Fortes in Fide, Vol. 1, No. 6
Printed Form-to-HTML Conversion

Now available in English Language:

Besides a dozen Gregorian Masses, contains several of the antiphons frequently sung during the liturgical year in homage to the Blessed Virgin Mary; various other useful chants such as the Te Deum and the Mass for the Dead; and also the integral Latin and English text of the Ordinary according to the Missal restored by St. Pius V.

$U.S.A.  4.50 each copy

[NOTE (1998):  The offer above is now obsolete.]

This review is translated from the French
and is printed in France.  We beg your indulgence
for any printing errors which may appear from time to time.


     In the preceding issue of this review (No. 5) we reported on the conspiracy plotted against the Roman Church, and we showed that all the wishes of the Masonic Sect having been fulfilled, and fulfilled in the manner desired by the Sect, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that the Church is under enemy occupation.
     The church is occupied, that is to say, to be precise, that the enemy has introduced himself within her, and has secured there the majority of the key positions.  In fact, it is only because the most important positions in the Church are in the hands of the enemy occupying her, that the wishes of the Sect have been able to be fulfilled "without rebellion", and "by lawful authority".
     This raises two questions:
     1. Might the Holy See itself be occupied by a member of the Sect?
     2. Have not the members of the hierarchy in high office, who have brought about all the reforms of the Sect, lost their legitimacy by imposing these reforms?
     We intended to give our answer in the present issue, but because of the gravity of the subject we must first re-state a number of important points in order to prepare our readers to understand and accept it:
     - concerning the sins of heresy and schism and their consequences with regard to membership of the Church;
     - concerning certain other subjects relating to the enemies who have invaded the Church.


     Like all sins, those of heresy and of schism lie in the first place in the will.
     These sins may very well not be manifested exteriorly.  Of this sort would be the sin of him who would accept voluntarily a thought or a true desire for heresy or schism. This then is a secret sin.
     As soon as the sin is manifested outwardly in any manner whatever, it becomes overt sin.  Of this sort would be the case of him who writes down or announces his heresy or schism.
     Overt sin is public when, of its very nature, it can be known.  Such, for example, is the sin of heresy or schism proclaimed in writing or before witnesses.
     Overt sin may have been shown outwardly, but not in the presence of any witness.  Such would be the case of a person who expresses his heresy or his schism in writing but does not publish it.  The sin is then secret per accidens, due to some particular circumstance.
     Overt sin is notorious when in fact it is known to a significant body of opinion.

*     *     *

     Let us now recall, for the various sins which a man can commit, the consequences of these sins in relation to his membership of the Mystical Body which is the Church.


     The members of the Church Militant, those who belong completely to the Church, are those who live with the Divine Life.  They are in the state of grace; they possess the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
     The sinful members, those who have lost only Charity, still belong to the Church, but not fully.  They still belong to her by Faith, by Hope and by submission to their legitimate pastors, but they are no longer in the state of grace.  They are in the Church without their wedding garment; their salvation is in great peril, but their peril would be very much greater still if they were to leave the Church.


     In addition to Charity, the sin of heresy - whether secret or overt - causes the loss of Faith and Hope; it destroys the supernatural organism and causes him who commits it to depart from the Church.  "Every fault, even a grave sin" teaches Pius XII, "does not of itself have the result - as have schism, heresy, or apostasy - of separating a man from the Body of the Church".(1)
     And thus, whoever wittingly refuses to hold for true and certain the whole or a part of the heritage received from Christ and faithfully transmitted, or who simply refuses to hold it for true and certain in the manner in which Tradition has always understood it, sins against the Faith.  "Indeed, such is the nature of the faith that nothing is more impossible than to believe this and to reject that ...  Whoever, even on a single point, refuses his assent to divinely revealed truths, in a very real manner renounces the faith completely, since he refuses to submit himself to God, inasmuch as He is the sovereign Truth and the proper motive of our faith." (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
     Leo XIII teaches further: "That is why the Church has regarded as declared rebels, and has driven far from her all those who did not think as she did on no matter what point of her doctrine.  Nothing could be more dangerous than those heretics who, guarding in all else the integrity of doctrine, by a single word, as by a drop of venom, corrupt the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received from the Tradition of Our Lord and the Apostles.  THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, BASED UPON THE UNANIMOUS JUDGEMENT OF THE HOLY FATHERS, WHO ALWAYS REGARDED AS EXCLUDED FROM THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION AND OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WHOEVER SEPARATED HIMSELF IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE FROM DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM." (Satis Cognitum.)
     Yes, whoever sins against faith separates himself from the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church, - "schism, heresy and apostasy separate a man from the Body of the Church" (Pius XII) - he leaves her and no longer forms a part of her, since "without faith it is not possible to please God" (St. Paul: Hebr. XI, 6).  The same is true of the sins of schism and apostasy.  And the rupture is brought about even if nothing appears exteriorly, since "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke XVII, 21), and the sins of heresy, of schism or of apostasy, like all other sins, lie in the first place in the will and may very well not be manifested exteriorly.(2)
     Nevertheless, and although the sins of schism, heresy and apostasy really separate (in reality, in the eyes of God) him who commits them from the Body of Christ, the Church being a visible society, the schismatic, heretic or apostate is still considered as a member of the Body of the Church, so long as no exterior act makes manifest this separation.
     This exterior act can be:
     - either a declaration by ecclesiastical authority,      - or a public manifestation of the sin of schism, heresy or apostasy.
     The Code of Canon Law declares: "He is to be considered a heretic who, having received baptism and bearing the name of Christian, obstinately denies or casts doubt likewise on one of the truths, which it is necessary to believe to be of divine and Catholic faith; as apostate, he who totally abandons the Christian faith -, as schismatic, he who refuses to submit himself to the Pope, or does not wish to be in communion with the members of the Church in submission to the Sovereign Pontiff." (Canon 1325, §2)
     The Code also declares that: "all apostates from the Christian faith, all heretics or schismatics, and each individual one of them, incur ipso facto (by that very fact), the excommunication especially reserved to the Holy See for the internal forum." (Canon 2314)
     "Secret heretics have perhaps not performed any exterior act capable of drawing upon themselves a canonical sentence of excommunication.  But they have excommunicated themselves, in a more profound, and as it were theological manner, in the silence of their hearts." (Card. Journet, Vol. II, p. 821.)
     This traditional doctrine was recalled by Pope Pius IX, in his Bull Ineffabilis Deus: "This is why, should there be any persons, which God forbid, who have the presumption to hold opinions contrary to what we have just defined (the Immaculate Conception), they should know very clearly that THEY CONDEMN THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT, THAT THEY HAVE COME TO THE SHIPWRECK OF THEIR FAITH AND HAVE ABANDONED THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH." (Denz. 1641.)
     Those who are only secret heretics per accidens are in fact manifest heretics.  Their exterior act, although accidentally unknown, constitutes an offence which ipso facto causes its authors to fall under excommunication. (Journet, op. cit., p. 1064.)


