The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21^st Century

HE IS RISEN !

N° 114 – March 2012

Director : Brother Bruno Bonnet‑Eymard

---

Results of the Council:
the end of « Catholicism »

Documentation catholique published “Reflections on the Hermeneutics of Vatican II” by Fr. Daniel Moulinet. In four pages, it is an extraordinary confirmation of Fr. de Nantes’ accusations, written by a « specialist of the history of French Catholicism and professor at the Catholic University of Lyon » (Doc. Cath., 5 February 2012, pp. 145-148)

A MAN WITH A GOLDEN TONGUE

He begins by asking: What was the aim of the Council? It is difficult to say! « The inquiry into the intentionality of the authors of the conciliar texts is difficult but necessary. » What exactly did they want? In any case, they wanted something other than what had been planned: « the feeble influence of the preparatory period on the rest of the work » left the door open for « the doctrinal evolution of the Fathers », which was commanded by « John XXIII’s order for aggiornamento ». Yes, it was done by means of a hostile takeover plotted by Küng, Ratzinger and Congar, and carried out by Cardinal Linéart against Cardinal Ottaviani, the architect of the « preparatory period », who was forced into silence by « Cardinal Frings’ insolent bellringing » in the conciliar aula! (cf. Letter to My Friends n° 195, of 25 January 1965, p. 3) ! It finally triumphed with John XXIII’s support. This suffices to show that the Holy Spirit played no role in « the doctrinal evolution of the Fathers » !

As for « John XXIII’s order for aggiornamento », a sentence from his Opening Address, fraught with consequences, expresses it: « What is important for the ecumenical Council is that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be preserved and presented in a more effective manner. »

« The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine »: and not of Catholic doctrine; the adjective was the first step towards the Protestant ecumenism that would prevail at the Council.

Does this mean that in the end this aggiornamento had not succeeded in modifying the substance of the doctrine but only its “doctrinal” presentation? That was the question that Fr. de Nantes posed for fifty years. Fr. Moulinet should have been a Jesuit: « The order of pastorality should not be construed as minimising the theological impact of the Council. » If he had written « the doctrinal impact », he would have proved Fr. de Nantes’ accusations right. « Theological », however, lets it be believed that it amounted to a novelty comparable to that which distinguishes, for example, the theology of St. Bonaventure from that of St. Thomas Aquinas. In other words, that it is a question of Franciscan or Dominican « theology », but within Catholic doctrine…

Yet, when it comes to quoting the Opening Address of the second session in which Paul VI presented the Council as a « prophetic assembly », he admits the full truth, which Fr. de Nantes had already detected in John XXIII’s Opening Address, in which the Pope presents the conciliar assembly « as a second Cenacle ».

CONGAR’S FALSEHOOD

Was Vatican II a « prophetic assembly »? Fr. Moulinet writes: « Yves Congar attempted an approach to this new label that appeared in three Vatican II texts, which are called declarations. Referring to the one on religious freedom, he affirmed “that it was intentional and that it was indeed doctrinal”. »

That is an understatement. For if it were « prophetic », it would not only be “theological” or “doctrinal” but inspired!

« In his opinion, it assumed two elements: the Church chooses to address herself to all men and not only to the faithful. She does not define a new point but makes known her established position, even if it had not been made explicit previously. » You liar! It had been made perfectly explicit… and was condemned, in the same terms in which it is proclaimed today! This had been demonstrated by Fr. de Nantes at the very time of the Council, in his letter addressed to Archbishop Pailler on 22 July 1965 (see below).

ERRARE HUMANUM EST, PERSEVERARE DIABOLICUM.

Georges de Nantes formerly proved Yves Congar guilty of a bald-faced lie at Annecy, on 8 February 1977 (cf. Fr Congar at Annecy, CCR n° 84, March 1977, p. 1-5). Fr. Moulinet makes it his own and worsens it.

The fact that a monk from the Benedictine Abbey Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux could state: « against those who seek to devalue the authority of the conciliar texts, that they are endowed with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium »… only proves that this monk does not know what the ordinary Magisterium is. Even Fr. Congar never resorted to such an argument!

