Chapter I 
Opening Address delivered by Pope John XXIII 
October 11, 1962

THE COUNCIL’S MAIN ORIENTATIONS

“Venerable Brothers,

“Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when – under the auspices of the Virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside the tomb of Saint Peter.

“The Councils – both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character that have been held down through the years – all prove clearly the vigour of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals.

“In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium, which is unfailing and endures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.”

Millions of television viewers watched this Address live at the same time as 2540 Fathers and the multitude that filled the Vatican basilica on October 11, 1962. It was a technical feat, to be sure, but the inattention of the three or four billion human beings was quasi general. John XXIII’s optimism!

As a historian, the Pope evokes the past, in a triumphalist view of the previous Councils: “there has also been for more than nineteen centuries a cloud of sorrows and of trials. Not without reason did the ancient Simeon announce to Mary the Mother of Jesus, that prophecy which has been and still is true: ‘Behold this Child is set for the fall and the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted’ (Lk 2:34). And Jesus Himself, when He grew up, clearly outlined the manner in which the world would treat His person down through the succeeding centuries with the mysterious words: ‘He who hears you, hears Me’ (Lk 10:16), and with those others that the same Evangelist relates: ‘He who is not with Me is against Me and he who does not gather with Me scatters.’ (Lk 11:23)”

Here is John XXIII’s wisdom that provides a (twofold) guide line for the Council:

“The great problem (I detest this scientific word extended to include all difficulties, hardships and crosses, or mysteries) confronting the world after almost two thousand years remains unchanged. Christ is ever resplendent as the centre of history and of life. Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars.”

Let me make two remarks as regards this fundamental Creed.

The first is that the world is divided into two camps, either for or against Christ and His Church. This dualism is certainly dogmatically true but in practice, it needs to be qualified. The Council showed itself to be allergic to this doctrine and followed the Modernist party, very early on, very effortlessly, towards a total universal consensus, whereby ‘religion’ in general procures the same benefit to mankind, whatever its ‘God’ may be.

Secondly the good and evil that each of the two camps bring, are defined by a few abstract words, the ‘comprehension’ and ‘extension’ of which are debatable. What emerges, however, more than an impression, is the certainty that it is a question of temporal happiness or misfortune, and therefore of this earthly world. These alone are what preoccupy most men? That is not so sure! But no doubt this is how John XXIII wanted to know men and to imagine them. And, dreadful suspicion, how did he, who spoke to them so energetically about the choice to be made in favour of Jesus Christ, and not against Him, chose? Did he choose in view of the earthly happiness of mankind, without any concern for eternal Life?

Now, if the second aspect of this major orientation prevailed in the Council, John XXIII would be followed, preceded, surpassed and pushed along by the majority of the Fathers, while the “heroic minority” would fight in vain to defend the two major positions of our Faith:

1^o the necessity to believe in Jesus Christ:

2^o and this, not only for the advantage of a better life on earth, but to escape eternal Hell and be admitted into the happiness of Heaven.

These two dogmas: “apart from me you can do nothing,” (Jn 15:5) and “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be yours as well,” (Mt 6:33) for “he who saves his life in this world will lose it in the next; he who sacrifices his life in this world will gain it in the next,” (Lk 18:33) are indivisible as are the two precepts of charity, which are one and the same. John XXIII seriously undermined the supernatural character of our holy religion by depriving our morality of its ultimate end. This was done in favour of a second end which, while ceasing to be intermediate, no longer has the superior motive of eternal Life required to impose itself. By this very fact, the need for Jesus Christ and His Church, which would often be repeated during the Council, albeit with little conviction, ceases to be obvious. So, fundamentally, the Catholic religion, from the time of John XXIII, lost its raison d’être when it lost its end. It was therefore no longer a necessary means, with the competition of all religions, mythologies, sciences and techniques, claiming to be just as capable of leading the world to happiness, and even more so than Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, Who has been preached for two thousand years with questionable temporal success!

Was the text written by John XXIII or by the future Paul VI? The liberalism of the former and the gnosis of the latter cannot be mixed any more than water and oil. The sinuous boundary can be traced back to the first fundamental text.

Then come a few words of enthusiasm for all the past Councils:

“Ecumenical Councils, whenever they are assembled, are a solemn celebration of the union of Christ and His Church, and hence lead to the universal radiation of truth, to the proper guidance of individuals in domestic and social life, to the strengthening of spiritual energies for a perennial uplift toward real and everlasting goodness.”

Who is clever enough to explain the meaning of “real” and to say whether the word “everlasting” includes or excludes temporal goodness? Eloquence is often the accomplice of the sin of omission. This is the case here.

A final paragraph is extremely emphatic. Deservedly so, but on second reading we find it disparaging, even ironic.

“The testimony of this extraordinary Magisterium of the Church in the succeeding epochs of these twenty centuries of Christian history stands before us collected in numerous and imposing volumes, which are the sacred patrimony of our ecclesiastical archives, here in Rome and in the more noted libraries of the entire world.”

This patrimony is “collected, well-guarded, in the more noted libraries of the world.” Requiescant in pace! So let us speak of it no longer.

After this visit to the cemeteries where the dead sleep and where only a few nostalgic visitors from the past go, let us move on to our prodigious present, where everything is vitality, progress, value and enthusiasm.

PART ONE 
THE ORIGIN AND REASON 
FOR THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

It begins with a confidence from John XXIII: “it will suffice to repeat our personal account”. It was an “idea” that came to him “unexpectedly”, which suggests, on the part of a Pope, a divine inspiration. This has been much discussed. He expressed this idea on January 25, 1959, at Saint Paul Outside the Walls, in an ecumenical assembly, which he failed to specify. Rather he speaks of it again as an ‘experience’ but one that is collective, charismatic... a ‘new Pentecost’: “The souls of those who were present (many of whom were not Catholic to be precise) were immediately struck as though by a flash of heavenly light; the eyes and faces of all (sic) reflected the sweet emotion that they felt.”

Then, as on Pentecost day, (Ac 2:4), “immediately, people all over the world set to work and at the same time it gave rise to a great fervour throughout the world in expectation of the holding of the Council”.

