He is risen !

N° 244 – June 2023

Director : Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

Our Lady of Fatima Camp 2022

Vatican II, the Ruin of the Church

TO understand the fatal direction taken by the Second Vatican Council from its opening, we must go back to the beginning of the 20th century, precisely to the pathetic warnings of Pope Saint Pius X who condemned Modernism. Father de Nantes wrote: “There is only one sect in the Church. It began from nothing a century ago and now it rules everywhere. Saint Pius X had unmasked and execrated it, after having revealed the extent of its treachery in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis of September 8, 1907. To counter it, he had erected the formidable barrier of the Anti-Modernist Oath to be imposed on everyone assuming any position of responsibility in the Church. Forever marked with infamy, the Sect could only subsist by shrouding itself in secrecy and perjury. All its confederates took an oath of fidelity to dogmas, in which they did not believe, and so it went on until the suppression of the oath. It was a whole conglomerate of priests and bishops, theologians and philosophers, scholars and journalists, ‘Christian’ in principle but in reality rationalists or fideists, some frankly atheist or agnostic, others ‘visionaries,’ charismatics, all liberals and all democrats sharing the common characteristic of passionate openness towards every enemy of the Catholic Church and an odious closed attitude towards their fellow Catholics, fervent defenders of the Faith. This Sect was and it still is the freemasonry of the Church.

In fact, despite all the measures taken to eradicate Modernism, Saint Pius X managed to curb it only partially, so much so that ten years later, under the pontificate of Pius XI, Cardinal Billot, well informed about the duplicity of the Modernists, declared himself very opposed to the convening of a Council. He foresaw that this assembly would become a formidable platform for them to spread their heresies throughout the Church.

“This is the most serious reason that seems to me to militate absolutely in the negative,” he wrote. “The resumption of the First Vatican Council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, in other words the Modernists, who are already getting ready – this is borne out by sure indications – to take advantage of the States General of the Church to carry out a revolution, a new 1789, object of their dreams and their hopes.”

Saint Pius X’s successors, Benedict XV and Pius XI, returned to the policy of his predecessor Leo XIII. Pius XI systematically made agreements with Masonic and persecuting governments, while he disavowed and even condemned counterrevolutionary movements. To impose his policy, he changed the episcopates by appointing bishops who would launch and develop his Specialised Catholic Action, which was democratic in spirit and method. Thus the Christian Democrats could once again accede to senior ecclesiastical positions and “it is impossible to be a liberal or a democrat without being in close sympathy and complicity with the Enemy and without allowing oneself to be insensibly won over to Modernism. ‘No one can serve two masters,’ no one can pretend to please both Christ the King and the People-King; both the Church and Freemasonry; both God and the godless. There are times when the choice is simply martyrdom or perjury.”

“After forty years of clandestine undermining, the Sect took advantage of the events of 1944, Liberation-Revolution, tripartism and the terror of the Purge, to re-emerge. With the Left in power, Modernism imposed its men and its ideas on the Church. The Sect was once again heroically denounced and reprobated by Pius XII in his encyclical “Humani Generis” of August 12, 1950, which reduced its proponents to silence and dispersed them. They methodically prepared the Sect’s revenge in concert with its usual external aids, themselves already dominant: Judaism, Freemasonry, Protestantism and international capitalo-socialism. Strange supports for the great theologians and the generous apostles of the new Gospel!”

Unfortunately, Pius XII was weak enough not to condemn the innovative and heretical theologians, such as Congar and de Lubac, by name. They reared their heads under the pontificate of his successor John XXIII, from whom they had nothing to fear since he shared many of their errors. During the pontificate of Saint Pius X, Don Roncalli had been suspected of Modernism, and in Rome the Consistoriale, that is, the Roman congregation for dioceses, had opened a case against him. When Don Roncalli was received together with the rector and the bursar of the seminary of Bergamo on June 2, 1914 by Cardinal de Laï, secretary of the said congregation, the latter gave him a severe warning: “Professor Roncalli, I recommend that you be careful and prudent in teaching the Scriptures. Mind yourself! Mind yourself!

Although Pope Pius XII had renounced in 1951 to convene a Council, cardinals considered it absolutely necessary as the dogma of the Faith was attacked by neo-Modernism and its abundance of heresies.

After the death of Pius XII in 1958, during the conclave, on the night of October 27, Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, both very conscious of the threats weighing on the Church and the Faith, paid a visit to the cell of Cardinal Roncalli, whose election to the throne of Peter then seemed almost certain. They suggested to him that he incorporate in the programme of his pontificate the calling of an Ecumenical Council. Six days later, on November 2, Cardinal Ruffini spoke again on this matter to John XXIII: As Hebblethwaite pointed out, “the first document that mentions a Council dates from November 2. After he had received Cardinal Ruffini in audience, [Pope] John noted that they had discussed the possibility of convoking a Council.” Thus it was traditionalist Cardinals who requested the Pope to call a Council. They saw it as a remedy against rampant apostasy.


However, John XXIII wanted his decision to convene a Council to appear publicly as an entirely personal idea, and even as an illumination from the Holy Spirit, with which he claimed to have been favoured. Yet he gave so many different and even contradictory versions of the circumstances of this alleged “inspiration,” both as to its place and its date, that Peter Hebblethwaite, his biographer – and hagiographer! – felt obliged to explain: “His memory certainly played tricks on him, but the totally unconscious (sic) reinterpretation of his recollections brings to light what he wanted people to believe about the Council rather than what exactly happened.”

John XXIII’s “illuminism” enabled him to distance himself from the reactionary concerns of the two conservative cardinals and to set innovatory objectives for the ecumenical assembly.

Indeed, Pope John XXIII’s discourse for the opening of the Second Vatican Council, on October 11, 1962, corresponded to the wishes of the Modernists, giving the assembly “three vague, flattering and wildly promising directives: Church reform, ecumenical dialogue, openness to the world. Integrism was wrong from the outset,” Father de Nantes noted, “and anything that put a brake on this generous movement would be considered unpleasant and inopportune. A premium would be granted to all programmes showing audacity and novelty such as:

– the changing of formulas and institutions... Just think how that fired reformist imaginations!

– the self-criticism of the Church and the rehabilitation of dissidents... How far irresponsible people, anxious to please the observers, close by in their gallery, went in this direction!

– the restructuring of the Church to the service of modern man and the earthly City. Thenceforth, this exaltation of human values knew no bounds!

“Surprisingly,” our Father observed, “no one could be found from the beginning to oppose such a programme. They all accepted to undertake this work for which they had no legal competence or divine lights, a work that should not have been attempted nor even desired. Thus, they lost their way in paths of perdition, and with them the whole Church.”

Father de Nantes picked out no less than eight heresies in this discourse of October 11, 1962. Let us retain his denunciation of Modernism against John XXIII and his ghostwriter, Cardinal Montini, the future Pope Paul VI. We put the Pope’s words in bold italics.

 Our certain and unchangeable doctrine must be expounded in a way that meets the requirements of our time,’ this is the fifth heresy.

“How can this be done without betraying the ‘Deposit of the Faith?’

“Here, it is Montini who has taken up the pen, to bluntly state the key principle of the enterprise: ‘For indeed (he says, as if this ‘for indeed’ had the slightest explanatory value)! ‘For indeed, the deposit of Faith, namely the truths that our venerable doctrine (I would prefer the theological word ‘inviolable doctrine’, just before you are told how to violate it without pain and without screams!), contains is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another,’ with the tail end of the sentence badly linked to the whole, but evocative of disturbing surgeries: “preserving nevertheless (!) the same meaning and the same import.” Are you sure? Yes? Do you vouch for it?

Vade retro, Modernist! You were condemned a hundred years ago by a saint whose lights were victorious over your Satanic darkness. What you want is to appear to respect the Church, oh yes! the venerable Church, the virginal Church, but to change her body, with the intention of making her an object of pleasure according to the tastes and the canons of the world and its Prince who, from the beginning, has had no other desire than to rape her before the eyes of the whole world with the blessing of her Head!”

On October 11, 1962, after solemn Mass, the Pope knelt down to pronounce, as required by canon law, a profession of faith. It was not the new formula that had been prepared by Cardinal Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Holy Office, to reiterate the condemnation of the errors reprobated in Humani generis. John XXIII preferred to keep the previous one, but bereft of the anti-Modernist oath. “The Sovereign Pontiff and the other Council Fathers,” Father de Nantes wrote, “did indeed pronounce the antiprotestant ‘tridentine profession’, but they freed themselves from the obligation of the anti-Modernist oath, which had made perjurers of many of them for a number of years, and from the obligation of taking mendacious oaths.”