As for « Pope Paul VI’s letter to Cardinal Pizzardo on the occasion of the International Congress of Theology on the Council (21 September 1966) in which he presented the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council as being in continuity with the previous ecclesiastical Magisterium and as belonging to the Magisterium of the Church », it was nothing but a deception.

At the same time, Fr. de Nantes introduced his appeal to the Pope by a petition addressed to Cardinal Ottaviani on 16 July 1966 (Letter to My Friends n° 231) that opened a trial of which the preliminary was carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of which this cardinal was the pro-prefect. The trial was never concluded!

Thus, Fr. de Nantes’ accusation remains: the religious freedom proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council is a heresy.

It so happened that on that day, « 21 September 1966, at Assisi [at Assisi!], the Holy See granted permission for Holy Communion to be given to Barbarina Olson, a Presbyterian, on the day of her marriage. It did so without requiring her first to embrace the Catholic Faith and make her confession, as the newspapers reported. If it turns out to be true then we are going to have to conclude that Rome has lost the faith! »… Georges de Nantes just could not believe it!

« Among the ruins of the ramparts of Christendom and the deserted sanctuaries, a feverish activity is pitching the big tent of the great ecumenical circus called Masdu [one may as well say that in 1967 Fr. de Nantes foresaw the Assisi meetings!]. Religion – the true one! – and religions – all the sects more or less spiritualist or animist, even atheistic, indeed materialist ideologies, are invited into the great “Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy”. This muddle of religions is at the service of the builders of the tower of Babel.

« Let us motivate the revolutionary effort with our generosity; evangelisation will follow, without proselytism and without coercion! Humanity, the People of God, is uniting; let us enter into dialogue with men, our brethren, and all the rest will be added unto us! The year was full of meetings, interfaith organisations, ecumenical sessions, committees of religions and popular councils […]. For achieving this there are theologians, money, blessings and indulgences, newspapers and teams to raise cheers. Here, there is life, there is enthusiasm. Taizé, Cuernavaca, are the new poles of the religious world.

« Is it the Holy Spirit who is creating something new? If you scratch the surface, examine the financial resources, look hard at the organisers and the theoreticians, question the participants of these regular assemblies of the new universal religion, you would agree that it is quite simply the capital of nineteen centuries of Catholic faith that is being sold off in Festivals of the Federation ¹, before the Reign of Terror. » (Letter to My Friends n° 240, 6 January, p. 3)

VATICAN III FOR TOMORROW!

As for the Second Vatican Council itself, our Fr. Daniel Moulinet considers that « there may still subsist unresolved points, which could perhaps lead to subsequent work by another assembly. »

What good news! Vatican III… for tomorrow!

It will be necessary, however, to decide between the Tradition and Vatican II, for Fr. Congar was forced by Fr. de Nantes to recognise publicly that « the statement on Religious Freedom says something materially different from the propositions of the Syllabus » CCR n° 84, March 1977, p. 4)

The opposition is thus flagrant, the rupture obvious. It is not a question of « hermeneutics ». As Fr. de Nantes said to Fr. Congar, « it is our right and, if I am not mistaken, it is our duty to protest against what appears to us to be an alteration of our Catholic Faith until such time as the Pope or Council sovereignly settles the matter by means of the extraordinary Magisterium. »

An American Jesuit Father has written a thick book: What happened at Vatican II, 448 pages. With a consummate science, « in a meticulous manner », writes Isabelle de Gaulmyn in La Croix, this book brings to light, beyond polemics, « how the Council carried out a profound reform by drawing on the sources of the Tradition of the Church. This, incidentally, offers the best repy to all those who want to question its attainments today » (Thursday, 23 February 2012).

Really? What are these « attainments »? The drying up of vocations, empty churches and appalling scandals, the names of which I do not even want to write down? It is the « ruin » of the Church.