     We have just recalled that it is the constant doctrine of the Church that the heretic, the schismatic and the apostate, in committing their sin, even in a secret manner, excommunicate themselves; they belong no longer to the Church since by these sins they depart from her.  Nevertheless, since no-one - apart from God Who knows all things - knows of their sin of heresy, schism or apostasy, so long as these sins remain secret, these sinners are still considered by men as belonging to the Church, even though - and we repeat it - by the fact of their sin they belong to her no longer, and have left her.
     If it should happen that these secret heretics, schismatics or apostates are principal members of the Church (bishops, priests, a pope), since their excommunication is known only to God, and men consider them still to be principal members because they themselves continue to act as such, they are in fact and in the worst sense of the word hypocrites.  They are able thus, without awakening suspicion, to continue to exercise their functions in the Church.  The question then arises, what is the effect on the efficacy of their ministry?  Is it valid, or is it invalid?  In the case of ministries which engage the powers of order(3) only, there is no doubt at all that they are validly exercised, although in an illicit manner.  In exercising them, such men commit sacrilege, but the objects of their ministry receive them efficaciously.
     What of the ministries which require powers of jurisdiction?(4)  Having fallen into secret heresy, do priests or bishops or the pope retain their powers of jurisdiction, or do they lose them?
     "Some theologians have thought, with Turrecremata, that secret heretics lose, by the fact alone of their offence, the powers of jurisdiction which they may previously have possessed.(5)  But the majority of theologians think, with Cajetan, that since such heretics have not shown their heresy exteriorly, and since the Church does not judge acts which are wholly interior, but reads the interior situation only by means of the exterior, it must be held:  1°) that secret heretics are not ipso facto(6) excommunicated;  2°) that for still stronger reasons, they do not ipso facto lose their powers of jurisdiction.  The Church having conferred these powers upon them by an exterior delegation, the powers subsist so long as she does not revoke them exteriorly by a sentence." (Journet, L'Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Vol. II, p. 1063.)
     In spite of appearances, it seems that there is no opposition between the opinions of Turrecremata and Cajetan.  In fact, if, so long as their sin is secret, heretics, schismatics and apostates are not canonically excommunicated, they are so before God.  Excommunicated in this way, they have lost all jurisdiction, since there is an incompatibility between jurisdiction and heresy, schism or apostasy.  "In those who separate themselves from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those remain within the Church." (J. Driedo)  Nevertheless, the Church - a visible society, not judging acts which are purely interior - considers secret heretics, schismatics and apostates as principal members and holds their jurisdictional ministry to be valid (as if they still had jurisdiction), because she supplies the deficiency in the jurisdiction which they have lost by reason of their crime which has remained secret.


     As our readers will remember, this question has already been examined in issue No. 5 of this review.  In that issue, on the inspiration of the excellent work of the Brazilian, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, we set out the five opinions which were discussed by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.  In this present study, we shall take up again what we said then in order to add to it certain other matters which will clarify the problem posed by the eventuality of an heretical Pope.
     All the Fathers of the Church teach that "open heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction".  Vidigal tells us that this is also the judgement of recent doctors: "heretics and schismatics remove themselves of their own accord from the Church and oppose themselves to her ...  In those who separate themselves from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who remain within the Church" (see Fortes in Fide No. 5, p. 41).
     Since manifest heretics leave the Church and lose ipso facto all jurisdiction, what then of a Pope who becomes a heretic?  Does he lose the papacy by the very fact of his heresy?  How are we to understand the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine: Papa haereticus est depositus?
     Here we shall go on to set out two interpretations; that of Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., and that of Arnaldo Vidigal.

*     *     *

     For Father Guérard des Lauriers, it is advisable to remind ourselves first of all that, among the principal members of the Church, the Bishop of Rome is of an order distinct from all others.  No doubt, from the point of view of the sacrament of Orders, the Pope possesses no more than other bishops.  But from the point of view of his office, as the Bishop of that Church which is "Mother and Mistress of all the other Churches", he is distinguished from all the other bishops by the Supreme Pastorate: he is the Bishop of Bishops, the Pastor of Pastors and the Doctor of Doctors.
     What is the role of Pastors in the Church if not first and foremost to teach the faith, to be the Doctors (the Teachers) of their Church?  The Pope, the Supreme Pastor, is by that very fact the Supreme Doctor, as the First Vatican Council asserts (Denz. 3068, 3074).  This magisterial power(7), which culminates in the personal charism of infallibility, but which is also exercised independently of this charism, the Pope possesses on behalf of the Universal Church.
     For the purpose of feeding effectively the flock entrusted to their care, the Bishops, in addition to the doctrinal power which makes of them participators in the prophetic power of Christ, possess, each in his own particular church, a power of government which makes of them participators in the power of Christ the King.  Charged with feeding Our Lord's entire flock, the Pope likewise possesses, in addition to the supreme magisterial power (Doctor of Doctors), a direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church and over every individual member of her.
     The power of jurisdiction is subordinate to the magisterial power; it is at its service.  Indeed, it is in order that he may effectively teach the sheep as well as the lambs (John XXI, 15-17), that Our Lord entrusted to him a direct power of jurisdiction over the entire flock, and over each particular member of it.(8)
     For magisterial power, the faith is an absolute necessity.  Christ did not entrust this power to Peter and his successors in order to teach new doctrine, but to preach that which He revealed to them: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. XXVIII, 19-20).  Like all bishops, the Bishop of Rome must begin by receiving the word of God, in order to be able to transmit it in his turn.(9)  To receive the word of God is to believe it.
     For Father Guérard des Lauriers, in becoming a heretic the Pope loses ipso facto his magisterial power.  How indeed, without the faith, could he be Doctor Doctorum?
     Being no longer capable of exercising his magisterial ministry, he loses, by this very fact, his power of jurisdiction, which is subordinate to the magisterial power.
     Thus in losing the faith, in falling into heresy, the Pope is no longer capable of exercising his specific function: Pastor and Doctor of the Universal Church; in consequence he loses the papacy ipso facto even before his heresy becomes public.(10)

*     *     *

     The opinion of Arnaldo Vidigal is as follows (Implicaciones Teologicas y Morales del nuevo "Ordo Missæ", pp. 177 sqq.):
     "Scripture and Tradition show clearly the profound incompatibility, from the very roots, between the condition of the heretic and the possession of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, since the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church.
     "The incompatibility is such that normally the heretical state cannot exist with the retention of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  Nevertheless, this incompatibility is not absolute, it is not such that in every case and immediately, he who falls into internal, or even external heresy, is ipso facto deprived of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
     It is for this reason that we do not speak of an absolute incompatibility but of a root incompatibility.  Heresy cuts the root and the foundation of jurisdiction, it breaks the faith without which one cannot be a member of the Church.  But it does not, however eliminate jurisdiction ipso facto and necessarily.  Indeed, in the same way as a tree may continue to live for a while after its roots have been cut, so in many cases jurisdiction may continue in its possessor, even after his fall into heresy.  Nevertheless, in the person of the heretic, jurisdiction is held only precariously, in a state of conflict, and only in the degree required by a definite and evident need dictated by the good of the Church or of souls.
     "Consequently, on the subject of the jurisdiction of the heretic, it is possible to say: Cut off from its roots, the jurisdiction of the heretic subsists only in so far as it is upheld and supplied by a superior.  Thus, for the good of souls, and to safeguard juridical order within the Church, the Pope maintains the jurisdiction of the heretical bishop before his canonical removal from office."
     In the case of the Sovereign Pontiff falling into heresy, what superior can maintain his jurisdiction?  Is it the Church?  Quite clearly not, since the Church is not superior to the Pope.(11)  Is it Christ?  Yes, in so far as it is licit to attribute to Him the intention of maintaining jurisdiction in the person of the heretical Pontiff.
     Here a question arises which Vidigal calls "the central question".  It is this:
     Are there any circumstances in which one could or ought to say that Our Lord has decided to maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a Pope who is possibly a heretic?
     As nothing exists on this subject either in Scripture or in Tradition, Vidigal subjects it to a process of reasoning:
     "The Church is a visible and perfect society.
     "Now the acts of the official and public life of a visible and perfect society are juridically accomplished only when they are well-known and publicly divulged.
     "On the other hand, the loss of the sovereign pontificate is an act of the public and official life of the Church.
     "Therefore the loss of the sovereign pontificate is juridically accomplished when it is well-known and publicly divulged."