Moreover, the Pope exempted the 244 periti appointed on September 28, 1962 from taking the anti-Modernist oath. “It is a crime,” wrote one of them, Msgr. John Clifford Fenton, from the Catholic University of Washington. He was alarmed to see the bishops taken over by neo-Modernists. On October 19, he noted in his Journal: “Since the death of Saint Pius X, the Church has been led by weak and liberal popes, who have packed the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This Council makes this very obvious.”

The admonition of Bishop Blaise Musto (December 3, 1962)

Bishop Musto of Aquino, Italy, intervened in the conciliar aula on December 3, 1962 to denounce the manoeuvre of the reformists who were altering and changing doctrine under the pretext of promoting a new pastoral policy:

“I was moved by the words of certain Fathers against the schema De Ecclesia, which is accused of not having a pastoral and missionary character. This criticism, which has been levelled against dogmatic or doctrinal schemata since the early days of the Council, is still being made to the point of exasperation. Those who make such statements do not seem to be fully aware of the nature of their pastoral office, which certainly involves, first and foremost and as much as possible, the duty to transmit the original truth to Christians and, once transmitted, to protect it, especially in our time when enemies of a new kind are bent on completely overthrowing the entire dogmatic system using the most subtle methods.

“If anyone maintains that the constitutions of the Council must have a pastoral character, and this in order to tend surreptitiously to facilitate reunion with the separated brethren, let him know that this kind of artifice corresponds neither to the mission nor to the way of acting of the Church.

“We vehemently adjure those who affirm that the schema De Ecclesia must be completely recast by the joint commission recently nominated by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. There are no objectively sound reasons for doing so.

“It has been affirmed that the Church must be presented as a servant of all those who have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. No one, however, has the right to base himself on this to divert his thought from the nature of this same Church, which is a perfect society, exercising her triple power, legally organised, and which must keep the deposit of Faith free from error and protect it from enemy attacks by an unshakable authority. Furthermore, all these points must be clarified in very firm terms, as they are in our schema, especially since men of perdition aim, with the most criminal audacity, to shackle the Word of God and to attack the rights of the Church.

“Venerable Fathers, may each of us, turning away with horror from the predilection for novelty and debates between schools, remember the teaching of Saint Paul, in the second Epistle to Timothy: ‘As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned it.’ Let him also remember the words of the same Apostle, which seem to have been uttered for our time: ‘The time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.’

“In conclusion, to put it briefly, this schema of the dogmatic constitution...”

Cardinal Ruffini, presiding over the session, interrupted him: “I beg you, I beg you, excuse me Excellency, your allotted speaking time has expired.”

Bishop Musto: “I have finished! I have finished! Although De Ecclesia can be improved, I like it very much.”

Cardinal Ruffini: “There is freedom of speech on both sides, which is why we all readily hear what opinion the Fathers have. I will now turn to the last speaker.” (Acta 1, IV, pp. 206-208)

He should have broken his communion by leaving the Council.

Freedom of speech... Does it exist even for heretics?

Alas! This was the rule in this Council of a new kind, which had become a democratic assembly where all opinions could and should be expressed. “I would have liked,” Father de Nantes wrote, “from the very first day, for a defender of the Faith to come with a large bell in his hand to interrupt and take back the floor from any speaker extolling heresy or despising the Church; the Council would have taken a different course!”

The opposite happened because John XXIII repeatedly disavowed the defenders of the Faith.

Moreover, it is remarkable that it was Cardinal Ruffini himself who interrupted Archbishop Musto to give the floor to the next speaker. The faith of the great conservative princes of the Church was no longer indicative, imperative or certain: against the worst enemies of the Church they failed to hold fast to the truth as being a divine absolute.

Certainly, it would have been necessary to require and obtain dogmatic definitions, accompanied by solemn anathemas that have the intrinsic formal character of infallibility and, if this proved impossible, to leave the conciliar aula by publicly declaring a rupture of communion. This would not constitute a schism since the rupture would be motivated by an accusation of heresy against the innovative decrees of the Council. Father de Nantes publicly recommended this approach to the traditionalist Fathers, and he personally solicited Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre privately in the summer of 1965, before the last session of the Council.

No one, however, dared to make this saving deed. Not a single bishop rose to insist that the great controversies of Vatican II would have to be settled by judgements bearing the seal of solemn teaching, i.e. pronounced with the formal guarantee of the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit, as had been the case in all previous Ecumenical Councils.

“In human battles, Father de Nantes wrote, victory is carried off by the violent. Only divine battles are waged in the name of the all pure faith, which is stronger than all else. The faith, however, must find witnesses, witnesses ready to be slaughtered.”


The procession of all the bishops of the world “penetrated into a dreadful mixing machine, on October 11, 1962. Instead of being directed by the Pope towards the doctors of the Faith, – and there were some! – the two thousand good-willed conservatives that composed this mitred multitude were going to be continuously delivered up to the preaching and the pressure of the Progressivist clan becoming every day more arrogant. The Council’s tribune gave it an authority, a means of propaganda which could never have been imagined! It floated its ideas, its mirages, its demands, in the face of Rome and its offices. The entire flock of bishops listened to these novelties, somewhat dumbfounded, then set themselves into motion, entered into this new game, while elsewhere, the same speeches taken up and amplified by the press went about rousing all the Catholic peoples of the universe. Progressivism was coming from Rome!

« The Curia? John XXIII had set it aside, cast suspicion on it from the first discourse. The doctors of the Faith? Their opinions were still to be accepted, but like useless and regrettable complaints, which would be taken into account, but nothing more. From the start, they were unable to prevail. They were only allowed to make a gallant last stand.”

Thus, because of the baneful orientations given to the Council by John XXIII, the Modernist and Progressivist minority managed to seize power during its first session and to reject the preparatory schemata that were largely the work of the theologians of the Holy Office.

After the intervention of John XXIII who violated the rules of the Council to impose the rejection of the preparatory schema on Revelation, Msgr. Fenton found Cardinal Ottaviani very alarmed on November 23, saying that “this time was the time of the demons.”

On December 1, 1962, when he presented the schema De Ecclesia on the Church to the assembly, the cardinal had little illusions: “I expect,” he declared, “to hear from you the usual litanies: this schema is not ecumenical, and it is too scholastic, it is not pastoral and too negative and other similar complaints. This time, I will make a confession. Those who are accustomed to saying, ‘Tolle, tolle, substitute illud, remove and replace it,’ are already ready for battle. And I will also make another confession: even before this schema was distributed, another, alternative schema was prepared [by Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger]. So all I have to do is to keep quiet. For as we read in Scripture: ‘It is vain to speak when no one listens.’ 

Cardinal Ottaviani, who had already been betrayed several times by John XXIII, renounced fighting to the death, that is, until the spiritual death of his opponents, Modernists and Progressivists, by anathemas accompanying infallible definitions.


Four days later, on December 5, 1962, Cardinal Montini’s intervention in the conciliar aula attracted much attention because, abandoning his reserve, he set out his ideas by giving a programme for the reformation of the Church. He soon resumed them in his cathedral in Milan: “You see the Church seeking her identity, searching with great and touching effort to define herself, to understand what she is… Not only is the Church seeking her identity, but she is seeking the world. (sic!).”

This is admittedly disquieting: the Church, who is the spouse of Christ, is supposedly seeking someone, and that someone is the world! We fear, we dread spiritual bigamy, especially since it is undoubtedly the modern world that is being sought! How could the Church be faithful to Jesus Christ, her Bridegroom and Head, if she marries the world born of the French Revolution, which is ‘satanic in its essence?’

“Those who interrogate the Church,” our Father remarked, “are the very ones who are going to answer on her behalf, and they only invent the most poignant questions in order to provide new answers for them with the patent intention of changing the reality of the Church and her divine constitution.”

The decrees of Vatican II, in particular its constitution Lumen Gentium, on the Church, were compromise texts: “It half pleased everyone: some because the novelty had not been imposed; others because it had not been forbidden. From then on, it was in actual fact permitted! Without any great effort, the innovators managed to draw from the conciliar ‘Constitution’ a definition of the Church which is very close to that of the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy! All that was needed was to interpret the text according to ‘the dynamic of the Council’. 

This transformation of the Church into a Masdu was what Cardinal Montini, who would become Pope the following year, wanted and had proposed to the Council as its programme.