It is extravagant. “Brainwashing” is underway. But apart from the idea that the Holy Spirit inspired John XXIII, then the ecumenical assembly held in Saint Paul Outside the Walls, then all the apostles and zealots and finally the entire world – “Repleti sunt omnes Spiritu Sancto, et cœperunt loqui.” (Ac 2:4) –, we still know nothing about the intelligible motives and intentions for this great Event except that it is, in the Pope’s own words, utterly mystical, supernatural, divine!

The very “laborious preparation” was already a confirmation of its divine character as John XXIII confided to us, vouching for the truth of his own sentiment (it is really astounding!), read on: “These years of laborious preparation have seemed to us (sic!) a first sign, an initial gift of celestial grace.” This pontifical illuminism would impress the Assembly, then the world, right from that very day. What did this preparation entail? It was a sociological survey with a view to “finding out in greater depth what esteem is held for the faith in our time, to enquire into religious practice and the vitality of the Christian world, especially the Catholic world.”

Although this kind of survey is typical of marketing, it goes without saying that such a consultation on such a large scale would only to be decided in the event of a sales “problem”. This is the case when the Company judges its product or range of products to be excellent and, to put it sincerely, is looking for a reason to blame the “customers” for its poor sales. John XXIII, a great worldly charmer, did not say so, but he promised that the necessary steps would be taken and this would be “a source of spiritual enrichment”. The expression is vague but reassuring. Immediately, Then, John XXIII skipped to the closing of the Council: “After gaining the strength of new energies therefrom (from the Council!), the Church will look to the future without fear.” What is the reason for such optimism? Well! It is what the Assembly is going to do, as it listens open-mouthed to its Pontiff and prophet: “In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required (because of the marketing issue), and by the wise organisation of mutual co-operation (Oh! Oh! This magic word is the first to indicate to us what the Council must decide, seek and how it must innovate... But it keeps its secret for another ten seconds), the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things. “

This is the end of the text and of the paragraph. Then follows most fitting praise of God and Christ the King. But just what is this “co-operation” at all levels? Does John XXIII expect the conversion of souls from it? Undoubtedly. A conversion to the divine mysteries of salvation? Undoubtedly. Let us be patient! We shall learn about it. For the moment, this vaporous prophetism is bound to awaken, to excite minds, to touch hearts with marvellous hopes and desires.

AGAINST PROPHETS OF DOOM.

“In order to render more complete the holy joy that fills our hearts at this solemn hour, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.”

This oracle, which is powerfully propelled by the charismatic wonders mentioned in the introduction, was hardly likely to meet with opposition, or even doubt or fear in the sixties. In those years, the euphoria of prosperity, of economic, industrial and financial recovery launched the whole of the West into an exhilaration of novelty, freedom, pleasure that was in no way altered by the expansion of Communism throughout the world.

An all-out attack against “prophets of doom” is therefore all the more astonishing. It suffices to quote it in full. It is impossible to recognise this attack as having been written by “good Pope John” who, although convinced of the accuracy of these words, would not have been able to adopt the tone. Its tone reveals the acrimony of a sensitive, nervous man, himself victim of those whom he was taking revenge on and who had to be reduced to nothing lest they harm his own plans and thwart what he was dreaming of for this Council. This man would use the Pope’s words pronounced in the Council itself to crush his enemies of yesterday, become his rivals at that time. On that day, the world would learn that Esther● had won Ahasuerus’ graces, Aman would be hanged that evening, and Mordecai – the very author of these lines – had been called to take over the running of the Empire’s affairs. Indeed this is at least what the world would understood in the Pope’s Address: reaction was reduced to silence, the hour of revolution had come.

Let us read our condemnation:

“It often happens that, in the daily exercise of our apostolic ministry, our ears are offended by what is said by certain people who, although burning with religious zeal (a necessary yet sarcastic concession), lack sound judgement, discretion and balance in their way of seeing things…”

It must be remembered that the “ways of seeing things” do not come under the realm of the Pope’s infallibility or of anyone else’s. What is sufficient in the circumstances is for these people to be discredited by the mere announcement of their pontifical disgrace.

“In the situation of society today, they see nothing but ruins and calamities; they are in the habit of saying that our era is far worse than past centuries; they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life (?) (this is outright slander: the “prophets of doom” draw all their experience and wisdom from the lessons of the past, while the prophets of happiness build their utopias, unknown in the past, in a future that they arrange to suit their madness) and as though, at the time of former Councils, everything was perfect in regard to Christian doctrine, morals and the proper liberty of the Church.”

I imagine that this passage was written by the first writer, Giovanni Battista Montini and that in order to have it swallowed by the august assembly, John XXIII went a little overboard in his praise of this same past but without finding the right tone of saintly loyalty; what does it matter! It is the first writer’s acrimony that makes him confuse “prophets of doom” and devotees of the past.

“We feel we must state our complete disagreement with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.”

The end is characteristic of John XXIII’s style; beneath a suave exterior, he was ferocious as all liberals are. He signed or countersigned this all-out slaughter of his ideological opponents. John XXIII himself wanted to be a prophet of happiness. That is why he had always detested Pius X, especially as he knew him to be a saint and would have loved to succeed him in heavenly glory as well as in his ecclesiastical career. He found in Montini the ideologist capable of nourishing his optimism with humanist verbiage and great utopias, which were personalist on the one hand and Christian-Democrat on the other.

In order to denounce the enormous madness of such an Address, I shall say three things.

First remark: Jesus was a prophet of doom like Saint John the Baptist, His Precursor. Some of the woes He prophesied have taken place, but not all. Others mentioned in the Gospel still await their hour. This means that the odds are always stacked in favour of the prophets of doom, until the end. Among the woes and maledictions pronounced by Jesus, I choose these divine words: “Alas for you when the world speaks well of you! This was the way their fathers treated the false prophets.” (Lk 6:26)The whole life of John XXIII is encapsulated in this sentence.

Second remark: I could fill a thick notebook with inspired indictments, either taken from Holy Scripture or from the works of the saints, Fathers of the Church, Pontiffs, envoys of God and miracle workers, not forgetting She Who is the Mother and teacher of Wisdom of all of them, the Virgin Mary in all Her apparitions… right up to La Salette and Fatima. They all denounce the prophets of happiness as impostors inspired by the Devil, and corruptors of their people, cursed by God. All of them! I refer you to Jeremiah, one from among ten other great prophets. The peculiarity of the prophet of happiness is that he finds a host of fellow prophets who live lavishly at the expense of the sinful crowds that flock to their preaching, whereas the prophets of doom are quite the opposite – I do not need to paint a portrait of them! My bishop of Grenoble,● the bishop of La Salette, went up the holy mountain in 1944, despite his age and infirmities, on September 19, for the anniversary of the apparition. France had just been liberated. Things being what they were and what we know them to have been, he declared from the pulpit of truth, in clear reference to that “liberation”: “It is the beginning of France’s chastisement.” He came within an ace of being killed! At the very least, “his clergy” reviled and despised him for what he had said. The others kept quiet so as not be killed.

