Your historic decision of 1964-1965

FOR the past ten years the Church has been in a state of “ immanent apostasy ”, or, to use your own expression, she is undergoing “ autodemolition ” at an accelerating rate. It is a state entirely without precedent, and one involving every aspect of the Church and spread through all her members. “ By their fruits you shall know them ” said Our Lord, and what we see today are the evil fruits of that tree planted at the very centre of Catholicism – the Conciliar Reformation. He who planted it in the field entrusted to him is dead. May God forgive him ! You stepped into his place and preserved the tree, giving it every protection and encouragement until now it has spread to cover everything with its shadow. That was your wish, and you have achieved it. If the Church is indeed destroyed through the new Reformation, then she will be dying at your hands.

For in the introduction of the Conciliar Reformation, of all that led up to it and followed from it, you yourself played a vital role.


When, in 1963, Your Holiness ascended to the Throne of Peter, the Church was, as it were, poised in an unstable equilibrium between two opposing religions: the long-established Faith with all the authority of the centuries behind it, confronted with another, hitherto suppressed as illicit but now rapidly gathering momentum to assert its new-found freedom.

I need not remind Your Holiness that it is the traditional Catholic Faith alone that has any claim to sovereignty in the Church. Surely everyone knows that. But I will recall the constant battle waged to defend this same Faith, by all your Predecessors, who were fighting against precisely this new, “ reformed ” religion which began in 1963 to supersede the other. We should have to go back at least, and principally, as far as Luther. But this same spirit of “ reform ” took on an extraordinary force in the 18th century, and we can pinpoint as a herald of our present troubles the Synod of Pistoia, of sinister memory, which was condemned in a truly prophetic spirit by Pius VI in his Bull Auctorem fidei (August 28, 1794).

The society which arose out of the turmoil of the Revolution – our own modern society in fact – drew its inspiration from Emmanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, opposing its naturalism and subjectivism to the certainty of the Faith and the recognition of the need for Grace. When this revolt of man against God found a prophet within the Church herself, in the person of Lamennais, the Popes embarked upon the battle which ensured that, from the days of Gregory XVI’s EncyclicalMirari Vos, of August 15, 1832, even unto the time of Vatican II, these new ideas were forced to remain outside the Church. Over a period of a hundred and thirty years...

They had to fight, but they held their own. We find already in the Syllabus of December 8, 1864, a formidable list of modern errors; Pius IX, though momentarily and accidentally influenced by the new ideas, more than made amends by his ceaseless and powerful struggle against them, and particularly against the one most likely to make for itself a breach in the Church’s defences: Catholic liberalism (16.6.1871).

The First Vatican Council marked the highlight of this Pontificate, asserting both the triumph of the Divine Faith and also the Infallible Authority of the Church in the person of her Head on earth. This twofold exaltation was certainly providential, for it gave guidance on how to remedy the evils that were yet to come. In addition, the Council gave the seal of its authority to the doctrinal correctness of the pronouncements made by the Pontiffs in the course of the preceding century against the errors of the day.

Leo XIII did not definitively break with this tradition, though he did sometimes seek the good of the Church in the adoption of certain compromises, such as his call upon French Catholics to rally to the Republic (1892) and his acceptance of the word “ Democracy ”, in a modified sense, in 1903. He continued the fight of his Predecessors against the “ delirium ” and “ licence ” of liberalism, this “ freedom to follow perdition ”, which would set up man as a rival to God, in his Encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas Praestantissimum.

Pius X, at the dawn of our own century, brought all his saintly gifts to bear upon the fight. His implacable analysis of doctrinal Modernism and his condemnation of it in the Encyclical Pascendi of 1907, as well as his censure of the politico-religious Utopia of Marc Sangnier, in his Letter on the Sillon, remain as two brilliant beacons shining in the darkness of our century.

Pius XI did not repudiate any points in this teaching intended to counteract the great modern heresies, even though he night in certain cases have given the impression that he saw some good in these. His admirable Encyclical on Christ the King, Quas Primas, of December 11, 1925, which opposes the prevalent secularisation, deserves a special place in our hearts. Apart from that I should like to mention only one other Encyclical – Mortalium Animos, of January 6, 1928, which seems to be a condemnation in advance of all that has since crept into the Church under the pretext of Ecumenism.