“To define the nature of the Church in this or that way,” Father de Nantes remarked, “aroused so many passions because, certainly, a total subversion would ensue. However, everything was staked on a few words, key words, slogans, words with a double meaning, an immense fool’s game.”

Lumen gentium, Light of nations are the first words of the Constitution of Vatican II on the Church, those that form its title. They maintain the ambiguity and even “provoke error. Breaking with tradition down to Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici corporis Christi, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Council proposes the Church as the Light of the World in the sense that she would be totally devoted to it, in its service.

“Literally, it is Christ Who is called in the Gospel, the Light of the world (Lk 2:32; Jn 8:12). John XXIII, however, had applied this title to the Church herself in an unusual way.

“Whereas the Ancients would have understood this term as an attractive perfection, justifying Christ and the Church to win over and incorporate within themselves all men, our Moderns intend to suggest the idea of a service that the Church must render to the world in its secular progress, like that of a secondary school chaplaincy transformed into the premises of a socialist humanitarian aid society!

“It is no longer the Light of the Burning Bush that attracts men to the contemplation of the Divine Presence in the desert. It is the light of the street lamp, of the powerful floodlight that men of the Church hold above the building site of the world under construction in order to light up the labour of their brothers, believers or unbelievers.”

Thus, right from Number 1 of Lumen Gentium, the Church no longer wants to appear, as the commentators say, “turned in on herself, seeking her own end in herself,” but “turned towards the world,” for the world. It is in this sense that she will be repeatedly called “the universal sacrament of salvation” (Nos. 1 et 48). Whence “the new urgency: all men, henceforth more closely united among themselves by social, technical, and cultural links, must equally realise their full unity in Christ.” (no. 1)

Father de Nantes commented: “This ‘equally’ makes us marvel. It would seem that the Church is contributing her spiritual supplement, her finishing touch to a universal Babel that has already been built. We could admit the idea that the Church is the totality of the Sacraments, their source and their fullness for her own children whom she engenders to grace. Here, however, it is a question of going beyond the boundaries and of evoking a universal and fully human function of the new Church, independent of her activity of worship: she will diffuse a force of generosity, of liberty, of brotherhood that will help men to transform the world. This was in Pope Paul VI’s famous speech in Pisa.”

Msgr. Fenton opposed these novelties with all his might, but he was not heeded: “I obviously saw that the teaching of the first chapter of the new schema on the Church, as well as its style, are those of Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from this chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. We must pray and act.”


“This is the new function of the Church,” Father de Nantes wrote, “and it is a secular function that will bring the laity to the forefront. In this sense, it is called the ferment, the leaven in the dough and missionary, at the moment when, according to the former meaning of the term, it ceases altogether to be missionary.

“Yet what fully reveals the novelty of this humanistic, materialistic and cosmic function, attributed by the Council to the Church, is the trick expression: the Church, the soul of the world. ‘In a word, Christians must be to the world what the soul is to the body.’ (No. 38) The formula is ancient, but the meaning is distorted. It is no longer said: Outside the Church there is no salvation. It is said: the existence of the Church alone is sufficient to save the world in which she acts as a sacrament, as a leaven, as a principle of spiritual animation. The Church? The Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy: masdu!

“One could soon come to the conclusion that wherever spiritual or cultural animation, generosity, liberating struggles take place among men, in a new form, the Church is there!”

To achieve this mutation, nay, this revolution, the Council gave new definitions of the Church that disfigured her.


Before studying the novelties of Vatican II, let us recall what the divine Constitution of the Church is:

“The world,” our Father wrote, “was created and all its history predestined in view of the Church. Christ founded and instituted her in order to continue in culpable humanity His redemptive Incarnation and to communicate the fruits of salvation to all men. In her and through her alone, all can and must return to their Heavenly Father, by the Son in the unity of the same Spirit, for life eternal.”

The Church is “a divinised human society that her name of Mystical Body of Christ perfectly expresses.

“1. The Church is a Body of which Christ is the Head. It is through Himself, then through His Apostles and through their successors that Christ creates and organises His Church as a social, living, life-giving, holy and perfect Body. The hierarchy is the efficient cause, the created, human, historical and visible cause.

“2. The Church is a Body, the uncreated Soul of which is the Holy Spirit. The divine Soul of this unique and particular Body, the Paraclete has a profound affinity for this Church, the Catholic Church alone. Even when He calls all men to the divine Life, it is in subordination to and in view of His one Church. This work of the Holy Spirit is the formal cause or the immanent principle of organisation of this social Body of which Christ is the Head: that is to say, His Energy descends and communicates itself hierarchically from the Head to the members according to the degrees of the Powers established by Christ.

“Those who have become members of her by the profession of Catholic Faith and the reception of Holy Baptism, if they persevere in her communion, officially belong to this visible Church. Those who refuse to adhere to her or to remain faithful to her do not belong to her. Many others are also members of her, united to her by the less visible bonds of a rudiment of true faith and substitutes for the sacramental rites through which they receive graces of salvation and holiness from the Church alone”.

Let us now return to the conciliar Constitution Lumen Gentium.


This is the title of its first chapter.

The traditionalist Fathers “protested in vain that the Church is not a mystery because she can be seen. It was necessary to begin with this affirmation of incomprehensibility to make a curtain of artificial fog descend over the classical definition, which is certain and crystal-clear: the Church is a visible, historical, hierarchical society of which Jesus Christ is the Founder and divine Animator.”

The remainder of the first chapter contains an enumeration of the biblical symbols by which the Holy Spirit wanted this obscure Mystery to be evoked. The Church Mystical Body is mentioned (no. 7), but “everything is arranged to diminish its importance, to relegate this too precise definition. The time has come to free oneself from this theology which Pius XII, quite the reverse, had made the central pillar of his encyclical on the Church!”


The revolutionary novelty is found in the second chapter: before being hierarchical, the Church is called the People of God.

Cardinal Suenens, in fact, succeeded in inserting between the first chapter, The Church, a ‘Mystery’, and the second one that had been planned on The Hierarchy, a chapter on the “People of God,” under the false pretext that the members of the hierarchy are part of this people like the others. Father de Nantes pointed out that People of God “suggests an inorganic and egalitarian mass, without a historical basis or hierarchical authority, without constituted human powers, without either laws or boundaries. The ‘mystery’ consists in this formless magma being gathered together by the Spirit.”

This new chapter was approved by Paul VI, newly elected, and introduced into the conciliar text in the course of the second session. “No one was outraged!” our Father said with indignation. “No one rose up against the irruption of democracy into Catholic dogma?” No! No one refused it to the end! No one except him.

God, however, does not make men holy and save them merely as individuals, without bond or link with one another. Rather has it pleased Him to make of them one people…” (no. 9)

Caution! “The Council always thrusts forward its most scandalous errors right from the first words,” our Father warns. “Here is the essentially false principle that is constantly found as though it had been proved: individuals are first, and communities are reduced to being only contractual associations established by them, at their service and under their dependence.

This is why,” the Council continues, “He chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself with whom He made a Covenant… » Read it again! The historical falsehood is patent, for here is the truth: God chose Abraham, then the people who came from him, and finally all the peoples will be through him, and in him, objects of blessing.

Christ calls a group of people from among the Jews and the Gentiles …” No! He first chose His Apostles, and through them and their successors, he called all men to salvation: first the Jews, then the Greeks.

God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all she may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity.” There is no longer the mediation of a hierarchy that is divinely instituted and endowed with divine powers!

“There exists first the People, and this People is established as fully living, entirely illuminated, sanctified, gathered together, before the hierarchy intervenes in the least, by means of a direct, invisible, gratuitous, unexpected, unlimited action of the Holy Spirit! Here the entire structure of the Church is overthrown and her boundaries torn down.

“The Council Fathers threw themselves headlong down this path:

“First, this people is the entire human race. Carefully worded expressions suggest that this is still only in expectation, of course, but very close to its realisation, at least implicitly! In any case, this people goes beyond the narrow limits of Roman Catholicism and ecumenically encompasses the ‘other Christian churches’ and even the great monotheisms and, and, and, there is no stopping!

“Secondly, this people, full of the Spirit, is also invested with all perfections: all its members are prophets, kings and priests. When thought was finally given to the Hierarchy, there was nothing left to ascribe to it other than a secondary and vaguely antagonistic role. It is put ‘at the service’ of this people of gods!

“It is a revolution,” our Father observed. “Suppose we were to define the family as a group of children full of life, some of whom are called parents because they are at the service of the other children. What would you say about this?