Look, here is an oracle from Jeremiah, taken at random. It is most opportune: “An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jr 5:30-31)

Here is another one: “ […] from prophets ungodliness has spread throughout the whole land. Thus says Yahweh Sabaoth: Listen not to the words of these prophets: they are deluding you; they retail visions of their own and not what comes from the mouth of Yahweh: ‘You shall have peace!’ To everyone who follow the dictates of a hardened heart: ‘No evil shall overtake you!’ Behold, the storm of Yahweh! His wrath breaks forth In a whirling storm that bursts upon the heads of the wicked. The anger of Yahweh shall not abate until He has done and fulfilled what He has determined in His Heart. When the time comes, you shall fully understand. I did not send these prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. Had they stood in My council, they would have proclaimed to My people My words, they would have brought them back from evil ways and from their wicked deeds.” (Jr 23:15-22)

A final clear and irrefutable oracle to the exiles in Babylon: “You may say: ‘Yahweh has raised up prophets for us in Babylon,’ but thus says Yahweh Sabaoth: ‘Do not be deceived by the prophets among you or by your diviners; do not listen to the dreams they dream, since they prophesy lies to you in My Name. I have not sent them – it is Yahweh Who speaks.’

“For this is what Yahweh says about the king now seated on the throne of David and all the people who live in this city, your brothers who did not go with you into exile: Thus says Yahweh Sabaoth: I am now going to send them sword, famine and plague; I will make them like rotten figs and so bad as to be uneatable. I will pursue them with sword, famine and plague, and make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, a curse, a thing of wonder, scorn, derision, for all the nations where I have dispersed them; although I have persistently sent them all My servants the prophets. However, they would not listen – it is Yahweh Who speaks. But all you exiles, whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Babylon, listen to the word of Yahweh concerning the two who prophesy lies to you in My Name:

“Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, who will slay them before your eyes. This curse, based on their fate, will be used by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: ‘May Yahweh treat you like the two of them who were roasted alive by Nebuchadnezzar!’ Such is the fate of those who perpetrate infamies in Israel, committing adultery with other men’s wives, speaking words in My Name which I did not command them. I am the one who knows, and I am witness, says Yahweh!” (Jr 29:15-23)

Have you understood?

Third and last remark: it is an unpardonable crime to preach against a prophet of doom. This crime is inexpiable if he is truly a prophet of doom, and without remission in this world and in the next if the preaching is aimed at all the prophets of doom in general and in particular. Because, first of all, it is a difficult path, a calvary, to accept from God such a role, such a thankless mission, and this already pleads in favour of their sincerity, and even of the truth of their oracles. Secondly, because prophecies of doom are incitements to penance, to conversion of morals, to a return to true faith in Christ and true obedience to the Church. On the other hand, the announcements of happiness are debilitating, intoxicating. Thus they do no good and most probably do not come from God unless they are, as always in Holy Scripture, the announcement of a liberation after a harsh chastisement (Isaiah 40 - 55), or the announcement of a flood of graces at the request of the Most Blessed Virgin upon a people docile to Her demands. All of this is so invariable, as though it were an essential principle of divine ’orthodromy’, that John XXIII and his associate in the drafting of this text must for that reason alone already be ranked among the greatest prophets of happiness in human History, in “History, the teacher of life” which, since then, has convicted them both of committing a monumental error. They are the two greatest liars in the hierarchical Church for having gone so far in their prophecies of happiness as to cast anathema on the true prophets of all times, with the intention of silencing their holy adversaries and opponents. They did so in such a way that the anathemas they dared to utter against the saints fall on them.

PROPHECIES OF HAPPINESS IN THEIR INFANCY.

So, although it cannot be said that everything was going badly, John XXIII did not dare to prophesy that all was well. He would come to that conclusion, but only after having found evils, difficulties and disorders that justified the work of the Council, about which we still know nothing. But let the Council complete what the Holy Spirit inspires it to do and we will soon learn something about it. Then John XXIII’s joy will burst forth unrestrainedly, madly, three pages later.

For the moment, let us be realistic, but let us introduce Divine Providence as a life belt to rule out any fear of drowning:

“In the present course of events (?), when human society seems to be at a turning point (Paul VI’s vocabulary), it would be better (yet another jab at grumblers) to recognise the mysterious designs of divine Providence (Is this fatalism? Is this illuminism? In any case, it is irresponsible, cowardly and lazy) which, through the succession of times and men’s works (what platitude!), usually contrary to all expectations (?), they achieve their end and dispose of everything wisely for the good of the Church, even adverse human fortune (!!).”

This quiestism is aimed at riding us of the people who criticise everything. Leave it to Providence! And having said that, the teams of dynamiteros appointed in advance will do the work.

All of this is Montini’s work. We can skip over the insignificant and keep only the few sentences that make his intentions clear. Here, on the subject of the political and economic life that is so absorbing that it prevents men from “attending to the care of spiritual reality, with which the Church’s Magisterium is concerned. Such a way of acting is certainly not right, and must justly be disapproved,” obviously. Yet, the Council is in search of happy signs of the times. So, here they are:

“It cannot be denied (of course we can! And even with sound reasons!) that these new conditions of life have at least the advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one time (!), the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church.”

Should we laugh or cry? Should we keep quiet or bark? As supposed proof “a cursory glance through the annals of the Church” is enough to show the very harmful role played by the “secular princes” of yesteryear in the convocation, holding and decisions of Councils. Today, we know that the Second Vatican Council’s admirable “freedom” was in fact under close observation by Moscow and other occult powers, which dictated revolting interdictions. Even today I would not dare to mention these others for I would be made to pay dearly for it!