BENEDICT XVI, BANKRUPTCY MANAGER

Documentation catholique of 19 February 2012 published by way of a “Document”, again to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the text of a lecture given on 14 July 1966, seven months after the closing of the Council. It was given in the course of the eightieth German Katholikentag at Bamberg by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who was professor at Tübingen University at the time. Under the title “Catholicism after the Council”, this professor, who had been Cardinal Frings’ “peritus” at the Council, explains that the word “Catholicism” is the expression of an « ideology » characterised by « the fusion between the Church and society » that is inherited from the time of Christendom. Professor Joseph Ratzinger is very careful not to defend this sort of Catholicism and « the confusion with the temporal order as it existed in the Christian empire of the Middle Ages, which is so often criticised today ».

The remainder of the lecture consists in wondering what consequences can be expected from this calling into question of « “Catholicism” in the narrow sense of the term » by the Council, « for in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, in the fundamental reflection of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World and also, although in an awkward fashion at the outset, in the Decree on the Media of Social Communications, the Council took an interest in these problems ».

There followed an assessment under three headings, but it was preceded by a comparison between the conciliar Reform and the “Reform” of the Carmel by St. Teresa of Avila. It seemed to situate Fr. Ratzinger in the camp of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 16^th century with the saint, at the very moment when he was about to take a stand against that of the 20^th century. It was very cunning:

« Before her conversion, St. Teresa was in an avant-garde convent in which the annoying and out-dated rules of the enclosure had long since been interpreted in a liberal and modern spirit, and in which the nuns received as many visits as they liked. She was in a modern convent in which the sombre asceticism of the old rule had long since been replaced by a “more reasonable” way of life that responded better to the spirit of the men of this beginning of modern times. She was in a modern enclosure that was open to the world and she endeavoured to have friendly contacts with all sides. One day, however, she was inwardly struck by the proximity of Christ and the Gospel loomed up before her soul in all its inexorable reality, divested of all the sentences that make it dull; she then experienced this whole modern way as an intolterable flight from the greatness of the true mission and necessary conversion. She stood up and “converted”, that is to say she left the aggiornamento to one side in order to undertake a renewal that was not a concession, but a need to abandon oneself to eschatological deprivation by Christ, to let oneself be completely expropriated by the crucified Jesus, and in Him belong totally to the entire Body of Christ. »

In other words: to turn away from the world in order to turn towards God.

Fr. Ratzinger was voicing the opinion of a certain category of the faithful who were scandalised by the conciliar reform and who were wondering: « Has not the Council done the exact opposite? Has it not turned its back on conversion in order to go towards the perversion of the Church? »

Here is the answer given by the young theologian, become today our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

1. THE LITURGIC RENEWAL.

« The person who seriously considers the reality of the Christian liturgy cannot doubt that something important and great was done. He will refuse as superficial and unfounded the three objections that we hear constantly repeated against two fundamental elements of the liturgical renewal », namely, the use of the vernacular language, the importance given to the community, the war on holy images. To these three objections Fr. Ratzinger opposed « what Christian worship is by virtue of its nature », according to him:

« Christian worship is essentially the proclaiming of God’s good news to the assembled community. » This is the definition of Protestant worship! In those terms it is quite true that « the two fundamental elements of liturgical renewal » are 1^o the language used to make this proclamation, and 2^o the community to which the proclamation is addressed.

What does this “proclamation” consist of precisely? « It is the memorial of God’s salvific action, through which we remember what was accomplished and we unite ourselves to it. »

That is all? This Protestant definition of worship eliminates the action that Christ performs anew each time the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, which is the essence of our Catholic worship. It is replaced by « the proclamation of what Christ accomplished for us at the Lord’s Supper ».