“That this definition is too idealistic: just what is this ‘life,’ where did the children get it from, how long has it existed and how is it maintained? Moreover, it errs by a major omission: it disregards the fact of procreation, a primary and constituent fact without which all the rest is subverted. This collection of children no longer has to recognise any authority if the parents, whose essential role has thus been denied, see themselves reduced to the level of the domestics of their progeny! This is absurd.

“This is precisely what was invented at the Council, by simple inversion of the order of the chapters of the constitution Lumen Gentium.”

This inversion “is a mistake with incalculable consequences: the Spirit does not create a people whose servant is the hierarchy. The Spirit, acting through the hierarchy hand in glove, raises up a faithful people, and the total is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, to serve you!

“The Holy Spirit is bound to this mystical Body of Christ. The work of Christ, visible, historical, hierarchical, has become by His Will the support, the framework, the sign and the sacrament of the invisible work of the Holy Spirit Whom He sent to her, and to no other.”


For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren”…

This is the first sentence of chapter three on The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church.

Our Father pointed out that “this sentence is so clever that it bears within itself all the contradiction of democratic constitutions: the people are king, and their pastors are subordinate like servants. For this, the words of Christ Himself, ‘Who came not to be served, but to serve’ (Mk 10:45) will be constantly recalled. Its use, however, is a huge scam. For there is a transfer from one moral category to another, an ontological or functional one.

“Not to have himself served, for a Prince of the Church, pertains to the simplicity of the individual man. It does not affect his function or modify his authority. No one will deny that this function is ordered to the good of the subjects. It is, however, inappropriate, equivocal, and dangerous always to present it as a service of the community, because the community neither dominates nor governs it! The leader is not the domestic of his subjects!

“It is above all the anarchic idea of service that has been retained as the novelty of the Council, while the excellent classical doctrine of the triple power of bishops, perfectly recalled, was forgotten.

“Right from the time of the Council, this vision of a perfect people purportedly served by its ministers caused serious ill effects. Intoxicated with optimism, the Council wanted to be a constituent assembly in all spheres, to restructure everything on more beautiful foundations: the ancient legalism would be destroyed in order to rebuild everything in pure popular fraternity and evangelical freedom.”


“The title of another decree of Vatican II sums up well its unbound ambition: Optatam totius Ecclesiæ renovationem. The Council intends to bring about the desired renovation of the whole Church! When reading these texts always bold in their reforms, one gets the impression of a Night of August 4 that was followed by the Fête de la Fédération ! The existing law is destroyed, as being a survival from feudalism (sic!), and it is replaced by generous sentiments. This, however, inevitably leads to stripping others of their powers and then, under the pretext of service, to attributing greater powers to oneself. Thus was born arbitrariness. More generally, let us say that this affected humility has fostered an astonishing collective pride; this demagogy has established oligarchy; this optimism has justified tyranny.

“Very typical of this reformation was the abolition of the irremovability of parish priests. The wording of the text repealing it is quite expressive. Irremovability is eliminated by claiming that it is a remedy for instability. It is incredible! Is this hypocrisy? No, self-satisfaction.

“Read it for yourself:

Pastors should enjoy in their respective parishes that stability of office which the good of souls demands. Hence [?!], although the distinction between removable and irremovable pastors is to be abrogated, the procedure for transferring and removing pastors is to be re-examined and simplified. In this way, while natural and canonical equity are preserved, the bishop can better provide for the needs of the good of souls.”

“In fact, all legal guarantees are removed, but it is certainly an improvement (!) since the bishop becomes totally free to arrange things “to better provide for the needs of the good of souls!” This is irresponsibility on the part of the bishops who sincerely believe themselves to be, always and in everything, the best interpreters of justice and therefore the best judges and defenders of their priests.

“Reviewing the entire Reformation point by point would show how the very conception of social life on which the whole ecclesiastical order was based is destroyed. The Council has substituted sheepfolds, idyllic views on a new life of a People of gods in which, as a matter of principle, there will no longer be conflicts that the episcopates will be unable to settle collegially by their sovereign intervention.”


The invasion of the democratic spirit into the Church provoked passionate discussions about the power of bishops and the Pope. It was the great and long battle over Collegiality, a new word that caught on. This Collegiality brought about an essential change in the Constitution of the Church, as our Father explains:

“For its proponents, it was intended to depersonalise authority in a collectivist and parliamentary sense. Previously, the Pope was the supreme and immediate Head of everyone, the bishops and the faithful. Each bishop, subject to the Pope, was Pastor of a territory and of the people who lived there. Meetings of bishops, whether synods or councils, regional or ecumenical, presented a supereminent case of personal authority, each participating freely and fully in the dogmatic definitions and disciplinary decisions of all.”

The Constitution Lumen Gentium made the episcopal College the primary factor, the depositary of the “spiritual gift” granted by the Holy Spirit to the Apostolic College and claimed to define its power “in an extremely equivocal sentence,” our Father noted: “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the College of Apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. (no. 22)

The innovators wanted the power of the bishops to extend over the universal Church and no longer for each bishop strictly over his diocese and his particular flock; this power was to be exercised under the so-called collegial mode.

Father of Nantes protested: “No ecclesiastical power in the Church is specifically collegial. In fact, in the Church, there are only personal powers, exercised by each minister, Pope or bishop, in a free and responsible manner.”

Collegiality is therefore the exaltation of a so-called representative and collective power of all bishops against the absolute and personal power of the Supreme Pontiff.

The reformists instituted, under the pretext of ‘helping’ the Pope to carry his office, a Synod with a Permanent Council in Rome, which would not cease to exert pressure and dictate its law to the Supreme Pontiff.


The other side of the coin for the bishops was the loss of authority that results from this collegiality. In fact, this new parliamentary and collective power that is exercised over the universal Church obviously transcends the personal power of each bishop in his diocese…

It was in order to mark this novelty that the Conferences of Bishops were instituted as a new hierarchical degree, a “soft mattress” that came to interpose itself between the Pope and the bishop. Its “inertia would protect the disorder,” our Father had already foreseen in December 1962.

Number 38 of the Decree on the pastoral office of the bishops confers a legislative authority on these Conferences, “absolutely without any foundation,” Father de Nantes wrote, “if I judge by the incapacity of the theologians and jurists to establish a solid one.” Sixty years later, this foundation has still not been found!

Since Vatican II, bishops have been no more than parliamentarians and simple local executors of the decisions of the episcopal assembly, which are prepared by commissions, secretariats and other pressure groups. “Before the Council, our bishops exercised a real and personal authority over a limited territory. They now exercise over immense regions and an unlimited universe, an appearance of Power without real authority. Down with collegiality, this diabolical monster aimed at destroying the Catholic hierarchy to the profit of the mafias hostile to God!”

Let us note once again that Father de Nantes had understood everything at the very moment since he firmly opposed, during the second session of the Council, this fatal novelty of Vatican II: “From being a personal power, whether that of the bishop in his diocese or that of the Pope over the entire Church, a power endowed with effective authority and personal responsibility, the Church changed to a government by a ‘college’ or assembly, the characteristic of which is to put authority to the vote and to dilute responsibility to the point of rendering it anonymous.”

This Collegiality constitutes a very serious attack on the divine Constitution of the Church, which is monarchical and not democratic. To rally all the Council Fathers, a final deception of Paul VI was necessary. Here it is:


On November 16, 1964, the day of the vote on the chapter on Collegiality, Bishop Felici, secretary of the Council, read and imposed on behalf of the Pope a preliminary explanatory note (Nota explicativa prævia) for the “correct interpretation” of this chapter. This dogmatic reminder of pontifical primacy had been obtained after a brave fight by the defenders of the Faith, under the threat of refusing to approve the chapter.

This Nota prævia destroyed the new constitutional charter of the Church, point by point:

1. No, this College of bishops is not a college in the strict sense, if it is not gathered in an Ecumenical Council;

2. No, this College is not heir to the extraordinary power of the “Apostolic College”;

3. No, episcopal consecration does not suffice for acquiring the status of member of the College; the juridical determination of the power by the Pope, the Head of the College, is also required.

4. No, this College places no limit on the power of the Pope. On the contrary, it can only strictly act in a collegial manner under certain conditions and always with its Head.