*     *     *

     Father Guérard des Lauriers does not accept this opinion.
     With the whole of Tradition, he thinks that an heretical Pope loses his jurisdiction ipso facto.  He loses it even before his heresy is well-known and publicly divulged.  And this because the power of jurisdiction being subordinate to the magisterial power, and this latter being conditional on the faith, the faith is thus clearly a "sine qua non" of jurisdiction.
     In falling into manifest heresy, even before his heresy becomes public, a Pope loses his office.
     What needs to be declared, what has become public, is that the Pope has lost his jurisdiction from the moment he fell into heresy, since the effect of his heresy is retroactive.
     While for A. Vidigal it is necessary to divulge the heresy of a Pope, so as to make it public and well-known, in order to cause him to lose the papacy and to rid the Church of him, for Father Guérard des Lauriers, revealing the heresy of the Pope serves only to make known the retroactive effect of his crime, which is the loss of the papacy by the man who apparently occupies the papal chair.
     Undoubtedly, so long as the heresy of a principal member is unknown, so long as it is "secret per accidens", or that a sentence of excommunication is not imposed, the authors admit that the Church would supply in order to validate the acts of this prelate which relate to the power of jurisdiction which be no longer possesses.
     Father Guérard des Lauriers admits that Christ supplies for the jurisdiction of a Pope who falls into heresy, but solely for acts which concern the communication of grace, which is the very object, the reason itself, for the existence of the whole Church, never for the exercise of magisterial power.
     Besides, if one admits that Christ supplies for the jurisdiction of an heretical Pope, it is surely because one admits at the same time that an heretical Pope has lost his jurisdiction in losing his faith; otherwise, why supply for it?
     Further, when considering an heretical Pope, let us not forget that his case is different from that of all other heretical bishops, for the Pope alone is Doctor Doctorum.
     The heresy which causes him to lose radically the magisterial power, in consequence causes him to lose his power of jurisdiction, since the latter is subordinate to the former.
     In conclusion, the position of Father Guérard des Lauriers terminates in exactly the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine: by falling into heresy, a Pope loses ipso facto the sovereign pontificate.  "Papa haereticus est depositus".

*     *     *


     At first sight, the possibility of the Pope falling into schism seems absurd.  Indeed, what is schism if not the rupture between one of the faithful and the Pope?  And how can the Pope break away from himself since "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: WHERE PETER IS, THERE IS THE CHURCH"?
     Nevertheless, in spite of its apparent impossibility, a number of authors have held to this hypothesis and have studied it.  We give here some of their conclusions.

     " ... Equally there would be schism if a person separated himself from the Body of the Church by refusing to communicate with her by participation in the sacraments ...  The Pope could become schismatic in this manner if he did not wish to be in normal union with the whole Body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as Cajetan and Torquemada observed, IF HE WISHED TO OVERTURN ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES BASED ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION."

     Jean de Torquemada(12) was a valiant champion of pontifical prerogatives in the 15th century and the author of works on the Church whose arguments still carry authority (his Summa de Ecclesia, writes Father Y. Congar, is a treatise "of real and lasting value").
     To show that a Pope can separate himself in an illicit manner from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the Head of the Church, Cardinal Torquemada develops three arguments.  Here are the first two:
     1. ... By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ as Principal Head of the Church since it is in relation to Christ that the unity of the Church is primarily constituted.  And the Pope can separate himself either by disobeying(13) Christ's law, or by ordering something contrary to the natural or divine law.  In acting thus, the Pope would separate himself from the Body of the Church, in as much as this Body is subject to Christ by obedience.  In this manner, the Pope could without any doubt fall into schism.
     2. The Pope can also, without any reasonable cause, but of his own free will, separate himself from the Church and from the college of priests.  He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles (according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11), or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See, above all in that which concerns divine worship; for example in being unwilling personally to observe that which concerns the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship.  This would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons "Quæ ad perpetuum", "Violatores", "Sunt quidam" and "Contra statuta" (25 q.1).  By thus setting himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the universal observances of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism.  The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church.  Because of this, Innocent I declares (C. De Consuetudine) that one must obey the Pope in all things, so long as he does not go against the universal order of the Church, since in that case (if he goes against the universal order of the Church) the Pope ought not to be followed unless there is a reasonable cause for doing so.


     The authors who admit that a Pope can fall into schism do not in general doubt that in this case he loses his office.  The reason for this consequence is clear: schismatics are excluded from the Church in the same manner as are heretics.
     On this subject, the only exception among the theologians is Suarez.  According to him, the schismatic Pope is not and cannot be deprived of his office. His opinion cannot be accepted since it rests on a proposition of his own but which is nowadays rejected by all theologians, namely, that even public schismatics do not for all that cease to be members of the Church.
     Since this single exception cannot be accepted, let us borrow from Cajetan the conclusion of the common opinion: "The Church is in the Pope when he conducts himself as Pope, that is to say, as head of the Church; but in the case of his refusing to act as head of the Church, the Church would not be in him, nor he in the Church."

*     *     *

     Here it is timely to recall certain general truths: "Whoever persists in schism cannot be distinguished in practice from a heretic." - "Schismatics have always been ready to fabricate some heresy or other to justify their separation from the Church." - "Schism predisposes to heresy."  Let us remember also that according to the Code of Canon Law and to the natural law, the schismatic is suspect of heresy.


     Everything which has been said above concerning the loss of the sovereign pontificate by an heretical Pope is valid for a Pope who becomes schismatic.  Given that a schismatic is excluded from the Church in the same manner as a heretic, if a Pope has the misfortune to fall into schism, he loses his office ipso facto, since it is quite clear that he cannot be the Head of the Church who no longer belongs to the Church.

"The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it."
St. John Fisher to his apostate colleagues.



     The devil exists and the struggles of the last days have begun (read our issue No. 5, p. 3).
     The devil is often the ape of God.  Just as God ordinarily acts by means of secondary causes: the Prophets, the Doctors and all those whom He inspires and assists more especially with His almighty power, communicating to them the power to perform miracles and to prophesy, so also the devil most often acts by means of men whom he inspires and whom he assists more especially.  Despite his fall, the devil has retained the qualities of his archangelic nature.  By the power which God temporarily leaves to him over the world of which he is the Prince (John XII, 31), the devil, who was cast down to earth with his angels, knowing that little time remains to him, wages war on the Saints with great fury and great guile.  Well knowing that if he showed himself, his action would have an effect contrary to the one he seeks, he conceals himself to the greatest possible extent, and to achieve this he generally acts by means of men whom he inspires and assists with his archangelic power.  These men are his tools.
     To this point we should pay close attention.  It is a mistake to think that diabolic possession consists in the peculiarities of behaviour which exorcisms disclose.  A tool of Satan, one possessed by Satan, does not necessarily present himself as wildly demented.  A tool of the devil, one possessed by Satan, may very well not believe in the existence of the devil.  The tool, the man possessed, is first and foremost a man won over to the ideas, the spirit, the mentality of the world whose Prince and animator is the devil.  The devil's tool can very well be the devil's agent without suspecting it.  "He that committeth sin is of the devil", says St. John in his first epistle (III, 8), that is to say that he is under his influence, and the devil, particularly if the sinner, abusing grace, sins against the light, can very well enter into his mentality, to inspire and assist it without the subject realizing that he is under the guidance of the devil.  Is it not thus that the Church has always shown us the masonic sects and revolutionaries to be the tools of the devil?