What did He accomplish? Fr. Ratzinger does not say. Yet I, a member of the Catholic faithful, will tell you: at the Lord’s Supper, which took place on Tuesday evening according to our chronology of the Passion of the Lord, by instituting the Holy Eucharist, Jesus accomplished in advance the memorial of the Holy Sacrifice that He would offer on the Cross on Friday. By making the Mass a “memorial of the Lord’s Supper” as Luther did, Professor Ratzinger would transform the Holy Mass into the memorial of this memorial, which is stupid, and he refrained from doing so. He nevertheless persevered in the Protestant error:

« That is why, by purifying the word of its ritual character in order to give back to it its character as word, the liturgical reform accomplished an act of decisive importance. »

Indeed! It transformed our Catholic worship into Protestant preaching. Fr. Ratzinger’s tone then becomes aggressive. One might think that one were listening to Luther:

« Today we are become increasingly aware of all that, in the end, was nonsensical, doubtful and dishonest (sic!) when, before the Gospel, the priest asked God to purify his heart and his lips, as He had purified the lips of the prophet Isaiah with a burning coal, in order for him to proclaim the word of God with dignity and competence. »

What is the reason for this indignation against « the priest »?

« In fact, he knew full well that afterwards he was going to murmur this word of God for himself alone, without thinking of proclaiming it, just as he had murmured this same prayer. »

Here, it is Professor Ratzinger who proves himself “dishonest” by presenting things in this way. For the priest who was celebrating then explained this word of God from the pulpit…

The conclusion of the Protestant preacher:

« The liturgical reform did nothing other than to put the emphasis back on the seriousness of the word and, by the same token, on the worship linked to the word. »

Exit the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of which it will no longer be a question. It is only a question of « putting ourselves before the cutting edge of the sword of the word of God », of « celebrating the Lord’s Supper », but not of renewing the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross. And today this man is on the throne of Peter? Luther has won!

2. THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.

Fr. Ratzinger began by making himself the compliant echo of the evil spirit that pervaded the Church after the death of Pius XII.

That spirit was against « the pontifical encyclicals that were always written in the style of the curia, in the language of late antiquity, and with variations added by the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or the Baroque period ». The hypocrite! As though he were only criticising the form and not the substance of Quanta Cura and of its Syllabus!

It was against the traditional liturgy « and a pontifical High Mass of which the style evoked the Byzantine court, the Middle Ages or the Baroque period, which reflected antiquated pomp, and which appeared as a living museum of culture and worship throughout the ages, not as the expression of a worship intended for man today ». The cult of man, proclaimed by Paul VI is precisely that!

It was against « the Catholic theology that seemed linked to the forms of the Middle Ages and said nothing to modern man, and so on and so forth ».

Fr. Ratzinger did not react in the least against this blasphemous litany. On the contrary, he adhered to it unreservedly:

« Who would not have rejoiced to see the Council placing itself on the side of those who wanted to get rid of it, to to open the windows in order to shake out the dust of the past and let in fresh air? »

What is more, thanks to this great gust of wind, « we are rediscovering in the Incarnation a central aspect of Christianity, and we are making it the starting point of the whole theological construction. The concept of incarnation defines first of all the relationship of the Christian to God, the meaning of his attitude towards God. »

For Professor Ratzinger, the Incarnation is not a historical event, but a « concept ». What does this « concept » contain, what does it signify? « God became flesh; that means that He came out of Himself, that He descended and entered into the flesh of this world. »

« God became flesh ». What God? The God of Aristotle? Who? The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit?

God « in the flesh of this world »? How dreadful! And the virginal womb of Mary? This blessed Name did not even come to the mind of the lecturer. He would not pronounce it even once!

This is the Council through and through! « The God of the Christians, the God made man, is not a God of the other world, but precisely a God of this world. The Kingdom of Heaven proclaimed by Christ is truly an action of God that concerns this world, and not a place situated beyond it. »

This is how the Council closed Heaven to our generation! With Benedict XVI reigning, preachers no longer speak of Heaven, ever!

« This awareness led to a Christianity that is human, vital, open to the world, in a word, what we have become accustomed to calling an incarnated Christianity: a Christianity that is not lost in mortifications, flight from the world and expectation of the world to come, but that opens itself with sympathy to the world and fits itself into the life of today… »

Be careful! It is not a question of « a return to the Middle Ages, during which the interweaving of the priesthood and the empire represented a superior degree of the incarnation of Christianity, but which, precisely due to this interweaving, appears to us today extremely suspect and open to criticism. »

It was, however, the union of the soul and the body of Christendom; by tearing the soul from the body, the conciliar reform doomed the latter to death! We see this today with our very eyes in the Middle East, where the Christians who remain are disappearing. Soon, however, it will be the same for the Christians of our suburbs.