This explanatory Note was like a label of ‘Poison’ to be stuck on the bottle. The bottle is still on sale today with its original shining guarantee: ‘Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution’ and the label ‘Poison’ slumbers in the till of the chemist… “The red label had played its part: reassuring the conservatives. After that it was no longer necessary as the poison had received its certificate of conformity with Catholic Faith and law with the Conciliar assembly’s unanimity less five (votes), less three (signatures). The poison was then distributed to the children of the Church, who were asking their Mother for bread.”


The people of interest to the Second Vatican Council were no longer the priests, the men of worship, but the “laymen” devoted to the transformation of the world

The reformers rejected the traditional expression of the faithful in favour of the laity. The word faithful implies a passive character, one of submission, docility, and reception in relation to pastors. This is precisely what the innovators wanted to eliminate.

The layman is the one who has a dignity of his own: by virtue of his baptism, he is king, prophet, priest! Vatican II taught him only one duty: the apostolate. All apostles! The itch for dignity, the itch for action, of action on others, not on oneself.

This ‘promotion’ logically results from the new function attributed to the Church: the service of the modern world, that is, of democracy. “On the day that worship gives way to culture, the heavenly to the temporal,” our Father wrote, “on the day that politics encroaches on religion, the first role passes from the priesthood to the laity. To it falls, first of all, the task of ‘transforming structures in accordance with the Gospel’. The ‘ministers of the Gospel’ hold the streetlight but it is the laity who do the work.”

In order to be effective, one must be a ‘layman:’ “This evangelisation […] by a living testimony as well as by the spoken word, takes on a specific quality and a special force in that it is carried out in the ordinary surroundings of the world common conditions of the world.” (no. 35)

The principle of the dispensation of grace is itself inverted: it is no longer the priest who gives and the faithful who receive, no! All are equal: “Yet all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to the activity common to all the faithful for the building up of the Body of Christ.” (no. 32) This, however, was only a decoy, and very rapidly the clerics were excluded or relegated to second rank: the laity must assist each other “in this way the world may be permeated by the Spirit of Christ and it may more effectively fulfill its purpose in justice, charity and peace. The laity have the principal role in the overall fulfillment of this duty. » (no. 36)

In the name of egalitarianism, this new conception of the laity would be the death of traditional Catholic action, that is to say, paternal hierarchical and authoritarian action. In fact, “the human person does not stop short at the boundaries of his narrowly defined individuality: the husband is the head of his wife, and the parents of their children, the master commands his servants, as the wise man has authority over his disciples and the prince over his subjects, all as a participation in the Paternity of God. Without emancipating themselves in any way from the supervision of the clergy, the faithful thus have a Catholic action to exercise, according to their natural and social elevation, that is to say, according to their exact degree of authority.”

The conciliar reform showered the faithful with extravagant powers that they are unable to exercise, but it deprived them of the authority and the responsibilities that they had each one in his own sphere of activity and that enabled them to carry out true Catholic action.


During the first session, Cardinal Ottaviani did not succeed in getting approval for the separate preparatory schema on the Virgin Mary. She was scandalously despised during the conciliar debates. Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium signalled a victory for the minimalists since it dethroned the Queen of Heaven and Earth relegating Her to a “subordinate role” (8:62).

Moreover, there were two astonishing omissions: on the one hand, the Rosary was not mentioned in this chapter, although petitions from bishops expressly asked that it be recommended to the piety of the faithful. On the other hand, the expression that best reveals the mystery of the Virgin Mary, namely the Immaculate Conception, did not appear once! This proves that the Council was overwhelmed by a wave of diabolical disorientation.

Commenting on what is announced in chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium, to reform the liturgical year, Father de Nantes wrote: “Because the Council demolishes hyperdulia (veneration due to the Virgin Mary), it gives Her perfectly hypocritical praise since the ‘holy Church’ that is referred to are the mafiosi of this reformation. So, their ‘special love’! for ‘Blessed Mary,’ notice the omission of Her title of ‘Virgin’, ‘the most excellent fruit of the Redemption,’ according to the formula dear to all the enemies of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, does not go so far as to say, with the Eastern Churches, ‘All-Holy’ Of course not, when the Devil has to kiss, he still bites!”

When we know how the Virgin Mary was outraged at the Council, we understand why, during His apparitions in Pontevedra, Our Lord had so insistently demanded the practice of the reparatory devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; we are no longer surprised at the vigour of His complaints and His will to see fervent souls console the Heart of the most tender of Mothers.

Much more grievous than the offenses of apostates and the ungodly are the blasphemies of rebellious sons, yes, the blasphemies of the Catholic Church’s own children against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like those that resounded in Saint Peter’s Basilica during the Second Vatican Council.


Father Nantes noted that the last chapters of Lumen Gentium contain beautiful passages, with many biblical quotations. “They bring man, along with the whole of creation, firmly back to his supernatural end, which is to know, serve, and love God according to the revealed order of sanctifying grace. It is now only a question of holiness, eternal life and heavenly glory. Horizontalism is abandoned. The Council turns its gaze towards God on High,” and no longer towards the world.

“Is there total duality, incoherence? No, alas, no! These parts, certainly the best of Vatican II, are infiltrated by reformist and naturalist elements that undeniably corrupt them. Arsenic in the herbal tea!” The very thorough analysis of these chapters, in Preparing Vatican III (CRC ed., pp. 301-320) is must reading. Father de Nantes detected in it “the deepest and most pernicious duplicity of Vatican II, a Council of Reformation.”

It is notable that “these emphatic speeches have remained a dead letter! The taste for heavenly things, the cult of the saints, devotion to the Virgin have been everywhere stifled since then and they have totally disappeared from the most ardently post-conciliar circles. Why?

“The reason is simple and obvious. Between the Catholic faithful and Heaven, the new apostles and doctors of the worldly Church have interposed a very visible divinity, Man, and a preliminary phase, the Human City of tomorrow.”


The reformers wanted to put the Church at the service of the modern world that had emerged from the French Revolution, a world that had rebelled against Jesus Christ and rejected His authority. The reformers’ aim was to introduce revolutionary and Masonic ideas into the Church herself. Their new Gospel was human rights, with its trilogy: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

The Council thus forced the Church into a spiritual bigamy that, in practice, was a veritable denial of her bridegroom Jesus Christ: she openly committed herself to Liberty, by the declaration on social freedom in religious matters; to Equality, by the decree on ecumenism, and to Fraternity, by the declaration Nostra Aetate, a unilateral declaration of peace with non-Christian religions, and even with Judaism.

Father de Nantes wrote: “The proclamation of Religious Freedom was the fundamental charter of the Church’s reconciliation with the modern world and of that service which she promised to render, without reciprocity, to humanity in its Promethean project of building a new Babel.

“Religious freedom leads to ecumenism, so that Christians may find themselves united without ulterior motives in a worldly humanism for which Gaudium et Spes will be as though its master plan.”


Father de Nantes wrote in his chronicle of the conciliar debates on October 1, 1964:

“Despite very strong opposition, Paul VI did not dismiss the schema on religious freedom. Once again, it is analogous to the proclamation of the Rights of Man by the Constituent Assembly of 1789; if it is accepted, it will mark a substantial change in the formal, constant, universal doctrine of the Church and will upset in an incalculable way all its institutions. One hundred years after the Syllabus of Pius IX, it is based on a completely different conception of faith and morals than that of the Popes, the bishops and the Christian people, taught and received for one hundred and fifty years against revolutionary principles.

“The opposition to such a revolution in the Church was very firm and very learned, but it was restricted to the confines of mutual concessions and arrangements more suitable to a democratic assembly than to a Council where God alone commands! Cardinals Ottaviani, Ruffini, Quiroga, Bueno y Monreal, Roberti, countless bishops from all countries, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, tried to restore a little truth, order, respect for doctrine in this immense demolition site. In fact, through an obvious disavowal of the Church’s two thousand year old doctrine and discipline, a modern philosophy was adopted whereby man becomes an absolute of rights and freedom, without concern for the common good and with total disregard for the rights of God and His Truth. It is absurd and it is alarming!”

It was in 1965, at the end of the fourth and final session of Vatican II, that Pope Paul VI promulgated the constitution Dignitatis humanae, thus proclaiming the right of man to social and civil freedom in religious matters, that is, to practice externally, in society, any religion (Dignitatis humanae, nos. 2 and 4).

What is the basis for this new right? There is nothing, absolutely nothing in Sacred Scripture or Tradition to support it. On the contrary! Religious freedom was firmly condemned in the 19th century by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, and it was again condemned in the 20th century especially by Pius XII, during controversies over the Spanish constitution of the Catholic State restored by General Franco.