This idea of boasting, in 1962, of the freedom left to the Church comes from Paul VI. John XXIII saved honour all the same and made up for the blunder by inserting a paragraph here, which is touching but vain! On the contrary, it chloroformed Catholic public opinion and opened a secret path to the betrayal of the martyred peoples. After having greeted them with respect, the Fathers would be able to forget them during the entire Council without being accused of being sold out to the Communist power, as was the case. Listen!

THE CHURCH OF SILENCE.

It is written in John XXIII’s awkward style. He says what he wants to say and without a minute’s silence, he exults about something for which he should not have said a single word at that point. Read for yourself; it is the cat set among pigeons:

“In this regard, we confess to you that we feel most poignant sorrow (well, don’t exaggerate) over the fact that very many bishops, so dear (same remark) to us are noticeable here today by their absence, because they are imprisoned for their faithfulness to Christ, or impeded by other restraints. The thought of them impels us to raise most fervent prayer to God.”

Yes, but after having “fervently” saluted them, they would immediately be forgotten. Then, incessant intrigues would be woven in favour of Communism, their persecutor and, in the name of the most despicable form of “charity” – in contradiction to the motive for which they are persecuted –, the Fathers would try to find compromises between faith in Christ and the Communist powers, in order to obtain their liberation rather than their martyrdom.

We, country parish priests conveniently have reversible stoles: black or purple on the one side for funeral ceremonies and white on the other side for other ceremonies. During a baptism, the preparatory rites require the purple side and the subsequent rites the white side. In the Council, stoles must have been as reversible as sentiments. No sooner had the millions of dead and captives of the “gulag” been called to mind with deep sorrow than the following words were spoken: “Nevertheless (!), we see today, not without great hope and to our immense consolation (come on, so much the better!), that the Church, finally freed (‘the Church of silence’ is already forgotten: it is the silence of a complicit Church) from so many obstacles of a profane nature such as trammelled her in the past (!), can from this Vatican Basilica, like that of a second Cenacle, through you raise her voice full of majesty and authority.”

The words, “like that of a second Cenacle” are clever, for the conjunction “like” means in a manner of speaking. They are extraordinarily suggestive for who does not know that it was in the Cenacle of Jerusalem that the Church was born? It was there that the sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders were instituted; it was there that the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, another major event. The very first Council, known as the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ assembled there. Pope John XXIII’s comparison, was therefore very impressive, very flattering for the Vatican II Fathers. But enough is enough. The expression, never retracted, is too binding, too revealing of the paranoia in which John XXIII imprisoned this Council: “a second Cenacle”! ? This leads to two atrocious errors: that between the first Cenacle and this “second Cenacle”, the twenty Ecumenical Councils as well as all the others cited with great praise at the beginning of this same speech count for nothing. Between the ‘first’ and the ‘second’ there is no place for a third, even ex aequo.

More seriously, though, in good French, the choice between “second” and “deuxième”● depends on whether or not there will be other “Cenacles” afterwards. Declaring Vatican II to be the “second Cenacle”, makes it impossible to compare it not only with the Councils of the past, but also with future Councils, which are possible but which can never be compared with these two. They were on their way to glory!

1. “PRINCIPLE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL”: TO GUARD AND TO TEACH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE MORE EFFICACIOUSLY.

We can already see the stylistic device and the mind-set of the first redactor of this speech and of the true ‘Pope of the Council’, Paul VI. It is not Saint James’ ‘Yes, definitely’ or ‘No, it is out of the question!’: “Let your Yes mean Yes, and your No mean No” (Jm 5:12); it will be the well calibrated “yes, but…”. The “yes” clause will be all the firmer, fuller and more solemn because this is what the multitude expects and loves. Then, the “however, but…” clause will appear on the sly as darnel in the wheat and leaven in the dough. Here, we can reformulate the title given to this first part:

‘defend doctrine, yes indeed! But revise it nonetheless!’

a) A beautiful paragraph, entitled: “Citizens of Earth and of Heaven” reassures us. It exudes evangelical truth on both “the attainment of heavenly things”, which are our ultimate end, and the reason of the means to this end. This reason characterises earthly goods and imposes a limit on them so that they “not prejudice the eternal happiness (of all men)”.

Well done! And if we can add one good to another, it is even better. There have always been such people in the Church, and even today “their exemplary life and their acts of charity are a great force and an important factor in the development of what is highest and noblest in human society”. That is enough to satisfy good Catholics who love to hear the Pope talk about the heavenly city, “the only goal of our work” (Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus). So, that is good!

b) Yes, but... the following paragraph is entitled: ‘technical progress’. We read: “It is necessary first of all(my emphasis) that the Church should never(id.) remove her gaze from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers. At the same time, however, (my emphasis!) she must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and new forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”

And there you have it! We start with a promise of conserving the old order, and by means of the “yes, but” technique, we enter into a hazy series of novelties in all fields which, without hesitation or murmur, ends up imposing an indispensable “novelty in the Catholic apostolate”. It is astonishing to have gone from one pole to the other, not by means of a demonstration but by a cunning discourse.

There follows a paragraph written by the other author who takes us back to the views and ways of the religion of old. In it, he blows hot and cold to calm everyone’s nerves. He begin with a Progressivist admiration of “the marvellous progress of the discoveries of human genius, but”, and the but clause is reactionary, “the Church does not neglect to admonish men that, over and above sense perceived things, they must raise their eyes to God, the Source of all wisdom and all beauty”. Then there is the reminder of “the most serious commandment: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve’.” It ends with a mixed conclusion: “Thus they will prevent the fleeting fascination of visible things from impeding...” John XXIII must have written: “the contemplation of heavenly things and eternal salvation,” and the other writer has brought the thought of Heaven back down to earth: “from impeding true progress”.

Thus, yeses and buts are like jerseys which, in the middle of a race, the competing teams exchange, so that in the confusion, our applause gets misplaced and is shared out between the two. Disoriented in this manner, are we at last going to get to the heart of the matter: the preservation of the Faith? Yes, but.

2. HOW CAN SACRED DOCTRINE BE SPREAD IN OUR TIME?

For such is “the task that awaits the Council on the doctrinal level.”

It is not the task that is awaiting! It is the writers of the Address and their mafia who are hiding themselves behind this impersonal formula, rendering the decision irresponsible. But it was John XXIII and Montini who were cleverly engineering their steamroller.