Benedict XVI persists in conniving at this massacre of the sheep by the wolves, and in denouncing « the grave dangers of mixing up the Church and the world », which, in Catholic language, is called the “consecration of the world” to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Doctor Ratzinger claimes, against all the evidence, that « new possibilities of freedom for the Faith » arose from « this new orientation », namely secularisation, and of laicism. to call it by its proper name.

In fact, thanks to « this new orientation », which Sister Lucy called « diabolical disorientation », Ratzinger the Reformer reckons that the Church is no longer subservient to the state, failing to see that, as a result, the “secular” state no longer recognises either God or master. Thus, it is no longer Christ who is King, it is money... even in the Church, where a new financial scandal in the Vatican is about to break in the next few days.

This was foreseeable, because to turn towards the world was tantamount to turning away from the scandal of the Cross. Ratzinger denies it, but the facts speak for themselves. He writes:

« When the Church turns towards the world, that cannot mean that she abolishes the scandal of the cross, but only that she makes it accessible once again [sic!] in its total nudity, by putting aside all the secondary scandals that were introduced in order to hide it, and in which unfortunately the folly of human egoism quite often conceals the folly of the love of God, giving a false scandal that wrongly takes shelter behind the scandal of the Master. »

Then follows an incredible diatribe in which the hatred of Ratzinger the reformer for the Church’s past explodes, and in which there can already be seen the future “repentances” for « the secondary scandal of those who preached the Faith [the missionaries of the far North!], a scandal that is absolutely not essential to Christianity, but that readily lets itself be amalgamated with the main scandal and likes to posture as a martyr… »

The Reformer should blame Cardinal Casaroli who, in his book “Martyrdom of patience”, really “postured as a martyr”, by giving this title to his policy of friendship with the Communist countries, a policy of treason that was the cause of the very real martyrdoms of millions of innocent victims. This scandal in actual fact went back to John XXIII, who sealed an understanding with Moscow not to condemn Communism at the Council!

« … when in reality it is only the victim of its own narrowness and its own stubbornness [this was really the case for Casaroli!]. There is a secondary scandal, completely fabricated and reprehensible when, under the pretext of defending God’s rights, one is only defending a specific social situation and the positions of strength that are established in it [Marxist analysis].

« There is a secondary scandal, completely fabricated and reprehensible, when under the pretext of protecting the inviolability of the Faith, one only defends his own nostalgia for the [Christian] past; when one defends not the Faith itself, which existed well before this past and its forms [in Christian Antiquity], but the forms that it took in the past [in the Middle Ages], out of a legitimate concern for responding to the needs of the time, forms that are now out-dated and that can in no way claim to be eternal. »

St. Pius X already condemned this progressivism: « You are the past; he wrote to the Bishops of France about the Sillonists, they are the pioneers of the civilisation of the future. » (25 August1910) This is exactly how Fr. Ratzinger continues:

« These is yet another secondary scandal, completely fabricated and reprehensible when, under the pretext of guaranteeing the integrity of the truth, one gives an eternal character to positions held by a particular faction that are imposed as self-evident at a certain era [the Catholic Counter-Reformation that arose from the Council of Trent], but which have long since been in need of being revised and reconsidered according to the specific requirements of what is original and authentic. »

It is Vatican II through and though : « what is original » is that which goes back to the Gospel, and what is « authentic » are the Acts of this Council

Fr Ratzinger then rebukes Fr. de Nantes, not openly but slyly:

« By going through the history of the Church, one can find many secondary scandals of this kind. All the courageous and firm non possumus were not a suffering endured for the unchanging frontiers of the truth; so many things in this sphere were only obstinacy in self-will, resistance to the call of this God who causes to slip from one's hands what one had taken in hand against His will. »

Hint hint: one year previously, our Father had delivered a « courageous and firm »» Non possumus against the conciliar Declaration on Religious Freedom (Letter to My Friends n° 209 of 22 July 1965). According to Fr. Ratzinger, this is the unbearable scandal of « obstinacy in self-will » (!), for Fr. de Nantes had not received a mandate to take in hand the defence of the Faith and Christendom.