Where then could a basis for it be found? The Council Fathers searched and searched, but in vain!

In the end, they had recourse to a discovery of the modern world, namely the dignity of man. The Council based this inviolable and imprescriptible right to religious freedom on the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things (Gaudium et Spes 26:2), which, on the social level, results in the exercise of full freedom, an unconditional freedom as a value in itself. The dignity of man lies in his freedom, a sovereign perfection, without external limits, and therefore without threat of punishment from any legitimate authority, and even from God.

The proclamation of religious freedom is a crime against God, Father de Nantes protested: “Vatican II ‘declares’ something that is totally insulting to its God and Saviour, and entirely contrary to its own mission of universal salvation.” In every field of social life, it is God Who is the Sovereign Legislator and no one can claim any authority or any right unless he obtains them from God Himself by doing His Will. To proclaim religious freedom is to deny that the Creator and Master of heaven and earth ordains, and with an absolute will, that men earn their eternal salvation through the Catholic religion.

Father de Nantes explained: « Man was not created to be free, but for the glory of God. What constitutes His glory if not the fact that we worship Him, love Him and serve Him? By loving Him, we freely earn our salvation. The end of man is to earn his salvation. The way to earn one’s salvation is freedom. It is a wonderful way, but also a fearsome one, because this ‘freely’ means that we can remain under Satan’s rule, hate God and be condemned by Him to eternal damnation.

Fortunately, God gives us means to guide our freedom: “God willed that grace should help man’s will and give him inner freedom. Yet He willed that the law also should help him externally, through obligations and sanctions.” Over the centuries, our Christian civilisation has always exercised a necessary and beneficial coaction, i.e. social pressure on individuals for their own good. If in certain circumstances the civil authorities tolerated false religions, it was for the sake of social peace and to win hearts.

“The Church of Jesus Christ cannot recognise any rights to other religions and irreligions; she deplores their vested interests or the tolerance that they have been allowed. Of course, the Church forces no one to work out his salvation against his erroneous, deceived conscience, but she is entitled to fight and forbid in the public domain all manifestations of these diabolical errors, and to impose all that is consonant with Catholic Faith and morality, on all the subjects of a Catholic State.”

Thus, according to sacred Catholic doctrine, error has no right to manifest itself and spread in society, because “the only real, legitimate and sacred liberties, rights and authorities that exist are those that God established and that participate in His own goodness.”

The Council denies this in its “Satanic Creed:

God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion (No! The Grand Architect of the Freemasons did not create Hell). God has regard (sic) for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgement and he is to enjoy freedom.” (Dignitatis humanæ no. 11)

“This last sentence is one of the summits of the conciliar apostasy! God ‘has regard’ for the freedom of man, and if He obliges, it is never to the point of coercion: man does what he wants and will not be punished for it. God obliges knowing full-well that what counts is not that man obey Him, but that man stand up in his full stature… to the glory of his Creator, even if it is to defy Him.”

When all coercion in favour of Catholic Truth is condemned, it means that man’s social freedom counts for more than his eternal salvation. This devalues and brings into disrepute all the teaching and supernatural work of the Church.


During the controversies in the conciliar aula at the beginning of the fourth session, on September 16, 1965, Bishop Velasco, expelled from China, declared: “The amended schema on religious freedom is totally unacceptable, and a new schema must be substituted for it. If everyone has the right to practice his religion, religions become subjective opinions.”

It is a fact that truth no longer has a sure and objective distinction from error and no one can claim the privilege of being right. With religious freedom proclaimed, everything becomes free human opinion, everything is permitted, and nothing that springs from a sincere conscience is forbidden. They end up reducing all beliefs to the same level.

If the Catholic Faith is just one opinion among others, there is no longer any reason not to get along with schismatic communities. “To admit error, even in others, as an authorised opinion or a permitted freedom, is inevitably to give oneself over to it.”

The Congarian ecumenism of Vatican II, led the Catholic Church to consider herself only one among many, with her own share of responsibility for the schisms. It would bring an end to the One Holy Catholic Church! In performing her repentances, the Church is scuttling herself.



To better understand the magnitude and gravity of the Council’s apostasy, it is necessary to recall briefly the Christian theology of history.

“Nothing is more natural to men,” Father de Nantes wrote, “than the idea of their fundamental and sacred unity, as one family fraternally gathered in the religion of one Heavenly Father. Yet, there can be nothing more utopian than this idea.

“Our Sacred Books reveal to us that this was God’s plan from the beginning, but that division came with sin. Adam’s rebellion against God, a crime against the Father, led his descendants to fratricide, to the inevitable dispersion after the Flood, to the contradictions of the builders of the Tower of Babel, images of humanity torn apart. Henceforth, humanity was like a broken potter’s vessel with its thousands of pieces covering the surface of the Earth.

“When God resumed His work, choosing a people as the first instrument of His plan, He introduced into history a factor of absolute division: either with Him or without Him. The Jews on the one hand, the pagans on the other. Yet neither would succeed in pleasing Him. (Rm 1-3).

“Then Christ came, a unique Man, Son of God the Saviour. As the new Adam, He resumes the great work of fraternal unity, founded on faith in His mystery of reconciliation of men with God through His Cross.

“Unity must be rebuilt on the new foundation of Christ. Saint John gives the fundamental reason for this: in Christ, all those who believe will receive ‘power to become children of God’ (Jn 1:12).”

On the other hand, those who reject Christ constitute the City of Satan in struggle against the City of God. Jesus said so to the Pharisees: “Your father is not Abraham; the Devil is your father!” It is through the Catholic Church and in the Church alone that fraternal unity is reconstituted. A man becomes a son of God only by receiving baptism, at least by desire or by martyrdom. This is the Christian Faith.

“His deadliest enemy, the Antichrist, will be the individual or the ideology that will claim to destroy all segregation, all religious discrimination, to restore human unity. The sole cement of this unity will be brotherhood of nature in Adam, making man his own redeemer and his own God. All religions, placed on the same footing, will be considered by him as values of humanism, and as such, merged into a single ideology, a deism and a moralism with no other term of reference than humanity.”

The Second Vatican Council, with its declaration Nostra Aetate on the relations of the Church with non-Christian religions, made its own that integral Humanism to which Paul VI was resolutely committed.


Here is Nostra Ætate’s preamble: “In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger […]”

Father de Nantes commented: What a strange preamble! It marginalises Christ and seems to ignore the supernatural life that makes us children of God through baptism!”

The theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation then picked out the words that reveal the betrayal: “In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she (the conciliar Church) considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.”

“It is hair-raising. I really feel like I have walked into the Congress of an American sect. “Her task [is] to promote unity among men, indeed among nations”, and we have learned that the task was in line with the general movement that is sweeping humanity along. Just who gave the Church this task? The thoughtless Council did not even bat an eyelid at this monstrosity.

“For “unity,” here, replaces the word truth that one would expect. The Church must make the whole world come to divine Truth and, through it, to divine grace from which brotherly love will be born into hearts. These three treasures that come from God through the Church awaken faith, hope, and then theological charity, which will bear the fruits of joy, concord, mutual forgiveness between persons and peoples. Without divine Truth, without the Catholic Faith, there will never be union of souls. ‘Without Me, you can do nothing,’ said Jesus, our common, sovereign Master (Jn 15.5).”

While Christ brought salvation by working our redemption through the Cross, and while religious unity of humanity can only be achieved by Him, through Him and for Him, while all other religions must henceforth disappear as being something useless, false and an obstacle, Vatican II adhered to the Masonic and Satanic project of a universal brotherhood outside of Christ, with the fraternity of nature as its only bond: men are brothers, in complete freedom, equality of conditions and fraternity of cults.

Father de Nantes wrote: “Is God the Father of all men? No. He is the Father only of “those to whom He gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12) namely those who believe in Jesus Christ (ibid.). Thus the next precept, that the Council invented, which made it a duty for us “to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God” is annulled. This Council scoffs at everything by quoting in support of this universal divine paternity four words from the First Epistle of Saint John. As everyone knows (?), one only has to read its six short pages to see that the Apostle of love makes his teaching resound with twenty outbursts of fury and excommunication against the false brethren, the antichrists, the renegades who must be shunned at all costs. These perpetual lies about the Scriptures are, moreover, denounced by Saint John as worthy of eternal damnation (Ap 22:18-20).”

Let us once again quote Nostra Ætate: “The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, colour, condition of life, or religion (sic).”