     Through the secret documents which fell into the hands of the Church, and which were published on the orders of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, we have learned what the Sect proposed to do in order to destroy the Church: to prepare everything in order that one day the Church should be directed by "a Pope of theirs".  He would not necessarily be a scandalous Pope or a freemason, but a Pope "imbued with masonic principles", a Pope "accomplishing himself the revolution of the Church".
     That this Pope should in fact belong to Freemasonry, initiated and affiliated in it, seems not to have interested them particularly.  What they promised themselves, what they worked for, what they sought and waited for "as the Jews await the Messiah" was "a Pope according to their needs".
     The first question which I must answer, would the Holy See itself be occupied by a member of the sect, must therefore be understood thus: is Giovanni Battista Montini, who at present occupies the See of Peter under the name of Paul VI, the Pope whom the Sect has awaited as the Jews await the Messiah?  Is he this Pope "imbued with masonic principles", spoken of by the Sect?  Is he this Pope "accomplishing himself the revolution of the Church"?  In a word, is he the Pope who answers the needs of the Sect and who does the work of Freemasonry?
     Let us say once more that whether or not he is affiliated to some Bnai Brith is a question of relatively secondary importance.  Undoubtedly we would like to know, and not only from simple curiosity, if in fact G. B. Montini has been affiliated to some sect, but apart from a revelation who will be able to tell us for certain?  That is why we consider the question secondary.  On the other hand, what is indispensable for us, is to know if G. B. Montini is the Sect's man, that is to say if he has the spirit of it, the mentality, if in fact he is carrying out their plan.
     I will go still further; if by any remote chance Paul VI was in perfect good faith(14), if in subjecting the Church to a revolution he truly thought he was rendering glory to God, that would not change the reality.  And in reality, in fact, Paul VI would still be the Pope of the Sect if he had their mentality, if he carried out the plans of his enemies.  On these grounds alone we would have the duty of denouncing, resisting and combatting him.


     With the object of one day seeing a Pope of theirs occupying Peter's throne, the men of the Sect prepared for him a generation, a whole clergy who "in the nature of things will infiltrate every office" and who will be "called upon to choose the Pontiff who must reign".  So, far from being astonished at it, we may be very certain that the day a Pope of theirs occupies the See of Peter, a large part of the Hierarchy in important positions will also be infected with the ideas of the Sect.
     There again, it matters little whether this bishop or that, this cardinal or another, are affiliated to some secret society; what we must watch and seek for, because it is of the greatest importance, is to discover if the members of the hierarchy holding high office today are or are not infected with masonic principles.  Just as those who have the spirit of Jesus are truly of God, so those who have the masonic spirit are truly of the Sect.  Here let us recall Paul VI's admission, reported by the President of the Swiss episcopal conference, Nestor Adam: "Our faith is in danger ...  Within the Church herself, the true faith is fiercely attacked more or less openly."  If the faith is in danger even within the Church, it is because there are Pastors in the Church who no longer have the Catholic faith. (Bulletin of the diocese of Sion, 11 Nov. 1967.)


     In the present crisis, we are not confronted by what we might call the usual enemies, declared heretics or apostates openly attacking our faith as a whole, or simply on certain points.  We are confronted by modernists, which is to say by "the worst enemies of the Church" (St. Pius X).
     The perversity of these new heretics is manifold:
     -  by the extent of their attacks: they question all our beliefs      -  by the perfidy of their assaults: they attack "the very root (of religion) that is to say the faith in its deepest fibres" (St. Pius X);      -  by the hypocrisy of their conduct:  Let us not forget that "a modernist is a heretic and also a traitor" (Father T. Calmel).  He is in truth "the ravenous wolf clothed in the garment of the shepherd".  Let us consider this last characteristic a little further.
     With the modernists, psychological warfare is being imposed on us. It is a war in which we find great difficulty in locating the enemy since the enemy is everywhere, and everywhere so well concealed that we find him nearly always where we least expect to meet him.
     The perversity of the modernists is augmented by their use of dissimulation.  Modernist pastors truly are "the ravening wolves who come to you in the clothing of sheep" (Matt. VII, 15).  They have nothing of the pastor but the "clothing", that is to say that which covers and conceals them.  In reality they are "ravening wolves, lupi rapaces".  And, through St. John Jesus tells us that they have come into the sheepfold "to steal and to kill and to destroy" (John X, 10).
     Let us clearly understand the warning of Our Lord.  If we believe it, these wolves will come to us "in the clothing of sheep".  By "clothing" we must understand not only the manner of dressing, but everything which is capable of concealing nakedness, that is to say everything capable of deceiving the faithful by hiding the nature of the wolves, and by causing them to be mistaken for Pastors.
     Now what deceives simple people more easily than language?  It is quite obvious that if heretical bishops or an heretical pope uttered only masonic declarations and discourses, which were openly heretical they would deceive no-one.  In order to be mistaken for a pastor, in order to deceive the faithful, the modernist wolf must conceal his wolf's identity under orthodox appearances and declarations, and Catholic discourses.  That is why Jesus took care to add: "by their fruits you shall know them".  He did not say, and we emphasize it, "you will recognize them by the orthodoxy of their words, of their profession of faith, or of their Credo", but "you shall know them by their fruits" ("a fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos"). (Mt. VII, 16)


     Like marxism, with which it has a number of affinities, modernism is a praxis.  It is a heresy of action rather than of words.

     Generally modernists do not openly deny dogmas, they prefer to cast doubt on them under the pretext of research.
     Under the pretext of adaptation to the modern world or of greater charity, they remain silent about some dogmas because for them these truths, too "abrupt" or too "definite", wound the separated brethren and hinder dialogue.
     When they do proclaim doctrine, they hasten immediately afterwards to act against it, well knowing that actions create habits which change the mentality, and through that the faith.  "Do that and this will follow", and then authority will align the doctrine with the practice.
     Similarly, whenever in order to cover themselves they recall doctrine, the wolves take great care, contrary to the constant practice of true pastors, not to accompany the reminder of the doctrine with condemnation of those bold enough to deny it.
     In the face of this dissimulation by the modernists, it would therefore be a mistake, laden with serious consequences, merely to treat these wolves like classic heretics, that is to say, to content ourselves with their profession of Catholic faith, with their recital of a Credo, before believing in their orthodoxy.  In addition to a profession of Catholic faith, we must demand the explicit condemnation of the opposing errors, and we must not forget that this type of heretic reveals itself more by acts and behaviour than by declarations.