The first paragraph affirms the will of the Council (before it had opened), and this in particular through the will of the periti, thus favourably presented to the Fathers who were already subjugated, to transmit Catholic doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which… has become the common patrimony of men (how about that!). All this smacks of the bad faith of the periti and their conspirators in this ‘will’ to preserve this “rich treasure”... “available to men of good will”. What relativism in this half-hearted yes! The contrast of one paragraph to the next is striking. There is a but... a “nevertheless”, and then the tone changes:

“Nevertheless, our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with joyful will (this contrasts with the melancholic care that museum attendants take in the preservation of the treasure...) and without fear (“Be not afraid!”) to that work which our era demands of us (an era does not demand anything at all; it was without doubt the Montinian mafia that was demanding it of John XXIII), pursuing thus the path (in the “bend” it is currently on) which the Church has followed for twenty centuries.”

The technique of proceeding with two alternating voices, each having its own paragraph, it is very persuasive. Here is the conservative voice:

“The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.”

This is the same John XXIII who two pages earlier hailed the sacred and definitive consignment of doctrine to extensive libraries. Thus, this doctrine is known, more than enough has been said about it. Of course, there is no question of touching it!

The other conniving voice continues in a very lively manner, in a tone that one would use for a catechism explanation to children:

“Indeed, if it had only been a question of discussions of this kind, there would have been no need to convene an Ecumenical Council.”

Obviously. Then, Montini unleashes the hounds, the pack of periti, for the great hunt:

“What is needed today is for everyone to adhere, with renewed love, peace and serenity, to the fullness of Christian doctrine, transmitted with the precision of terms and concepts that was the particular glory of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.”

Indeed! But…

“In response to the strong desire of all those who are sincerely attached (?) to everything that is Christian (that is casting a wide net), Catholic and apostolic, this doctrine must be more widely and favourably (?) known, and souls must be more deeply imbued with it and transformed by it.”

Oh, how these ardent wishes are ours! What a tempting ideal! But what can we do? We are ready to make any sacrifice to realise this! Our super expert is slowly opening his Pandora’s box:

“It is necessary to deepen insight (yes, good!) into this certain and immutable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected and presented in a way that responds to the requirements (sic!) of our time (!). In fact (and here is the first intellectual poison introduced into conciliar dogmatics), the deposit of Faith itself, that is to say the truths contained in our venerable (sic) doctrine, is one thing, and the form in which these truths are stated is another (a disgusting diabolical malice, which the author will immediately attenuate in order to have it adopted), while nevertheless preserving the same meaning and the same scope (hypocrisy, lies as four years of conciliar dynamics and thirty-five years of post-conciliar debacle will prove).”

They have made it through the perilous bottleneck. The child will live and grow up, it is already a sure thing: “We have won!” they exclaim.

“Great importance will have to be attached to this form (or new formulation) and work patiently, if need be (in fact, it took four years of pharmacopoeia and surgery), to develop it; and we’ll have to resort to a way of presenting it that better corresponds to a Magisterium of a primarily pastoral nature.”

That takes the biscuit! The Church is no longer so interested in theology. Being democratic, she is now turning her attention to the poor people. So, an attempt will be made to simplify religion in order to adapt it to the masses. The Modernists’ pretext for changing the form of catechesis in order to change the substance is well known. They run counter to the experience of the ages and to the veto of the Church. But these people, whom you call ignorant, immediately understood and, on that very evening of October 11, 1962, when they heard radio reporters giving biased accounts on John XXIII’s Address, they uttered these words, which the unfolding of history would prove true: “They have changed our religion.”

3. “HOW TO REPRESS ERRORS (NO LONGER).”

The discourse comprised of two concerting and concerted voices continues with increasing audacity and vehemence. These alternating yes and but clauses verifies how useful the key that I give you for the entire study of Vatican II is: the more magnificent the yes clause the more imperative it is for the but clause to nullify it and replace it with its opposite.

Yes, error must be condemned, even with the greatest severity, even though, these days, there is no longer any errors that do not vanish “like fog before the sun”. That is what John XXIII wrote; read it for yourself. The other writer, who excels in the use of the “yes, but” technique, begins by showing the greatest severity, but then...

“The Church has never ceased to oppose these errors”, which the other voice said that still today, “they vanish like fog before the sun”. “Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however”, then the tone becomes milder, there is a sudden about-face, “the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations (of errors?).”

Another about-face: “Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated”, and then a return to gentleness: “But these are so obviously in contrast with the principles of honesty (?), and bear such bitter fruit, that today men seem to be beginning to condemn them of their own accord (?!)”

Here lies the enormity that will form the basis of the conciliar construct, condemned by the Church from time immemorial, professed by her worst adversaries, and inculcated in peoples and elites as the new principle of a liberated humanity:

“Men are more and more convinced that the dignity and perfection of the human person are very important values that require hard work.” Really! And so...

The following phrase begins by a misleading “but” clause. It has to be corrected with a coordinating ‘therefore’, which announces the happy consequence, prodigiously new and liberating, of the principle just stated:

“What is very important, therefore, is that experience has taught them that external violence imposed on others, the might of arms, political domination, are incapable of providing a happy solution to the grave problems that afflict them.”

What a revolution! What pacifism! What utopianism! In such an Address, before such an Assembly! The chance events of conclaves, a secret plot or the next Pope’s own diplomacy served his whole Messianic delusions well. So it was a master stroke to get the Predecessor to proclaim the urgency of his Successor’s programme of action for a universal Council. And indeed, the Address surprised everyone; it was applauded by the entire world, apart from a few lone voices. John XXIII exulted. Listen to how his voice takes up his part again:

“The Catholic Church, brandishing the torch of religious truth in the midst of this situation through this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all (of all men!), benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness (all that she was not, she wants to be now!) for her sons who are separated from her (yet another revolutionary advance, that is prepared like another bomb).”

Then he fervently muddles exact Catholic doctrine with the Progressivist gnosis of the other writer. We would get lost if we sought to sort the sublime attributes of the Faith from the personalist, socialist and Christian-Democrat chimeras, which are gradually going to stifle them. I quote:

“Obviously, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness, but she distributes to them the goods of grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God (this is a supernatural view), are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life (this is not false either but we are slipping, and the supernatural begins to regress to the level of a means for obtaining earthly happiness, instead of remaining its regulator and ultimate end).