« The danger, however, is that these secondary scandals continually become identified with the primordial scandal and impede access to it, and conceal it to the demands of its messengers »

« This is the true meaning of the aggiornamento of Christianity », which marks the end of Catholicism.

3. OPENING TO ECUMENISM.

This opening consisted in « going beyond the requirement of a pure and simple return »… of whom? … to what? Of the heretics and schismatics to the one fold of Christ. To say so clearly, however, would obviously cause a « secondary scandal » that would prevent « the possibility of a meeting that would not be absorption, but truly meeting in the truth and love of the Lord, who is above us all, who embraces and bears us all ».

Thus, the Catholic Church herself, according to Joseph Ratzinger, does not have the exclusivity of « the truth and love of the Lord ». Here again, in finding fault with this outmoded idea, Fr. de Nantes was only repeating St. Pius X who condemned the Sillonists: they « dream of establishing over Catholic Church, the reign of love and justice » (Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910, § 38).

Professor Ratzinger is well aware of this since he continues:

« Only ten years ago [in 1956, before the death of Pius XII], who would have dared to admit that in the official language of the Church we would begin to call Churches, in a fully conscious way, not only the Eastern Churches, but also the communities born of the Reform? » No one!

This is the conciliar denial: to use the word Churches the reformers for the creations of the reformers of the 16^th century! It is tantamount to calling “Mommy” the unknown woman introduced into the home by an adulterous father. It is understandable that Pope Benedict XVI, the unfaithful father, cannot bear our Catholic Counter-Reformation!

Our Father had already waxed indignant about the use of this term “Churches” in the plural that Paul VI had employed on 14 September 1964 in the conciliar aula. He wrote in his first Book of Accusation: « If there is One Church, it means there are not two. Unique and unified, the Catholic Church excludes by its very concept any other “Church. This is an article of divine Faith that attaches us to this unique Church as to the great and universal “Design of God in this world and in time”, and to the only human society that is the visible and mysterious Mystical Body of Christ. The rest is schism or heresy, vain human inventions that do not find favour with God [...]. What “brotherhood” can there be between the Church and dissident bodies? » (Liber I, 1973, p. 44)

Did St. Pius X, of whom our Father is the faithful heir, not recall that « Catholic charity alone can lead the peoples in the march of civilisation and of progress. »? (Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910, § 24).

Cardinal Ratzinger never replied to Fr. de Nantes, the faithful echo of St. Pius X’s condemnations. Here Ratzinger abruptly changes the subject: « There is no need to think about all that again and to repeat it. » Indeed! For if we were really to think about it, « who are these “separated brethren” in whom the Council is interested? », our Father asked. Here is the answer: « There are two classes of them: those who haunt work sessions of Churches and communities, of the wcc, and colloquia of Catholic – Protestant – Orthodox” theologians, and Assisi, etc. They are not babies who were baptised yesterday; they are not poor innocent people. They are the thinkers living on the goods of the Church that their founders formerly took with them into their rebellion.

« Ecumenism with these people is a hoax… to trick the Church and to sell themselves in their own community. Their faith belongs to their founder, to his false Gospel, to his disfigured Christ. Are we to call them already Catholic at heart and our brother “Christians”? They are ravenous wolves.

« To see the Pope and the cardinals currying favour with them makes me indignant. They deserve only anathemas, interdicts, or severe controversies with a view to confounding them and converting the faithful who come to listen…

« The other class is that of the poor people, who are lost in a crowd long since dominated by the heresiarchs and their successors. They receive the truth partially, a truth that has been tampered with. When they come to adulthood, these baptised persons, these readers of the Bible, these virtuous people profit from all that the Holy Spirit makes them savour. This has two consequences that have been verified by experience: the basis of their religion and the historical consequences of its foundation repel them and leave them utterly distraught; by leaving this aside they are unwittingly feeding on Catholic food, which is a means of salvation for them; and, second consequence, as soon as they enter into open and sincere contact with someone or something Catholic, they are drawn to conversion, as though they had always been Catholics at heart.