     Let us point out another factor which makes the present struggle more difficult: the world about us.
     First of all there is this modern world we live in.  Grossly materialistic, supersaturated with naturalism and sensualism, it is radically opposed to all Christian life.  "Make vicious hearts, and you will have no more hearts." (The Sect.)
     In addition to the world in general, there is the world of Christians close to us.  There again our faith is in danger, and not only because of bad bishops and bad priests, these wolves in sheep's clothing, but also because of the peril caused by the liberalism which prevails more and more in Christian circles, and which each one of us carries more or less within himself.  Let us not forget the plan of the Sect.  In order to destroy the Church, their ambition is to see reigning a Pope of theirs.
     To obtain this Pope, they have prepared for him an entire new clergy, priests, bishops and cardinals tainted with masonic principles.  But since "the priest is a man taken from among other men", the Sect has begun by putting its hand on youth and on childhood, in order to prepare a kind of new man, liberal man, set free of all authority outside himself.
     Foreseeing our danger, Our Lord who left us in the world, forewarned us that we were not of it and He prayed His Father to guard us from the devil who is the Prince of this world in which He left us.  Faithful to her Master, the Church has always forbidden her sons to frequent not only secular universities, but also secular colleges and schools.(15)
     Unfortunately, Catholics have in fact attended secular establishments; they have read the secular press, and this secular climate, which is one of practical atheism and liberalism, has permeated almost all Catholics for several generations.  What Catholic "integrist" at the present time, examining himself carefully, does not discover himself to be "liberal" on one point or another?  We can safely say that Catholics, priests, bishops and faithful, who in practice are not anti-liberal, are liberals without realizing it.  They constitute, perhaps unconsciously, the fifth column which carries the spirit of the Sect.


     We shall now go on to answer the question(16) which we have raised: is the Holy See at present occupied by a member of the Sect (of Freemasons)?
     Without hesitation we answer: YES.
     By that we mean: Paul VI, "steeped in Masonic and humanitarian principles", is indeed the Pope whom the Sect has awaited, "as the Jews await the Messiah".  In truth, as the Sect intended, Paul VI has, in the space of a few short years, carried out the most profound and extensive destruction of the Church in all her history.  In so doing,

     Having lost his office but still occupying the See of Peter, he is not a false pope, but an anti-pope.


     According to Catholic theology accepted by the Church(17), it would be possible for a Pope to become schismatic if, among other things, "he sought to overturn all the ecclesiastical ceremonies based upon the Apostolic Tradition." (Cf. Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada.)
     Let us note well that for these theologians, accepted by the teaching Church, changing "the ecclesiastical ceremonies based upon the Apostolic Tradition", is sufficient in itself to commit the sin of schism.
     Now, as we have often publicly asked, is there any rite that Paul VI has not overturned?
     The ecclesiastical ceremonies of baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist and penance, extreme unction and orders have all been overturned.(18)
     By the Novus Ordo Missæ Paul VI has on his own admission broken with Tradition.  (See the French review Forts dans la Foi, No. 46, p. 257, article by Fr. G. des Lauriers, O.P.)  Indeed, as A. Vidigal very justly remarked concerning the Novus Ordo Missæ: "The trend towards 'desacralising' the liturgy has no foundation in Tradition; very much the reverse, for it constitutes a formal and violent rupture with all the rules which until now have directed Catholic worship".(19)
     On top of this general upheaval, what seems to us graver and even more calculated to produce schism, is the fact that Paul VI has forbidden the ancestral rite of the Mass, the essential part of which comes down from the time of the Apostles.  Here let no one object that the traditional Mass has not been forbidden on the juridical plane.  He has forbidden it in the Modernist manner, in a hypocritical and equivocal manner(20): in practice, that is, rather than in writing.  And in fact, in every church, including his own St. Peter's in Rome, the rite called that of St. Pius V is strictly forbidden.  Here and there throughout the world priests have been dismissed from their parishes for the sole reason - now become a crime - of their fidelity to the rite of St. Pius V.  Paul VI knows all this and consents to it by his guilty silence.  "Qui tacet consentire videtur - silence gives consent."
     Paul VI has not been content with the overthrow of all the ecclesiastical ceremonies based on Apostolic Tradition; he has also changed, always in the Modernist manner, that is with much guile and equivocation, by deeds rather than in definitions, the constitution of the Church.  Henceforward, in place of a Sovereign Pontiff and a true Episcopate subordinate to him, the Church has been democratised; the power of the bishop in each diocese is, in practice, destroyed by the councils of priests, and by the national episcopal conferences.  The power of the Sovereign Pontiff is inhibited by the permanent secretariat of the Synod of bishops.
     Finally, contrary to natural and divine law, Paul VI, while still occupying the See of Peter, has abandoned the effective government of the Church.  There again, in thus breaking with Tradition, Paul VI has acted in the Modernist manner: on the one hand, in spectacularly laying aside and selling the tiara, symbol of the supreme authority of Peter, on the other, in instituting "a period of greater liberty in the life of the Church".  To make it quite clear that he wanted this liberty also for the heretical destroyers of the Church, he declared in the same discourse: "Formal discipline will be reduced, everything arbitrary will be abolished ... all intolerance and all absolutism will also be abolished", (9 July 1969).  And in fact, Paul VI has abolished the Index, the Holy Office, the anti-Modernist oath and the profession of faith of the Council of Trent - and that at the very moment when he acknowledged "a renewed outbreak of Modernism in the Church".

     By all the changes which overthrow the Holy Mass, the sacramental rites, the constitution and government of the Church, Paul VI has without the slightest doubt alienated himself from the tradition of all his predecessors; he has voluntarily transgressed the law of Christ, he has separated himself from the Body of the Church, and in so far as this Body is subjected to Christ through obedience, he has made a schism.
     In this sin of schism Paul VI remains obstinate
, in spite of the observations which were made to him from the beginning by those Conciliar Fathers who to the end refused collegiality, destroyer of Pontifical authority(21), by those who entreated him to condemn Communism, persecutor of Christians in the 20th century, and finally by all those who have written to him asking him to conduct himself as a Pope, and to govern the Church and to drive out the heretics.
     Despite the Modernist cunning peculiar to Paul VI, his schism is manifest.  It is thus a duty to reveal it in order to preserve the faithful from being lost by remaining subject to him.  Let us not forget that it was by following their apparently legitimate pastors, who were in fact in schism, that those known as the "Orthodox" left the Church, "outside of which there is no salvation".


     Paul VI lacks a Catholic mind: his mentality is secular, Masonic and Modernist.(22)  Now, as we leave already stated, the particular nature of Modernism is hypocrisy, lying and equivocation.
     At the beginning of this century, in order to fight effectively against this heresy, "that sewer, collecting every heresy", God raised up a holy Pope, St. Pius X.
     What did St. Pius X do?
     Taking into account the underhand, hypocritical and dissembling character of this new deceit of the devil, the holy Pontiff as it were extracted the erroneous propositions from their ambiguous context and condemned them absolutely, in such a manner as to proclaim the truth with greater clarity. (Lamentabili, 3 July 1907.)
     A similar work needs to be done for the acts of the last Council, published by Paul VI, as also for every discourse, declaration and act of this disastrous pontificate.(23)
     Ambiguity, equivocation and wooly expressions abound.  Without openly professing heresy, they suggest and encourage heresy.(24)
     Furthermore, the decision taken, under cover of "greater liberty in the life of the Church", and the abolition of "all intolerance and all absolutism", no longer to issue condemnations, is in practice a true connivance with the destroyers of the Faith.  It renders Paul VI responsible for all the heresies, triumphant now due to his silence, which is at least culpable, if not calculated.
     Being unable to devote ourselves to a detailed study of all the products of this pontificate, we shall content ourselves, in order to prove Paul VI's manifest heresy, with studying in particular his declaration on religious liberty, and his desire to suppress, in fact, the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  In order to show more clearly the extent of his heresy, we shall begin by recalling certain of his declarations and actions, placing against them the Catholic doctrine which they contradict.