“She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine that allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ (by converting, being baptised and practicing the life of the Catholic Sacraments?), to understand well what they really are (and here, we fall from the Catholic Faith into Masonic humanism), what their lofty dignity and their purpose are (all these tricky words are not Catholic but they can still be considered as such), and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.”

No, this is Marc Sangnier’s, Maritain’s, and Montini’s lie that John XXIII has swallowed here. It is the “civilisation of love” that will result from men becoming aware of their dignity under the divine impulse of Christian Revelation and of the charity of the “sons of God”.

We are quite far from the purpose of this first part: the “Repression of errors”. Actually, all these “periti” who had come with their reform projects to have them signed by the Council were aware that they were a small minority. They were initially very afraid of being condemned and having their heresies anathematised, as it could and should have been the case. Hence this text in which a variety of reasons for not condemning are expressed, and which exults at the thought of the utopia they dream of, having become possible.

PART TWO 
“THE UNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN
AND HUMAN FAMILY MUST BE PROMOTED.”

From the very first paragraph, the two heresies of principle that the Modernist sect would impose on the Church are more clearly revealed:

“The Church’s solicitude to promote and defend truth derives from the fact that, according to the plan of God, ‘Who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tm 2:4), without the assistance of the whole (sic) of revealed doctrine cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds, with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.”

It is cunning! It forms a sorites, i.e. a logical sequence of propositions some of which are explicit and others are assumed to be obvious or known to everyone. What the author hopes – or the peritus, Congar, who is hidden behind him – is that the listeners will be carried away by the eloquence and the speciousness of the Address to the point of acclaiming and adopting its conclusion. As a result, going back up the chain of propositions that are expressed or supposed to be known, the Council will admit them, however false they may be.

Here, we assume that God wants to save all men and that no one can be saved without the complete and pure Catholic Faith. Skipping over a few rungs of the ladder, the Author deviates on a secondary consequence that is not included in the major dogma of the Faith required for eternal salvation: the “complete and firm unity of minds.” Here, it is a question of the unity of mankind given as the object of the prayers of the Church, which is the Freemasons’ diabolical aim.

This is not an end of the Catholic religion. But here, maliciously inserted where it should not be – like a terrorist shunting in a ‘bend’ of the railway line –, the unity of mankind is then regarded as the ultimate end of our collective, and no longer supremely personal, destiny. Or at least, this unity becomes the indispensable, necessary and sufficient means for the Church and humanity to reach their ends.

First heresy: the Church’s collective finality is the unity of mankind, which is already a first compromise with “the whole of revealed doctrine.”

A second heresy follows in its wake: “a complete and firm unity of minds, with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation”. Here, at last, we find “eternal salvation”, which reassuringly brings us back to the premise of the reasoning. Oh, let us have confidence! At least, good Pope John XXIII, keeps his eyes fixed on Heaven! Yes, or rather he comes back to it! The fact remains, however, that he accepts another purpose for the preaching of the Church “in her Conciliar state” and for the efforts of “men” to reach the Truth: it consists in realising this absolute and firm unity with a view to “true peace”. Peace in this world – Pacem in terris! – is thus worth the sacrifice that is imposed on each and every man. As a result, the Church is going to enter into this new conspiracy, object of the intense efforts of these international organisations fostering peace, even if she has to make a few sacrifices. The direct result of this magnificent periodic sentence is to have made us painlessly swallow it. It is very clever! It led astray “the elect themselves”.

ALREADY, THE MASDU!

It is thus necessary to move on to resolutions with a view to action that will soon be termed “ecumenical”, by a misleading confusion of words. A “but” clause contrasts this ideal desired by God with the sad reality. Let us read on:

“But unfortunately, the entire Christian family (The phrase ‘Christian family’ is dramatically misleading: the conglomerate of associations that call themselves ‘Christian’ is more like a snake pit than a respectable human family.) has not yet fully attained this visible unity in truth.”

So we are plunged into a fog of half-truths and half-lies. There is talk of a family, then there is an admission of divisions, all the while referring to rapprochements or attempts at rapprochements that are never fully satisfactory, and interposing an infinite series of small steps between the traditional no of the Catholic Faith and the yes of a non-existent ideal, authorising the notion that a reunion can be achieved without winners or losers: – by a series of minor arrangements, “by wise mutual co-operation”.

First of all unity can be restored through prayer! Then, I have a hunch, through charity! All of this has been very carefully designed by the secret sect of the periti and the Fathers of the Progressivist minority. But that is putting the cart before the horse! As long as Faith is missing and the primary intention is not the conversion of everyone to the true Catholic Faith, prayer is fallacious for God cannot be deceive! Charity is vain when it not ruled by the zeal for the true good.

It must be said that, in literary terms, this paragraph is splendid. But it is false and dishonest, even if it is brimming with truth and shining with touching charity. It is enough to lead astray the elect themselves! I am therefore going to quote it fully and, unfortunately, I shall be obliged to cut its beautiful period into pieces in order to show its “perfidy”; in the etymological sense: its deception on the Faith.

A concessive conjunction begins the paragraph in order to signify that Christians may well be divided: “Nevertheless, the Catholic Church considers it her duty (it is John XXIII who says so, but, surrounded by the Mafia, he considers himself entitled to create a duty in the Church, where until then, there had been a prohibition) to work actively so that there may be fulfilled the great mystery of that unity, which Jesus Christ invoked with fervent prayer from His heavenly Father on the eve of His Sacrifice. She rejoices in peace (how touching John XXIII is, in his affective piety but beware of the snare hidden beneath the flowers!), knowing well that she is intimately associated with that prayer of Christ.”

No, no, stop! The truth, which is forbidden today, is quite different. John XXIII fails to quote this prayer, “May they be one” (Jn 17:11; Jn 21-22); nor does he quote the parable of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:16) expressing Christ’s divine will that “there be one flock and one Shepherd”. In short, here is the situation: in Chapter 10 of Saint John, Jesus announces that He will take His faithful flock away from the Jewish sheepfold to lead it to green pastures so that there will no longer be anything other than His Church constituted, not as a sect, but as the true People of God with Jesus Christ Himself as their one fine and good Shepherd.