To this great mass of documents emanating from the Apostolic Authority there came to be added, for the greater benefit of the Church and her expansion and influence, the invaluable pontifical teachings of Pope Pius XII. Every one of these forms a bulwark against the subversion then spreading within the Church with the help of the enemies of God and law and order. They represent already the beginning of the Counter-Reformation ! There is, for instance, Mystici Corporis (June 29, 1943) directed against the reformist concepts of the nature of the Church, Divino Afflante Spiritu (September 30), on Modernist trends in biblical studies, Mediator Dei (November 20, 1947) and the admirable Haurietis Aquas (May 16, 1956) on the Sacred Heart. Last but not least, we must mention Humani Generis (August 15, 1950), directed against that reformism in matters of dogma which characterises the new Modernism.

Let me add to these, in order to pay honour to the memory of Pope John XXIII, whose personal loyalty to Tradition was unfailing, the firm and remarkable Encyclical Veterum Sapientia of 1962, in which, with the dignified strength of one who is defending his birthright, he struck a blow against the daring inroads of the reformers.

A study of the history of the Papacy over these hundred and thirty years shows plainly that 1963 did not witness the birth of a new philosophy, as a result of spontaneous generation or even of a sudden illumination from Heaven. There was only one new development at that time: it was that these ideas, which had existed for a long time but in the past had never been allowed to enter the Church which – in accordance with the teaching of her Pontiffs and the rulings of the First Vatican Council – had definitively condemned them, now began to be not merely tolerated by her, but looked upon as more respectable day by day.


To this invasion we can put a precise date and a particular title: it is represented by theOpening Discourse to the Council of October 11, 1962, delivered by John XXIII but prepared and edited by yourself, at the time Archbishop of Milan. That was the day when the doors of St. Peter’s were opened to the New Thinking.

Its first achievement, on October 20, was the approval, by a Council as yet unalerted, of the Message to the World. We have heard it said that, together with the French Bishops, Cardinal Montini was among the most influential promoters of this document. In any case, you were later to eulogise it in lavish terms: “ An unexpected but admirable gesture: one might see in it the sudden eruption of the Church’s prophetic charisma. ” (From a Discourse given on September 29, 1963)

The Encyclical Pacem in terris followed soon afterwards, provoking a flood of praise for Pope John and the modern spirit of his thinking, which was inspired by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and a belief in man’s liberty and universal peace remarkably in accord with the masonic inspiration of modern society. Is it true that the Pope repented later that he had signed, without having carefully studied, the document prepared by Msgr. Pavan, whom you have made Rector of the Lateran ? Be that as it may, the event was of crucial importance in this invasion of the Council by the “ new thinking ”.

We must include mention of the text, secretly prepared by Karl Rahner, which was put before the Council Fathers as a summary of the New Theology, in the hope that they would adopt it in toto, as a blueprint incorporating all the inroads already made by Modernism and Progressivism on the eve of your elevation to the Sovereign Pontificate.


On the death of John XXIII, in June 1963, there were two alternative courses possible: either to suspend this Council which had already ventured into paths which had been formally and consistently condemned by the Holy See in the past, and thus to end, authoritatively, this exercise in subversion before it had gone too far, overwhelming as its effects appeared even then; or else to continue the work credited to John XXIII, to the applause of the innovators within and without the Church and of all who had at heart her destruction. The choice depended on who was elected by the Conclave.

You were elected on the promise to continue the Council. On June 7, speaking in Milan Cathedral, you had said of John XXIII: “ We should not merely be mindful of the paths he pointed out for us, but we would do well to follow then. ” It would seem, however, that a number of those who gave you their vote did so believing that, though you intended to continue the Council, you would change its course. But the rest must have known that you intended to carry the Reformation to its conclusion – with or without the Council, or even against its wishes… There is no doubt that you bore, already, considerable responsibility for what was to follow.