     Pope Paul VI is seen above on April 10, 1970 with the non-Catholic members of the Consilium who helped Bugnini and his assistants write the Novus Ordo Missæ.  They are, from left to right, Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shephard, Dr. Konneth, Dr. Smith, and Br. Thurian, representing the World Council of Churches, the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, and the Protestant Community of Taizé.


On the origin of power

     Paul VI.  "We are in a democracy ... that is to say that the people command, that power proceeds from numbers, from the population such as it is." (1 January 1970)      Catholic doctrine.  In whatever way the holder of power may be designated, all power comes from God.  "If one wishes to determine the source of power in the state, the Church teaches, and rightly, that it is to be sought in God.  That is what she has found, expressed with evidence, in Holy Scripture and in the monuments of Christian antiquity ... 'It is through Me that kings reign, through Me that sovereigns command, that the judges of the people render justice.'  Elsewhere 'Give ear, you that rule the people ... for power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the Most High". (Wisdom VI, 3-4) ... 'Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above' (John XIX, 11). St. Augustine, explaining this passages, writes: 'Let us learn here, from the mouth of the Master, that which He teaches elsewhere through His Apostle: that there is no power but that which comes from God'.  And indeed, the doctrine and moral teaching of Jesus Christ have found a faithful echo in the preaching of the Apostles. We know the sublime and decisive teaching which St. Paul gave to the Romans, even though they were subjected to pagan emperors: 'There is no other power than that which comes from God'.  Whence the Apostle deduced, as a consequence, that 'the sovereign is God's minister.' (Romans XIII, 4.) [Encyclical Diuturnum, of Pope Leo XIII, 29 June 1881.]

On the sole hope of men

     Paul VI.  "The nations turn towards the United Nations as towards the last hope for concord and peace.  We dare to bring here, with our own, their tribute of honour and hope ...  (UNO) is the ideal of which humanity dreams in its pilgrimage through time; it is the great hope of the world." (Address to the UN)      Catholic doctrine.  "Neither is there salvation in any other (than in Christ our Lord).  For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts IV, 12.)

On the origin of peace

     Paul VI.  "Yes, peace is possible, because men, at heart, are good, and are orientated towards reason, towards order and the common good; it is possible because it is in the hearts of the new men, of the young, of those who understand the march of civilisation."
     "We proclaim peace as the principal fruit of the conscious life of man, who wishes to see the perspective of his journey, both immediate and future.  Once again, We proclaim peace, because it is at one and the same time, under different aspects, the beginning and the end of the normal and progressive development of society."
     Catholic doctrine.  "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.  Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain that keepeth it." (Ps. CXXVI, 1.)
     The hope of a durable peace between peoples will never shine so long as individuals and states persist in rejecting the authority of Our Saviour.  That is why We have given warning that it is necessary to seek the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ." (Encyclical Quas Primas, of Pius XI, 11 December 1925.)

On human nature corrupted by original sin.

     Paul VI.  "Men are at heart good, and are orientated towards reason, order and the common good." (Message for the first Day of Peace  LaCroix, 3 January 1968.)      Catholic doctrine.  "Every man is a liar." (Ps. CXV, 11.)  "Without Me, you can do nothing." (John XV, 5.)  "Man's heart is prone to evil from his youth. (Gen. VIII, 21.)

On the reform of the Church.

     Paul VI.  "We should ensure for the life of the Church a new way of feeling, of willing, of behaving." (6 January 1964.)
     "Religion must be renewed.  All those who today still(25) "concern themselves with religion are persuaded of it." (12 August 1970.)
     Catholic doctrine.  Always, throughout her long history, the ecumenical and regional councils of the Church have decided and undertaken the reform of Churchmen, to make them better fitted to live according to the demands of the Gospel, to have in themselves the mind "which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. II, 5).  Never did they dream, still less undertake, to reform the Church in order to adapt her to the men of their time.
     "But since it is certain", to use the words of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, that "the Church has been instructed by Jesus Christ and by His Apostles, and the Holy Ghost, by His daily assistance, never fails to teach her all truth, it is the height of absurdity and outrage against her to pretend that a restoration and regeneration have become necessary for her, in order to ensure her existence and her progress, as though it were possible to believe of her that she also is subject to decay, to darkness or to any other alteration of this sort." (Encyclical Mirari Vos, of Gregory XVI, 15 August 1832.)

     And, in fact, in order to "renew" the Church and breathe into her a "new" way of feeling, of willing, of behaving, Paul VI has overturned the liturgy, the worship, the teaching, the discipline and the government of the Church.

On the nature of God

     Paul VI.  "The conflict (in the Middle East) concerns three ethnico-religious groups which all recognise one true and unique God: the Jewish people, the Islamic people, and in the midst of them, spread throughout the whole world, the Christian people.  It is a question of three religious systems which profess an identical monotheism through their three most authentic voices, the most ancient, the most historic and even the most tenacious and the most convinced.  Should it not be possible that the name of the same God, instead of implacable opposition, should kindle a sentiment of mutual respect, of possible understanding, of peaceful co- existence?  The reference to the same God, to the same Father, without prejudging theological discussions, should one day lead to the discovery, so evident but so difficult and so indispensable, that we are the sons of the same Father and that we are thus all brothers." (9 August 1970.)      Catholic doctrine.  Fatalism, or absolute determinism, is a dogma of Islam.  It follows from it that the beings who will go to heaven have been created in order to go there, and the same for those who will go to hell.  According to Islam, the happiness of the elect will not lie in some "beatific vision", but in the possession of youths and houris, with whom they will be able to satisfy endlessly an animal sensuality.
     Finally, still according to Islam, God is so powerful that He is able to do even contradictory things.
       So then, to affirm that the people of Islam profess an identical monotheism with that of Christians is both a heresy and a blasphemy.

On the integrity of the Faith

     Paul VI.  He condemned neither the "Dutch Catechism , nor its many translations, nor the new catechisms which it inspired.  By this fact, knowingly and voluntarily, he, the guardian of the Faith, allows the faith of his children to be perverted and shares in the heresy of these evil catechisms.
       (The new Italian catechism) "is a document inspired by the charity of the pedagogic dialogue, which demonstrates the desire and the art of speaking in an appropriate manner, influential and simple, to the mentality of modern man.  We shall do well to give it great importance, and to make of it the point of departure of a great, concordant and tireless renewal of the catechesis of the present generation.  The functional character of the magisterium of the Church requires it; we owe to it honour and confidence."
     Catholic doctrine.  "The Church has regarded as declared rebels and driven far from her all those who did not think as she did on any point whatsoever of her doctrine ...  Nothing could be more dangerous than those heretics who, conserving in everything else the integrity of doctrine, by one single word, like a single drop of poison, corrupt the purity and simplicity of the Faith which we have received from Tradition, Our Lord's in origin and then Apostolic." (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 20 June 1896.)
     "Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the Catholic Faith ; for unless a person holds this faith, whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." (Athanasian Creed.)

Concerning man in a state of revolt against God

     Paul VI.  "The Council offers to the Church, to us especially, a panoramic vision of the world: can the Church, can we ourselves, do other than look upon this world and love it? (Cf. Mark X, 21.)  This gaze at the world will be one of the principal acts of the session which is about to begin: once more, and above all, love; love for all the men of today, whatever or wherever they may be, love for all." (14 September 1965.)
     "We have confidence in man, we believe in the basic goodness which is in every heart, we know the motives of justice, of truth, of renewal, of progress, of fraternity which are the origin of so many good initiatives, and even of so many confrontations and, unhappily, sometimes of acts of violence ...  The Catholic Church, particularly since the new impetus of her conciliar aggiornamento, is going out to meet this same man whom you wish to serve." (2 December 1970.)
     Catholic doctrine.  "Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world.  If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him." (I John II, 15.)
     "If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated Me before you.  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John XV, 18-19.)
     "Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." (Jeremias XVII, 5.)