In Chapter 17, it is Jesus Who prays on the very day of His Passion or rather His Ascension,● that, through the gift they would receive on Pentecost Day, His disciples might remain in or attain an extraordinary, inconceivable perfection of union amongst themselves, the same perfect union such as the Father and He, Jesus, Themselves enjoy. They bequeath it to those who have believed in Him, Jesus Christ.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Therefore to pray that the Church remain in this Oneness and that all men of good will incorporate● themselves into it is a good prayer. But to pray for unity, a unity that purportedly is “not yet fully attained”, a unity of the Church with other alleged “churches” and so-called “Christian” communities that are formally heretical and schismatic, to expect our pray, at last, to establish such unity is to say, according to the Church of Christ, a detestable prayer that smacks of heresy.

So, John XXIII thinks otherwise than the Roman Church. As a false prophet of happiness, he goes on to say:

“And then, the Catholic Church (!) exults with sincerity”! This is a necessary clarification, so blatant is the insincerity! The sect hypes up its activities in which it takes delight as though it were already in control of doctrine and discipline. Thus, it exults “with sincerity at seeing that invocation extend its efficacy with salutary fruit (this amounts to heresy feathering its own nest, and it will become a marketing theme: to turn this serious indiscipline into an incontestable work of the Holy Spirit), even among those who are outside her fold.” Brazenness, yet more brazenness! Lie again and again, something is sure to stick! Yet, it is a sin against the Faith to attribute the label of the Holy Spirit to fruits that have been picked from vines other than those of the Roman Church. What is one more lie to John XXIII. Or to his collaborator.

They both vaticinate, in close cooperation: “Indeed, if one considers well this same unity which Christ implored for His Church (this has nothing to do with it, as we have just proven with the Gospel), it (this unity) seems to shine, as it were, with a triple ray of beneficent supernal light.” John XXIII’s illuminism is the least of his faults. He makes the Holy Spirit a bit like the “electricity fairy” of the 19^th century: you turn it on and there is joy, warmth, well-being. So, there are miracles of the Holy Spirit at three levels:

“Namely, the unity of Catholics among themselves, which must always be kept exemplary and most firm; the unity of prayers and ardent desires with which those Christians separated from this Apostolic See aspire to be united (hmm!) with us; and the unity in esteem and respect for the Catholic Church which animates those who follow various forms (!) of religions that are not yet Christian (sic!).”

This geographical distribution of ever-decreasing concentric circles of friendship around the Apostolic See irritated Congar in his day. That was in August 1964 upon reading the encyclical Ecclesiam suam, which formed the programme of the pontificate. It was, on a large scale, the realising of this vision that was attributed to John XXIII; it was, in reality, Cardinal Montini’s. Nine months later, its signatory would die. After another fifteen months of pontificate, Montini, his successor, would realise the programme of this Address, on each of its three levels:

a) The unity of Catholics, “firm and exemplary”, will be achieved amidst tears, acts of injustice and proscriptions perpetrated by the conciliar sect against “integrists”, traditionalists and reactionaries. Is this the work of the Holy Spirit? of love? of freedom? No, it is the Work of Satan.

b) The unity of Christians separated from the Apostolic See is as inspiring as the restrictions – placed by the dictatorial prophets of the Church of tomorrow, without parley or pity on those who adhere to the centuries-old Church of yesteryear – were gloomy. In fact, those who are “separated” from us pray and ardently desire “to be united with us” soon.

But there were a few misunderstandings.

The Church has always worked to “reunite” them, i.e., to bring them back into her fold, outside of which there is no salvation. In fact there was an increasingly strong trend towards conversions under Pius XII, particularly in the United States and the Netherlands. To curb this flood of conversions, the World Council of Churches (Reformed and, incidentally, Orthodox churches) proposed that the Catholic Church join this religious UN, on the understanding that, like the “Thingamajig” (as de Gaulle used to refer to the UN), all the Churches, communities and sects were to be admitted to it with equal duties and rights, and above all equal voting rights! Which one of these would end up devouring the others?

We shall see how puerile, how senilely puerile, John XXIII’s euphoria was. In the meantime, the Catholic Church would have grovelled before all those leaders of schisms and heresies who draw near to be embraced by the Pope and photographed with him, as equals. Consequently, from the time of the Pope’s October 11, 1962 speech, conversions ran dry in one fell swoop.

c) Finally, the non-Christians, defined by a process of elimination: all the rest, ‘everyone else!’ John XXIII and his co-author saw the rest of the world already united in a shared respect and esteem for our holy Church. There was some truth in this under Pius XII, as long as the old civilised world set the tone for the rest, for ‘everyone else!’ – the non-Christians.

But after Dien Bien Phu (1954), a pitiful defeat of a Catholic nation and of the French army in the face of a Bolshevism transformed into Asian brutality, and after our desertion of Algeria, to speak of respect and esteem for the Apostolic See on the part of hundreds of millions of Moslems, and of equal or even greater numbers of Chinese and “Soviets”! No! It is worse than a dream, it is a farce! John XXIII stuck to his opinion and took up his pen to write a touching fairy-tale. It is a blend of the dazzling glory of the preconciliar Church with this sinister Soviet-style propaganda that is the hallmark of the co-author:

“In this regard, it is a source of considerable sorrow,” Hans in luck dares to write, “to see that the greater part of the human race – although all men who are born were redeemed by the Blood of Christ – does not yet participate in those sources of divine grace which exist in the Catholic Church.”

It is serious. Well! The Pope is dodging the shock of today’s reality by raving about Saint Cyprian the Martyr who participated in the rise to power, glory and conquests of the Roman Church.

“Hence,” John XXIII explains, “the Church, whose light illumines all (it is the “electricity” fairy), whose strength of supernatural unity redounds to the advantage of all humanity (what a deceptive illusion), is rightly (!) described in these beautiful words of Saint Cyprian...”

I renounce quoting them. No, these words in the mouth of the destroyer of the Church do not pass muster. Moreover, everything that day belied them. We will quote them out of the text, because these words of John XXIII defile them, as does the prodigious oracle of this prophet of happiness. We are starting to become familiar with the two or three slogans of his marketing, which are skilfully enhanced by some superb maxim of the Fathers of the Church, from the time when the Church was beautiful.

“Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which, while bringing together the Church’s best energies (and while emptying her of the opposing forces, judged to be minor or insignificant) and striving to have men welcome more favourably the good tidings of salvation (now that we have the recipe!), prepares, as it were (as liars say) and consolidates the path toward that unity of mankind (take stock, after thirty-five years!) which is required as a necessary foundation (that is the heresy mentioned above), in order that the earthly city may be brought to the resemblance of that heavenly city...”