“The mention of Christ in this totally Masonic perspective is truly strange, disturbing. It is a veritable denial. The hierarchy charged with continuing His work subscribes to the Creed of 1789, to that of the UN, to the Masonic Creed in the very name of Christ and His Spirit!” Thus, “instead of claiming to be human unity herself, the Church rallies the new humanist and deistic international of her dreams.”

The Council wants to cooperate in achieving “harmony” and “peace” for the whole “human family,” going beyond religious differences considered to be incidental. “It comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organisation of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.” (Dignitatis humanæ no. 4.) A fraternal world is to be built without basing it on Christ, but with the participation of all human religions and ideologies, fraternally associated. This is the guiding idea of the Masdu.


The constitution Gaudium et Spes on The Church in the Modern World is precisely the manifesto of the Masdu. The accusatory title of our Father’s critical study says it all: ‘The cult of man and the earth.’

Here is the key text of its preamble:

For the human person deserves to be saved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will. Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble vocation of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him…”

“Hey!” our Father exclaimed. “Now the Council is affirming that a Godlike seed is deposited in every man. Every man is a son of God just like that. Every man is an image of God just like that. Therefore, men are divine, the Council says so in No. 3 of Gaudium et spes”. For it is a Godlike seed that is purportedly found in every man, independently of the grace of baptism.

“During the sessions of Vatican III, we will demand that this chapter of Vatican II be declared anathema and we will demonstrate how it insidiously denies the Catholic doctrine of the supernatural order of justice and grace, as well as of original sin. This, however, is concealed, and the Church of the faithful, led astray by the Pope and the Council, is swallowing error like water.”

This sacred Synod offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this vocation of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the comforting Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to save and not to sit in judgement, to serve and not to be served.” (3:1)

“Read and reread it. The words with religious consonance: “saved, vocation, Godlike seed, serve,” are associated with others that are clearly political, “renew, brotherhood of all men,” in such a way that the thought can be grasped despite the ambiguity. The Church of Vatican II claims that the work of Christ and His Spirit consists in making humanity succeed on earth, independently of any religion whatever, a humanity already divine in itself and in its ends. Incredible but true. The Church makes herself the respectful and loving servant of this divine humanity.”

Gaudium et Spes goes into raptures over man, his body, his intelligence, his mind, his conscience, his freedom.

Our Father isolated and denounced this proposition: “Believers and unbelievers alike are generally in agreement on this point: all things on earth must be ordered to man as to their centre and zenith.” (12:1)

In the Auto-da-fe, he made an irrefutable criticism of it that we quote in an insert.

This proposition is totally impious. Yet if we were to change one word, one single word, it would become acceptable. It would suffice to put the “God-Man” or “Jesus Christ” in the place of “man!” Thus we would have: “All things on earth must be ordered to the God-Man as to their centre and zenith.” Then, however, we would no longer be able to say: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike.”

The Council claims to base its worship (cult) of man on Christ. The proof that every man possesses inalienable dignity and almost infinite capacities is provided by Jesus Christ.

Christ is Himself the perfect man. In Him 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.” (Gaudium et Spes, 22:2)

“Here is the principle,” Father de Nantes commented, “whereby the passage is made from Christianity to universal Humanism, the junction from the cult of God and of God made man to the cult of man and of man who makes himself God!

“This is the greatest eversion of the Faith that has ever been professed! It is the world turned upside down. Christ, by His Incarnation and Redemption, would reveal to Man his own greatness, his worth, his merit, and convince him of his own excellence! Never before had Jesus Christ and His mysteries of grace been made the pedestal and ornament for human pride.”

It is important to understand all the consequences of such a principle:

All men are by the very fact of the Incarnation of the Son of God united “in some fashion” in their humanity with His, and thus physically raised to sharing His dignity of Son of God and His destiny.

“The problem of salvation is settled. There is no longer Hell, Purgatory, morality, nothing. There is even no longer any need for Redemption by the Cross of Jesus, or reparation by our penance and poor merits. In the past, our entire mystical life was based on our moral union with Christ-God: moral union means the union of wills. Henceforth we are united to Christ like Siamese twins, inseparable from Him, whatever our morality may be.”

Our Father contrasted this with “a brief but very instructive scene from the Gospel. It is recounted by Saint Luke: “A woman from the crowd called out and said to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that carried You and the breasts at which You nursed.’ He, however, replied: ‘Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.’ (Lk 11:27-28)

“This states once and for all that neither a physical union nor anything of the sort can establish a communication of grace, of divine life. It can be nothing more than a symbol and sign of a union of souls, spirit, convictions, and grace.

“Thus the way is barred to this attractive theory according to which Jesus, through His human nature and by virtue of an imaginary physical solidarity, purportedly divinised all men, His brothers, by taking the trouble to be born, and without requiring of them the slightest effort.”


Believers and unbelievers alike are generally in agreement on this point: all things on earth must be ordered to man as to their centre and zenith.” (Gaudium et Spes 12:1)

I am flabbergasted! I already pointed out to you that it is the Council’s practice to assert some great principle or remarkable affirmation right from the first words, without references, without proof, without supporting arguments. Nothing! When stunned by such a completely unexpected blow, the audience, or the individual reader, does not dream of reacting, and temporarily accepts – a temporary acceptance which, after forty years, can be considered as firmly definitive as an obvious fact. Here, this insane and pernicious proposition that is appalling to our faith is particularly trivial.

a) It is based on an alleged general agreement of all men (!), whether believers or unbelievers… I ask: What is such an agreement worth? Where do you get this information? Who could have manipulated all of humanity, in enormous and inert masses, on a subject that a philosopher or a moralist could describe as an empty idea, not corresponding to any reality, but on the other hand, well-suited to undermine all human order?

b) All the more so since this proposition is couched in normative terms, obliging the whole world to make man the centre and the crown of its thoughts, its wills, and its works. Ideally, this is conceivable and verifiable because in all thoughts and concrete activities, even building, cultivating, inventing systems, man is always ultimately working for his fellow men and for himself.

But what man? That is the decisive question: first I, one might say; no, the poor first, and then us! In another group: the family first; and in another, the Party first! The cacophony will be all the more deafening because the great principle put forward will have outrageously maximised the claims for the dignity and the interest of the kind of man, or group, or individual of one’s choice.

Do not forget that the title of this chapter indicates the reason for this sensational introduction: it is “The Dignity of the Human Person” that suddenly lifts him from his dunghill, from his dust, in order to raise him to the level of kings, sages and heroes. Therein lies the evil. The dilemma comes from the number of persons who have been charitably convinced of their “dignity,” that to which, at last, they have been promoted: they are the centre and zenith of creation!

c) Let us leave aside the consequences that will appear in the remainder of this text to show its incontrovertible error and the evil. It seems to me that only one consideration should be made from the outset. Did our bishops ever stop to think that a man, only one man in the world, had indeed claimed this universal supremacy, this kingship on earth, in Heaven, and in the Underworld, this superior authority and this central responsibility over all, absolutely all, Our Lord Jesus Christ, about Whom Pilate said mockingly: “Behold the Man!”? Jesus Christ Himself announced that this supereminent place belonged to Him and would be recognised to Him, when He had consummated His redeeming Sacrifice. He said: “Now is the time of judgement on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself.” (Jn 12:31-32)

So, the universal man, who is ‘no one,’ promoted to become the zenith and the centre of the world by universal acclamation to which a Roman Council adds its unanimous approbation, seems to us to be supplanting Jesus Christ on the suggestion of the Prince of this world who, although thrown down, seems to have regained strength. When the Council entitles this paragraph “Man in God’s Likeness,” this man without religion, without nation, without any other perfection than that of being man, seems to me to be the object, here, of an autolatrous cult on the part of an apostate world!”

(Georges de Nantes, Auto-da-fe, p. 325-326)


According to Gaudium et Spes, the main duty of religion is to enlighten all human beings, even irreligious ones, about their temporal and material problems.

Father of Nantes expressed the novelty of Vatican II in these terms: “Seek first the kingdom of earth, its peace, justice, prosperity and pleasures and the rest will be added unto you; the rest being that far distant Heaven with which the Church has for too long distracted the attention of Her children.”

The Council insinuates with infinite malice that the construction of the earthly city is the advent of the kingdom of God: technical and cultural success is the obliged passage to the eschatological Kingdom of God!