« Unfortunately, all the manoeuvres of the Catholic ecumaniacs run counter to this movement coming from the Holy Spirit, counter to God’s truth, to Christ, to the Catholic Faith, and to the Holy Spirit who is poured into the hearts of these poor souls – and not into those of the pastors of lies. » (Auto-da-fe, hir n° 66b Unitatis redintegratio)

It is impressive to compare Professor Ratzinger’s « very balanced speech », as Fr. de Nantes described it when he read it in Documentation catholique at that time, in September 1966, with the petition that he himself addressed to Cardinal Ottaviani on 16 July 1966, that is, two days after the conference of Bamberg! Contrary to the spirit of Reform that had been blowing a gale since Vatican II, Fr. de Nantes appealed to the Holy Spirit who « inspires all men, but more especially the faithful and still more the Pastors of the flock, with esteem, respect and love for all that is Catholic, and with a defiance, contempt and hatred for errors and disorders inimical to it. » (Letter to My Friends n°  321, p. 11).

GEORGES DE NANTES 
DOCTOR OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

Despite what Fr. Sesboüé may think, I know only one serious opponent of this apostate doctrine who fought it from the beginning. The beginning is the connivance of Fr. Ratzinger with Fr. Congar. We see them deep in conversation on the cover of Documentation catholique. Our Father was Fr. Congar’s opponent in 1950 and right to the end, since he sent me in 1990 to L’Hôtel des Invalides (a hospital and retirement home for war veterans) where this « father of the Fathers of the Council » was ending his days, in order to warn him that he would have to answer for all his lies before God’s tribunal, and to invite him to repent while there was still time.

The first controversy broke out when the Dominican’s disastrous book, True and false Reform in the Church, was published in December 1950. Georges de Nantes, who had been ordained two years previously, was twenty-six years old. He weighed up the danger of this grand project for the reform of the Church with a sort of premonition that led him to bring it to the attention of Rome, when he went there on pilgrimage for the beatification of Pius X on 3 June 1951.

Under the semblance of a sound and constructive reform, what Fr. Congar proposed was nothing less than a total and permanent revolution, which is what the Second Vatican Council achieved…

Under the pseudonym of Amicus, Fr. de Nantes wrote a review of the book for Aspects de la France which announced the devastating flood that we are witnessing today, in an analysis made clear-sighted by love: love of the Church, a living reality inseparable from each of its traits, which Ratzinger denies without qualms because he does not love the Church.

Fr. Congar’s argument that Amicus formulated and refuted is found in full in Professor Ratzinger’s lecture, unmodified!

« 1. Major theological premise: in the Church one must make the distinction between her structure, which is unchangeable, holy, inviolable, and her life, which remains sinful, outmoded and capable of being reformed. »

Elements that can be reformed include the out-dated “language” of the encyclicals, the “antiquated pomp” of pontifical High Masses, the theology of the Council of Trent, which Professor Ratzinger attacks, not to mention « the feather fans or the tiara, which moreover, made us want to laugh more than they made us feel proud ».

John XXIII, however, was very fond of them…

« 2. The minor dialectical premise: a continual reforming function is required, assumed by prophets in order to make life evolve and progress according to the requirements of history, especially in our times of accelerated evolution. »

An example of a prophet of the new times would be Professor Ratzinger...