     "The Church of the Council has been concerned, not just with herself and with her relationship of union with God, but with man - man as be really is today; living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the centre of his every interest, but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality ...  Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anticlerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council.  The religion of the God Who made man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God.  What happened?  A shock, a struggle, a condemnation?  There could have been, but there was none.  The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council.  A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it.  The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself).  But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality, and to recognise our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honour mankind."
(Address to the last Council Meeting, 7 December 1965.)
     "There, according to the Apostle, is seen the true character of Antichrist; man, with a boundless temerity, has usurped the place of the Creator, in raising himself above all that bears the name of God.  So far does he go that, unable to extinguish wholly in himself the idea of God, he yet shakes off the yoke of His majesty and dedicates the visible world to himself, as a temple where be claims to receive the adoration of his fellows ...  That is why the end towards which we should direct all our efforts is to lead back the human race to the rule of Christ.  However, if the result is to equal our hopes, it is necessary by every means, and at the cost of great effort, to eradicate entirely this monstrous and detestable iniquity, characteristic of the times in which we live, by which man substitutes himself for God." (St. Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus.)
     "They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.' (I John IV, 5.)
     "The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Mt. IV, 10.)

     It is this man, such as he thinks of himself, this "man who makes himself God", in whom Paul VI places his confidence, whom he means to serve, for whom he has a veneration.  And in fact and in practice, in every Marxist country, the policy of the Vatican under Paul VI has been, since his accession, to reduce to silence the holy Bishops who have defended their faithful people (such as Mindszenty, Slipji, Wyszynski), to dismiss them, to replace them with pastors who are above all servants, or rather slaves, to the orders of the persecutors.  Such is the Church, the servant of Paul VI, the servant of the revolution, and of the torturers of her children.

On the reform of the Mass

a new composition of the Roman Missal", to be made, he promulgated "new rules for the celebration of Mass".  "The major innovation (of his reform) bears on the Eucharistic prayer", (that is to say, on the Canon).  In fact, far from "restoring (that) of the Holy Fathers unchanged in form since the 4th and 5th centuries", he instituted new canons, and forbade that of Tradition.      Catholic doctrine.  "Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est."
     St. Pius V restored the primitive norm and the rite of the Holy Fathers, in particular for the Canon, which has kept unchanged the form it took between the 4th and 5th centuries.

On scandal

     Paul VI.  For fifty-nine years in Russia, for thirty-one years in Eastern Europe, our brothers in the Church of Silence have suffered a horrible persecution, scientifically organised.  Until the accession of John XXIII, the news which reached them told them that the Roman Church prayed for them, denouncing to the world and condemning the persecuting regime.  Since the accession of John XXIII (Audience granted to Adjoubei, Kruschev's son-in-law), and above all Paul VI, they see - since their executioners make a point of showing it to them - the spectacle of august Roman prelates hastening to shake the hands of their persecutors, and thus the practical condemnation of their martyrs, and their total abandonment by Paul VI, who refused to allow the Second Vatican Council to condemn their persecutors; who made no protest when the Patriarch of Moscow, on the orders of the Kremlin, on his own authority robbed him (Paul VI of his Ukrainian sons and who had himself officially represented at the obsequies of this same Patriarch Alexis, and at the installation of his successor.      Catholic doctrine.  "Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." (Mt. XVIII, 7.)
     "Be watchful, Venerable Brethren, that the faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived.  Communism is intrinsically perverse, and one cannot permit, on any grounds, collaboration with it on the part of anyone who wishes to save Christian civilisation." (Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937.)

On respect for the official Magisterium

     Paul VI.  In contempt of the definitive judgment" of his predecessor, Paul VI received the Head of the Church of England, Dr. Ramsey, who came and was received in that capacity, and publicly gave him his own pastoral ring and a gold chalice, and asked him to bless the crowd of faithful Catholics who were present at this meeting.      Catholic doctrine.  By his Apostolic Letter Apostolicæ Curæof 13 September 1896, Pope Leo XIII gave a definitive judgement on Anglican ordinations, and ruled invalid ordinations conferred according to the Anglican ordinal.  Despite their ordination, Anglican ministers are neither priests nor bishops; it is therefore wholly impossible for them to consecrate the Eucharist.
       If we believe Leo XIII, "It is not possible for a prudent and well-disposed person to raise the least doubt concerning our judgement; all Catholics are bound to receive it with the greatest respect as being definitively fixed, ratified and irrevocable."
     Let us underline once more the Modernist method of Paul VI.  Without explicitly condemning the "definitive judgment" of Leo XIII, lie takes the opposite view to it by his acts.  In fact:
     The pastoral ring is the symbol of the mystical union which exists between the bishop, who is the spouse, and the Church of which he has charge, which is his bride.  The delivery of a pastoral ring corresponds to a practical recognition of the episcopal character of the man to whom it is given.
     One could not, without irreverence, offer a man a gold chalice to use as an ashtray, or to drink an aperitif.  The offering of a chalice makes it clear that, in his own mind, he who offers the chalice recognises the priestly character of him to whom the chalice is offered.
     In the Catholic rite of ordination to the priesthood, the Bishop says to the ordinand, while consecrating his hands with the holy oil: "Be pleased, O Lord, to consecrate and hallow these hands by this anointing, and our blessing, that whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and hallowed, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ."  In asking the Head of the Church of England to bless the crowd, Paul VI recognised, in practice, the priestly character of Dr. Ramsey, thus publicly contradicting the definitive judgement of his predecessor.

On Christian behaviour

     Paul VI.  "We have certainly heard of the severity of the saints against the evils of the world.  Many people are still familiar with ascetical books which give a wholly negative judgement on the corruption of the world.  But it is also certain that we live in a different spiritual climate, being invited, especially by the recent Council, to look optimistically at the modern world, its values and its conquests.  We can look with love and sympathy on mankind which studies, labours, suffers and makes progress.  Still more, we are ourselves invited to favour the civil developments of our time, as citizens who wish to associate ourselves with the common effort, in order to assure to all a greater and wider well-being.  The celebrated constitution Gaudium et Spes is throughout an encouragement to this new spiritual attitude, if I may say so.  This, however, is on two conditions which we restate in a simplified form: First, it is necessary to maintain a demarcation line between Christian life and secular life.  Between the spiritual and temporal there cannot exist that communion - or rather that confusion - of interests and of ways of life, which the old unitary conception of Christianity made easier and more habitual ...
       "The second condition of this optimism is that we sharpen the critical sense of our Christian in moral judgement ..." (General Audience, 3 July 1974.)
     Catholic doctrine.  "These are in the world ... I have given them Thy word and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world ... I pray not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from evil ... which is the prince of this world." (John XVII, 11, 14 and 17, and XII, 31.)
     "You are the witnesses of these things." (Luke XXIV, 48)
     "You are the salt of the earth ... you are the light of the world." (Mt. V, 13-14.)
"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mt. V, 48.)
     "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Mt. XVI, 24.)
     "So likewise every one of you that does not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be My disciple." (Luke XIV, 33.)
     "Know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God." (James IV, 4)
     "Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world.  If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is of the world.  And the world passeth away and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God abideth for ever." (I John II, 15-17.)
     "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God." (I Cor. X, 31.)      Inspired by these orders of the Master, the Apostles, the martyrs and all the saints, made a spiritual climate which permitted them, like "the leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened" (Luke XIII, 21), to transform the world by sanctifying it.

