the Message of Fatima: “After describing the family life of these two homes [the homes of the seers] you will undoubtedly understand that, if the parents of the little shepherds were faithful Christians, they were quite incapable of giving rise to mystical ideas or ideas of high spirituality in the minds of their children, such as are seen in the apparitions at Fatima. It follows that they are entirely the work of God.”

Ratzinger asserted that devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary taken as a sure way to the salvation of souls is “surprising for people from the Anglo-Saxon and German cultural world.” As if a German could not understand God’s will for our time: to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! It is the opposite that is true. One of the great apostles of Fatima in the 20th century was a German professor, Doctor of Theology, Father Ludwig Fischer: he was the first to reveal the extraordinary graces received by Saint Jacinta during the apparitions of 1917, thus her devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Moreover, in his Spiritual Testament, written in 2006 and published by the Vatican on the evening of his death, there is not even a mention of the Virgin Mary. Yet it is to Her and to Her alone that “God has entrusted the whole order of Mercy.” (Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe).

We had hoped that his trip to Portugal in 2010 would be a providential opportunity for him to open his heart to the grace of Fatima. Otherwise, as our Father said of John Paul II in similar circumstances, his obstinate refusal to fulfil Our Lady’s demands would make him “the most wretched, the most pitiful of all the men of this time.” Alas! Benedict XVI persisted in his diabolical opposition, going so far as to affirm that the message of Fatima “in substance is not directed to particular devotions.”

Thus he remained stubbornly deaf to our Father’s pathetic warnings: “Whoever is against Fatima, is damned; who is in favour, is saved.” And again: “He who does not love Fatima will be lost; he who loves Fatima infinitely will save himself, and along with himself, thanks to him, multitudes of souls less favoured than him, through Mary!” 

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 40, June 1973.

The Light of the World, in French ed. Bayard, p. 50.

The Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 16, January 1969, French edition only.

Peritus, plural, periti (Latin for “sage,” “erudite person”) is the title given to Roman Catholic theologians or canonists appointed by the Pope to draft the conciliar schemata and amend them according to the wishes of the Council Fathers, in the commissions. At the end of the first session of Vatican II, there were 306 of them. They are unfortunately sometimes referred to simply as “experts,” which leads to confusing them with Private Experts, who are chosen by individual bishops to be their personal theological advisor.

Private expert: is a theologian who is chosen by an individual bishop to be his personal theological advisor during an ecumenical council. He is responsible for preparing speeches or amendments that the bishop wishes to propose to the Council Fathers. Although the Private Expert does not attend the general congregations or the meetings of the commissions, he is nevertheless bound by conciliar secrecy. Unfortunately the Private Experts are sometimes referred to simply as “experts,” which leads to confusing them with the Periti who, although they are also “experts” and theologians, are not in the service of individual bishops. They are appointed by the Pope to draft the conciliar schemata and eventually amend them.

quoted by Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, One Life, vol. 1, 2022, p. 361.

My life. Souvenirs, 1927-1977, French ed. Fayard, 2005, p. 88.

quoted by Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, One Life, vol. 1, 2022, p. 361.

Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings, vol. 2, 2005, ed. Ferdinand Schöningh

Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings, vol. 2, 2005, ed. Ferdinand Schöningh, p. 243.

The Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 50, November 1971, p. 14, in French only.

Lecture given by Ratzinger, October 1, 1964.

Acta et documenta, série 1, vol. 2, pars 5, p. 103.

Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, One Life, vol. 1, 2022, p. 361.

Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings, vol. 2, 2005, ed. Ferdinand Schöningh, p. 333.

quoted by Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings, vol. 2, 2005, ed. Ferdinand Schöningh, p. 369.

Letter To My Friends nos. 70 and 248.

An officer, in this case a theologian, whose business it is to examine and prepare causes for trial in ecclesiastical courts of the Church.

A formal note embodying the written record of a discussion.

Letter To My Friends no. 158.

Letter To My Friends no. 174, June 21, 1964. 

(Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 176, February 1985, p. 26.

Open Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, CCR no. 176, January 1985, p. 27.

Our Religion in Full, He is risen no. 4b, December 2002.

Le Figaro, January 2, 2023.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 160, October 1983, pp. 1-5.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 157 June 1983, p. 21.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 122 Mai 1980, p 3-4.

Liber accusationis secundus, p 126-127.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 122 Mai 1980, p 2-3.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 3.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 5.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 6.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 6.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 6.

Joseph Ratzinger, The Celebration Of The Faith, in the chapter “What Corpus Christi means to me… Three meditations.”

Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, the sacramental foundation of Christian existence, the transcript of an excerpt from a four-hour lecture given by Father Ratzinger in Salzburg, Austria, in 1965; He is risen, no. 109, 2011.

Translator’s note: Brother Bruno is commenting on the French translation of the Pope’s book. In it we read: ‘Jésus s’est donné lui-même, dans le pain et dans le vin – that is: ‘Jesus gave Himself to the disciples in the bread and in the wine which, as Brother Bruno says, is clearly Lutheran. Did the Pope express himself in this heretical sense or was it the French translator who put these words on Benedict XVI’s lips? We consulted the Pope’s original German version where we read: ‘Der sogenannte Einsetzungsbericht, das heißt die Worte und die Gesten, mit denen Jesus in Brot und Wein sich selbst den Jüngern gab, bildet den Kern der Abendmahls-Überlieferung.’ ” (p. 135) We see that the French translator correctly rendered the words that the Pope had chosen. The English translator, on the other hand, seemed to want to correct in a Catholic sense what the Pope said.

Benedict XVI-Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Ignatius Press San Francisco, 2011, vol. 2, p. 115.

Benedict XVI-Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Ignatius Press San Francisco, 2011, vol. 2, p. 128-129.

He is risen, no. 104, 2011.

In German, “Mutationssprung” p. 299.

Benedict XVI-Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Ignatius Press San Francisco, 2011, vol. 2, p. 308.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 180, June 1985, p. 4-8.

He is Risen, no. 51, December 2006.

He is Risen, no. 53, February 2007.

He is Risen, no. 106, July 2011, no. 107, August 2011, no. 109, October 2011.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 176, February 1985, p. 14.

He Is Risen, no. 97, October 2010.

La Contre-Réforme Catholique no. 298, p. 31.

Letter to the Phalange no. 48.