Formerly, the Kingdom of God was the Church and Christendom where the whole of society, political institutions, laws and education were Christian. The Council, for its part, proclaims that the Kingdom of God is the modern world with secular States that the Church, in collaboration with other religions, must serve so that man may find his true stature! To build a world where humanity, at last, would be prosperous and fraternal, where the earth would abound in material and spiritual goods, the Council sought solutions that would be acceptable to all, believers and non-believers alike, in other words having a morality accessible to all, easy and attractive. In reality, our Father observed, “it is a capitulation to the demands of the flesh and blood, to the hostile world and ultimately to Satan, the Prince of this World. Men clamour for bread and games. This is not new. What is new is that the Church heeds these vociferations of the plebs and recognises in them high aspirations, a vocation, a plan of God that must be fulfilled!

“Here is Gaudium et Spes’ triple error:

– The liberation and salvation of humanity are finally being realised in our time by the building of a new world on earth.

– All men, all social groups are cooperating today in forming this fraternal union.

– The Gospel is the bond of this construction in its modern form of the cult of man, his dignity and his rights. The Church is the disinterested driving force behind this unprecedented human effort to fulfil God’s plan for the world, with the collaboration of all religions and human ideologies.”

Our Father contrasted this with a major principle of the Catholic Counter-Reformation: there is no life for society or for individuals except in the supernatural order of Christ’s grace, which is communicated to us in the Church through the Sacraments. It is on this foundation that, in Christian world, all communities, whether families, cities, factories, professions or nations, having become Christian, receive definite fulfilment.


The Council produced none of the marvellous fruits announced by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. In January 1969, Father de Nantes wrote: “They were wrong in their announcement of a springtime for the Church, of an extraordinary renewal that would follow her return to the Gospel [?] and her opening up to the world. It is manifest the opposite that happened: from malaise to crisis, from crisis to the ‘decomposition of Catholicism’, and finally to the ‘self-demolition of the Church’ [as Paul VI himself admitted].” This ruin of the Church is unprecedented in her whole history.

The great reform undertaken by Pope Francis is a continuation of that of the Council. It is the novelties of Vatican II, especially those contained in the constitution Lumen Gentium, that inspire the Synod on Synodality. Indeed, the program of the synod is officially a “listening to the Spirit” thanks to the “contributions of the consultation of the People of God” (Secretariat of the Synod). They are the laity as much as the clergy, all supposedly inspired by the Spirit – but which Spirit? – who can and even must express their demands for an update of the Church.

As Father de Nantes remarked, at the first synod of bishops in 1971, we are in the logic of a “People of gods, the Holy Church being held for a divinely and infallibly popular democracy.” The Working Document for the Continental Stage of the Synod (October 2022) specifies that it is a question of listening to “the divorced and remarried, single-parent families, people living in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ people, etc.” (No. 39) “Synodality is a call from God to walk together with the whole human family,” so with “people of other faiths.” The People of God invite “a renewal of ecumenism and interreligious commitment” to meet “social and environmental challenges,” in order to build peace and reconciliation, justice, etc.

To conclude our article, let us recall what Father de Nantes said in 1996, when he underwent the ukases of Bishop Daucourt. Speaking of the heresy of religious freedom, “victory of Satan,” he said: “We would rather die than go to the other side or fall asleep in a monastery that is well closed but asphyxiated by the Council and the Pope. At my age, one thing alone counts: the defeat of Satan and the condemnation of the Second Vatican Council.”

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 191, June-July 1986, p. 1

Allusion to the French Revolution that began in 1789.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 73, October 1976, p. 7

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 191, July-August 1986, p. 1

Dreyfus, Jean XXIII, ed. Fayard, 1979, p. 53

Hebblethwaite, John XXIII: Pope of the Council. The pages given in reference in this article are taken from the French edition: Jean XXIII, le pape du Concile published by Le Centurion, 1988, pp. 312-313; 339.

(Hebblethwaite, John XXIII: Pope of the Council. The pages given in reference in this article are taken from the French edition: Jean XXIII, le pape du Concile published by Le Centurion, 1988, pp. 312-313; 339.

Letter To My Friends no. 184, September 25, 1964

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 1, October 11, 1967, p. 6

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 51

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 220, June 1989, p. 4

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.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969) was an American priest, theologian and editor. After his ordination as a priest for the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts in 1930, he was a curate at Immaculate Conception Church, Easthampton, (1931-33) and Saint Joseph's Church, Leicester, (1933-34). He taught philosophy and theology. In 1938, he was appointed to the Department of Religious Education at The Catholic University of America. A year later, he transferred to the School of Sacred Theology where he served as dean from 1943 to 1945. He taught fundamental and dogmatic theology at the University until his retirement in 1963.

In the 1940s and 1950s Father Fenton was very active in the American Church. As a charter member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, he became its first secretary (1946-47) and the recipient of the Society's Cardinal Spellman Award for Theology (1958). He published six books: The Theology of Prayer (1939), The Concept of Sacred Theology (1941), We Stand with Christ (1943), The Calling of a Diocesan Priest (1944), The Concept of the Diocesan Priesthood (1951), and The Catholic Church and Salvation (1958).

Serving as editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review (1944-63), he wrote over 150 articles on a variety of topics. A committed traditionalist and passionate defender of magisterial teaching, he vigorously opposed any idea that even suggested liberalism or Modernism. As a controversialist, he is best remembered for his aggressive opposition to Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., on religious freedom and on the relationship between Church and state.

During the first years of the Second Vatican Council he was a member of the preparatory Theological Commission, the Doctrinal Commission, the Commission on Faith and Morals, and also a peritus. He, however, quickly became disillusioned with the way the Council was evolving: “This is the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it.”

Giuseppe Alberigo, Histoire du concile Vatican II, vol. 2, ed. Cerf, 1998, p. 117

Letter To My Friends no. 184, September 25, 1964

Acta I, 4, p. 9

Letter To My Friends no. 204, of Mai 13, 1965

Letter To My Friends no. 204

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, January, 1972, p. 4

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, January, 1972, p. 4

George Tyrrell (1861-1909) was an Irish-born British Jesuit priest and philosopher, a prominent member of the Modernist movement, which sought to reinterpret traditional Roman Catholic teaching in the light of contemporary knowledge.

Tyrrell was raised in the Anglican church but converted to Roman Catholicism in 1879 and joined the Society of Jesus the following year. After his ordination in 1891, he was assigned to teach philosophy in a Jesuit college in Lancashire.

Considering himself within the liberal Catholic tradition, Tyrrell argued that each age had the right to adjust the expression of Christianity to current knowledge. His commitment to the application of historical and critical methods to theological issues brought him into conflict with Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. By 1901 Tyrrell was in open conflict with his Jesuit superiors. His theology grew increasingly liberal, eventually leading him to associate himself with the baron Friedrich von Hügel, an Italian-born philosopher and theologian who introduced Tyrrell to the works of the Continental Modernists. He was denounced by Cardinal Mercier.

Tyrrell’s books such as Religion as a Factor of Life (1902) and The Church and the Future (1903), published under various pseudonyms, in which he attacked religious authoritarianism, accelerated his fall from favour. In 1906 he was expelled from the Jesuit order. The following year Pius X issued his crucial encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in which he condemned Modernism and declared its teachings to be the very essence of heresy. Rather than submit to papal authority, Tyrrell published a letter denouncing the encyclical and was subsequently excommunicated. He refused to retract what he had written and continued to write and publish on theological issues.

Quoted by Giuseppe Alberigo, Histoire du concile Vatican II, vol. 3, ed. Cerf, 1998, p. 41

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, January, 1972, p. 4

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 51, p. 14, and no. 52, p. 8

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 4

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 51, p. 4

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 5

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 5

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 6

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 6

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 6

Letter To My Friends no. 156, October 31, 1963

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 246, p. 6

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 52, p. 7

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 55, April 1972, p. 8

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 117

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 61, October 1972, p. 3 and 11

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 57, June 1972, p. 3

Letter To My Friends no. 185, October 1, 1964

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 137

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 57, June 1972, p. 8

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 138

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 57, June 1972, p. 8

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 156

150 Points

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 59, August 1972, p. 3

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 261

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 286

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 59, August 1972, p. 5

The French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 60, September 1972, p. 7

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 60, September 1972, p. 6

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 110, Mai 1979, p. 10

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 367

Autodafé, ed. CRC, p. 367

Letter To My Friends no. 213, September 26, 1965

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 60, September 1972, p. 10 and 12

Letter To My Friends no. 185, October 1st, 1964

Letter To My Friends no. 216, November 11, 1965