« 3. Conclusion with a practical impact: a reform movement is now underway and is succeeding. We must therefore let the movement take its course, encourage it, and adhere to it. Furthermore, the true progressive movements in life are irresistible. »

Indeed, since the Second Vatican Council involved the entire Church in this “reform movement”, and since Professor Ratzinger has become Pope under the name of Benedict XVI… it is truly « irresistible »! Furthermore, there are no longer any opponents, since Fr. de Nantes is dead and buried, and we, poor apostles, his disciples, count for nothing…

Fr. de Nantes’ conclusion was that we would have to expect the terrible divine chastisement that would necessarily follow this denial of the entire holy, divine Catholic Tradition. Throughout the years that followed, our Father untiringly proclaimed it, following the thread of current events that he analysed each month with a meticulous rigour inherited from Charles Maurras but, in the end, he had to place himself « under the sign of the prophet Jonas ». On 1 January 2000, with France carried away with celebrating… and God not manifesting Himself: « Thus, God did nothing on 1 January. He let things take their course… We will always be prophets of woe who are in the wrong, for God has pity on them. [As he had pity on the Ninevites to whom Jonas had announced the destruction of Nineveh, which finally did not take place.] Let us also feel pity! » (CRC No 263)

The publication of the “”Third Secret” of Fatima provided our modern Jonas with the key to the enigma. He placed it on the lips of the Blessed Virgin, by writing a moving elegy, “Complaint of Love and Mercy of Our Mother,” dated 15 July 2000, which paraphrased the Secret that had been disclosed the previous 26 June. « I do not want to punish so many horrible crimes without our universal Charity first seeking to eradicate the evil and to procure the supreme good of Mercy and Pardon », Our Lady says. It is a « covenant of love » that is concluded between Her and Her Divine Son whereby « all My tears would pay for all the insults and infidelities, all the horrors and crimes that He would have to suffer for the forgiveness of sinners and. among them, for the souls closest to His pierced Heart! »

« It is this covenant of love that I showed on 13 July 1917 to the three children of My Heart, who immediately longed to participate in it through their devotions and sacrifices. »

« Imagine, My children, this tragedy in which I am in the Glory of God, as always; the Angel who guards the entrance of My dwelling seems to raise his flaming sword over the world to destroy it.

« God knows that he would have succeeded if, oh miracle! the kindling of the fire had not been stopped by the splendour and brilliant light coming from My right hand. »

This is our « anti-missile shield ». Thus it was that a deadly explosion destroyed last November the military base near Teheran that served as the centre of research and development for a missile with a range of 10,000 km destined to strike the United States… or Israel!

For the time being, the perspective of an Israeli raid against the Iranian nuclear installations is taking shape. When? In April, May or June, before Iran enters into what the Israelis call the « zone of immunity » to begin to assemble an atomic bomb? Russia appears to be the only moderating element, capable of becoming the instrument of God’s stalling tactics.

« Today Iran is the centre of international attention, Vladimir Putin remarked in an article, excerpts of which were published in Le Figaro of 28 February 2012. It goes without saying that Russia is concerned about the growing threat of a military attack against Iran. The consequences would be disastrous. The exact scale of such a scenario is unimaginable.

« This situation must be resolved solely by peaceful means. We suggest that the right of Iran to develop a civil nuclear programme, including the enrichment of uranium, should be recognised. In return, however, all the nuclear activities of the country must be submitted to the sound and comprehensive control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

« If this condition is respected, the sanctions against Iran, including unilateral sanctions, must be lifted. »

The only thing that is missing for the establishment of a “scenario” of peace is the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary… that is to say, the miraculous conversion of the Pope. In the meantime, here and now, Russia remains the only support for Christians of the East, both Catholics and Orthodox. Neither France nor even the Vatican are concerned with defending them. In fact, the Patriarch of Antioch and of all the Maronite East, whose see is in Damascus, fearing the consequences of the fall of the Bashar-al-Assad regime in Syria and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Libya and Tunisia, sounded the alarm, which was immediately denied by Western chancelleries and in particular by Nicolas Sarkozy. The Patriarch did not receive real support from the Vatican, but only from Russia: « The international community must work for internal Syrian reconciliation,Putin declared. It is important to obtain a rapid end to the violence, whatever its source, and to begin a national dialogue, without preconditions or foreign interference [as in Libya!], and in the respect of the sovereignty of the country. The first objective is to prevent a large-scale civil war. »

The support of Russia is so real that the visit of the ambassador of France to the Christian communities of Syria took place under Russian flags! The only thing that they are lacking is to be embossed with the Immaculate Heart of Mary!