For a period of some fourteen months we had the impression that the Pope refused to take sides between the two extremes and thus maintained a balance between them. In fact this period proved of great value to the Reformers who acquired respectability in the public eye by the mere fact of appearing to be threatened. Your Discourses at the Opening and Closing of the Second Session, though imbued with the new thinking, still expressed this balance between the extremes and I too was among those who failed to see where your sympathies lay. A comment you made about the Roman Curia will serve as an example: “ It would be wrong to look upon this active and loyal body... as useless and outdated, corrupt and concerned only with its own interests... but, having said this, we would not deny that it is in need of improvement. ” (Discourse given on November 18, 1965) In thus appearing to defend it, you are in fact giving support to the accusations levelled at it by the very fact of mentioning them in this context, and thus helping to drive nails into its coffin.

At the voting on October 30, 1963, each side believed itself supported by the Pope, and that was how the “ October Revolution ” (the occasion on which the new interpretation of the Collegiality of Bishops was accepted by the Council-Tr’s note) was effected. When I returned to Rome in the Spring of 1964 I heard much talk of the mystery that surrounded your government of the Church and, having heard you preach very beautifully about the Blessed Virgin Mary upon whom you wished to bestow the title of Mother of the Church, I left with feelings of devotion towards you and indeed wrote about this in the Letters to my Friends.


It was your Encyclical ECCLESIAM SUAM (August 6, 1964) which finally showed me which way the wind was blowing. Your discourse of September 29, 1963 had already pointed the way, but I had not fully understood at the time. But now, in this the Blueprint of your Pontificate, you declare your aims, even while maintaining all the time that balance between the extremes which continued to confuse most people: Vital experience...but also Faith – Renewal...but also Tradition and the striving for spiritual perfection – Dialogue...but also the preaching of the Faith. I was horrified to realise that, despite these reservations, you were opting for that New Religion which every one of your Predecessors had resisted with all his might as coming from the Demon. What I wrote then – and I believe I was the only one to say this – I would not wish to change in any way today (Letters to my Friends nos. 180 and 181).

From then on, in spite of the appearances which sometimes did not bear this out, and in spite of your applying the brakes occasionally to reduce the acceleration of the Conciliar Reformation, your efforts were directed to consolidate it, with its Ecumenical Dialogue, Openness to the World, Reforms and Changes of all sorts For a moment, at the end of the Third Session, you did indeed seem to betray the party of the innovators who, not understanding, turned against you in resentment. But you were merely helping the Reformation to proceed without raising alarm or open opposition. After that, you made no secret of your wish for unlimited changes. It was through your support that the most extreme and dangerous schemata were promulgated despite opposition. At the UN, you pronounced a most un-Catholic discourse and, on December 7, 1965, promulgating the Declaration on Religious Liberty and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today you gave vent to a glorification of Man-who-makes-himself-god which is without parallel in the annals of the Church. (Discourse given on December 7, 1965 to the Council)

Not a soul raised a protest in the whole great Conciliar Assembly and yet that moment saw the abandonment of the Ancient Faith in favour of this Cult of Man which you had just solemnly proclaimed. There was no more turning back. A Church which had accepted these two discourses would accept anything: subversion had won its victory. The Reformation had free reins to change and overthrow everything. One man bears the responsibility for this, and that is yourself.


Our opposition dates from the month of August 1964, and it has continued to mount unceasingly since then. You are aware of the sequence of events, for it led to my Process at the Holy Office, which I underwent at my own request and which in truth was not really my Process at all, but that of the Council and yourself. Because, in order that your orthodoxy and orthopraxy, your ideas on both the doctrinal and the pastoral level, should be vindicated, I should have had either to recant or be definitively condemned. But the Process did not result in either of these alternatives. I have continued, for the past five years, to accuse you of heresy, of schism, of scandal. The evidence continues to mount and more and mare Catholics have come to agree with us when we insist that one religion has been substituted for another, and that this has been accomplished through a Revolution directed from above – through a change of head under the same mitre. It is the Holy See which has undergone a change of religion, without openly saying so – but saying just enough to make the entire Church follow the new path, attracted to it by the novelty or cajoled into it by obedience.

The time has came to take the final step, and put all this to the test of divine power. And so I bring before your own Jurisdiction a process against yourself, accusing you of heresy, schism and scandal, and challenging you – if this New Religion does indeed come from Christ – to proclaim this solemnly in His Name, for it is one which all the Popes before you had branded as the offspring of Lucifer.