I interrupt to remind you that it is not the political, social, economic or cultural unity that will make the earth a Paradise regained, but faith in Christ the King and devotion to His almighty Mother, the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of us all.

Having restated this, here is the marvellous conclusion of this atrocious eulogy of the confusion of religions... “to the resemblance of that heavenly city where ‘truth reigns, charity is the law, and whose extent is eternity’ (Cf. Saint Augustine, Epistle 138, 3).”

Beautiful, isn’t it? But this is nothing more than the remains of a treasure taken from the destroyed Church and used to spice up a bit the architecture of our postconciliar churches and sermons with sumptuous decorations.

UNDER THE SUN OF SATAN

The Conclusion has a style, a composition, a lyricism, a freshness, and above all a luminosity that seems to spring from the people themselves, evoked in turn, or as if from a glorious light transfiguring even their sacred vestments and virtues. I am not laughing. I am transported by it. And I wish, reading it over and over again, that it were true. But it is one lie after another, the flattery, vanity, extravagance and bombast of an emperor who is about to die and who is already thinking of supplying them as hollow phrases and sublime sentiments to the Petronius● who will have to deliver his funeral oration, and propose to the Senate his divinisation, as will be only too true for John XXIII and Paul VI, lying eulogies that will soon be forgotten.

So, I would like you to hear him in the majestic course of his demoniac inspiration, only then to strip him of all his Comédie-Française (the French National Theatre) falbalas. Then, showing him naked, I would let you foresee the forthcoming death of both the old man and his illusions. May God grant that it not be the death of the Church!

1^o “Now, Venerable Brothers in the episcopate, ‘We have spoken to you with freedom’ (2 Co 6:11).” Yes and no. Yes, regarding holy Church, his pontifical ministry and God, Who will soon be his Judge: freedom, spontaneity, irresponsibility, for he will never accept the slightest remark on that score.

But on the other score! The unfortunate old man has brilliantly achieved all his illustrious ambitions, at the price, however, of an alienation, a subjugation that is now embodied in the secret leaders of the Modernist-Progressivist sect and in the periti, whose first draft he has copied word for word. So, the Pope is not speaking to us with freedom.

With that, begins his emphatic speech: “Behold, we are gathered together in this Vatican Basilica, upon which hinges the history of the Church where Heaven and earth are closely joined, here near the tomb of Peter and near so many of the tombs of our holy predecessors, whose ashes in this solemn hour seem to thrill in a mysterious exultation.”

This is a touching but abusive imagination. In the first place, the body of Saint Pius X, which has remained incorrupt, cannot give rise to this imaginative joy without blatant abuse. Nor can the other relics of holy Popes of all times. Not one among them could reasonably be expected to be in a state of holy elation at such a moment. From the outset, illuminism is on the side of imposture.

2^o There is something that is superhuman in the flight of eloquence. How can we remain unmoved by it? “The Council now beginning rises in the Church like daybreak, a forerunner of most splendid light. It is now only dawn. Already at this first announcement of the rising day, how much sweetness fills our heart (with such words, John XXIII never fails to score). Everything here breathes sanctity and arouses great joy (the mirage takes shape and gains strength). Let us contemplate the stars, which with their brightness augment the majesty of this temple. These stars, according to the testimony of the Apostle John Ap 1:20, are you!”

This would be shocking, even ridiculous, if this enormous flattery were not dressed up as biblical, evangelical, Johannine, which excuses it and even begins to give it some reality or truth in the Faith. But when we abuse the Faith, we fall into credulity… The speech is going to reinforce the idea:

“With you (the stars!), we see shining around the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, the golden candelabra (and indeed, there are some, of gilt copper). They are the Churches that are confided to you (ibid., which makes Saint John endorse the responsibility for this pure reverie). We see here with you important personalities, present in an attitude of great respect and cordial expectation, having come together in Rome from the five continents to represent their nations.”

These imaginations based on appearances would have no value were it not the fact that they come from John XXIII. On the other hand, if we were to follow the same Saint John in the same Apocalypse, all these heads of state, princes and other dignitaries, could evoke the Devils and ferocious beasts who, in the Apocalypse, succeed in being unleashed in the world against the male Child of the Woman and all Her progeny! The flattering poetry takes a tragic turn!

3^o We must therefore resist the pleasures of the ears and the imagination so as not to succumb to the urge that the Pope is forcing us to accept when he introduces the Holy Spirit of his own imagination into this great spectacle. Listen:

“We might say that heaven and earth are united (we know nothing about this!) in the holding of the Council – the saints of heaven to protect our work (not so sure!), the faithful of the earth continuing in prayer to the Lord (even less sure), and you, (I do not know...) seconding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (No, no and no again!) A Council has a negative assistance that preserves it from all error but never a functional inspiration of the Holy Spirit; here, John XXIII commits a sin of illuminism) in order that the work of all may correspond to the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world (this final wish is odious: it is not a question of God’s Will. Rather it is a question of corresponding to the whims and interests of the peoples who are not at all, in the present situation, in unison with either our God’s signified Will or His Will of Good pleasure).”

4^o Then, the Pope draws up the list of the required virtues that are all natural. None of them are theological, or even evangelical. These are perhaps reserved for the Table of contents of the Carnegie method:

The Pope specifies that “this requires of you serenity of mind, brotherly concord, moderation in proposals, dignity in discussion, and wisdom of deliberation.” To use a modern word: everything will be soft. The sect that will machine-gun the Assembly without measure, without stopping, can be sure of success, having only two thousand soft quilts in front of it.

There is no mention of love of the Cross, humility, courage, acceptance of persecution, defamation, absolute loyalty, what have you... in a word, of imitation of Jesus Christ.

5^o As always, it ends with a prayer that is all the more fervent as the rest of the speech has been odious. Here the prayer is touching and deceptive. Does the Pope not take the opportunity to affirm, (yes, to affirm!) that “in the basilica of Loreto” the Virgin Mary “gave us a particular proof of her love”! Then, he draws from this mystical event the holy (?) conviction that the Council’s works and efforts “toward which the eyes of all peoples and the hopes of the entire world are turned, may abundantly fulfil the aspirations of all.”