On Communicatio in Sacris

     Paul VI.  Has received and honoured the official representatives of schism (Athenagoras), of heresy (Ramsey), of Buddhism, visiting the Vatican in their official capacity, and went so far as to kiss the feet of one of them.
     He has given Holy Communion to unconverted Lutherans; has permitted the celebration of the Eucharist by Anglicans in the chapel of St.  Stephen of Ethiopia in the Vatican; has permitted the collaboration of six heretics, who deny our eucharistic dogmas, in the making of a new Ordo Missæ, and has had himself photographed with them to thank them for their collaboration.
     He has covered, by his culpable silence, the idolatrous worship which was given to devils by Buddhist priests in a Catholic church at Royan in France.  Not only has he taken no punitive action, but he has not even required the reconsecration of that place of worship profaned by this sacrilegious ceremony.
     Catholic doctrine.  "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine (i.e., that preached by Christ and His Apostles), receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.  For he that saith unto him : God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." (II John 10, 11.)
     "There are men still living who have heard Polycarp recount that John, having entered a bath house at Ephesus, and having seen Cerinthus inside, abruptly left without bathing, saying: 'Let us go, for fear the house should collapse because Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is there'." (Incident related by St. Irenaeus Adv.  Haer. III, 3-4,  Quoted by Fillion.)
     "The faithful are forbidden to assist actively in any manner whatever, or to take any active part in the public ceremonies of a non-Catholic religion (schismatic, heretical or pagan)." (Code of Canon Law, Can. 1258.1)
     From Vittrant S.J.  Théologie Morale, No. 137:
     1.  The principles which ought to govern our relations with non-Catholics are as follows:      a)  All formal adherence, under whatever form, to heresy or infidelity, is a grave fault.  Thus one should never co-operate formally in an act of worship or propaganda which is not Catholic.
     b)  One should carefully avoid all danger, unless it is negligible, of perversion or scandal (reading, attendance, etc.).
     2.  This is why, in practice, one ought never to co-operate actively in a specifically non-Catholic ceremony: all formal or scandalous co-operation is forbidden by divine law, and all material cooperation is forbidden at least by ecclesiastical law.  (Cf. Canon 1258.1) ...
     It is forbidden, at least by positive law, to accept the active and direct participation of a non-Catholic at a Catholic ceremony, this participation being scandalous of its very nature.

"A weak clergy lacking grace constantly to stand to their learning."
St. Thomas More to his daughter.


     Catholic doctrine.  - Truth alone has the right to be proclaimed publicly.  In consequence, the Catholic religion being the only true religion, the Catholic religion alone possesses rights.
       In certain specific circumstances, the public authorities may tolerate other forms of religion, and this tolerance may be sanctioned by law, if that is necessary for the maintenance of public order.
     In no case can such tolerance be claimed in the name of justice or as a right.
     This is the common doctrine of the Church concerning liberty of conscience and of worship: it is recalled in the following documents:
     - Gregory XVI: Encyclical Mirari vos, 1832.
     - Pius IX: Encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors, 1864.
     - Leo XIII: Encyclical Immortale Dei, 1885; Libertas Humana, 1888.
     - Pius XI: Encyclical Quas primas, 1925.
     - Pius XII: Discourse of 6 December 1953. 

     Paul VI. - The Declaration of Vatican II on Religious Liberty, published by Paul VI, contradicts this common doctrine of the Church.  To show this quite clearly, here is the Vatican II text side by side with the common doctrine expressed in an infallible text of Pius IX:

from Dignitatis Humanæ
(of Vatican II)

     2. - "This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.  Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
     The Synod further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself.  This RIGHT of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed.  Thus it is to become a civil right."

in Quanta cura

     5. - "Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert, that 'the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognised by the government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic Religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it'.  From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion, most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity: namely, 'that liberty of conscience and of worship is the inalienable right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil."

     The opposition between these two texts is fundamental.  The "right of the human person to religious freedom in constitutional law", proclaimed by Paul VI, is "contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers," "totally false," "erroneous, most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls."  It is, to use again the word of Gregory XVI, "insanity".
       In order to leave no doubt about the meaning of the passage from Vatican II which is given above, here are some more quotations from the same Declaration which clarify it.
     6. - "If, in view of peculiar circumstances among certain peoples, special legal recognition is given in the constitutional order of society to one religious body, it is at the same imperative that the right of all citizens and religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognised and made effective in practice."
     13. - "At the same time, the Christian faithful, in common with all other men, possess the civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their conscience.  Therefore, a harmony exists between the freedom of the Church and the religious freedom which is to be recognised as the right of all men and communities and sanctioned by constitutional law."
     There is no doubt that Paul VI, who published the Declaration Dignitatis Humanæ", of Vatican II, has placed himself in contradiction to an infallible and irreformable teaching of the Church.

     The proclamation of a teaching in contradiction to a teaching of the Faith constitutes the sin of heresy.  Its principal author, Paul VI, is thus clearly a heretic.

*     *     *

       To qualify completely for the formal designation of heretic obstinacy is necessary in the denial of Catholic truth.  This obstinacy is unfortunately present in Paul VI.  This remains to be established.


     The new conception of religious freedom, enunciated by Vatican II, is radically opposed to the Christian social order described by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, and by Pius XI in Quas Primas.  In the face of this opposition, Paul VI, instead of abandoning his impious novelty, persists in propagating it and even in imposing it.
     Continuously, and it is a matter of public knowledge, it has been at the instigation of Paul VI that Nuncios, Apostolic Delegates and Episcopal Conferences, instead of seeking to establish the temporal Kingship of Jesus Christ, according to the doctrine set out in "Quas Primas" (of Pius XI), have worked to destroy those Catholic states which still existed, in order that Jesus Christ should not have rights superior to those of Mahomet, Buddha, idols or Masonic groups.
     To throw more light on this obstinacy of Paul VI, let us recall his "Address to Rulers", at the time of the "Closing Messages of the Council": "In your terrestrial and temporal city, God constructs mysteriously His spiritual and eternal city, His Church.  And what does this Church ask of you after close to two thousand years of experiences of all kinds in her relations with you, the powers of the earth?  What does the Church ask of you today?  She tells you in one of the major documents of this Council.  She asks of you only liberty ..."
     The author of this declaration, which in practice denies the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a heretic and a formal heretic, for:
     - On the one hand, because it is not possible to plead good faith or invincible ignorance to excuse him.  For, added to the fact that he who occupies the See of Peter ought to know his doctrine, it is not in passing, in some improvised speech, that this error is brought out, but in an official Declaration, the text of which was given mature consideration, was discussed at length, and was skillfully drafted;
     - On the other hand, because in spite of all the observations which were made to him, and contrary to the Catholic doctrine which he knew, Paul VI has pestered Catholic Heads of State into suppressing the first article of the constitutions of their states, which recognised the Catholic religion as the only religion of the state, and this because official recognition of the social Kingship of Our Lord is incompatible with his new doctrine on religious freedom.

*     *     *

     To Archbishop Lefebvre, who asked him: "What do you make of the encyclical Quas Primas?  the Nuncio at Berne declared: "The Pope would not have written it."  "So", replied Archbishop Lefebvre, "it is no longer possible to have a Catholic state?".  "No", replied the Nuncio, "it is not possible; privileges cannot be given to the Catholic Church".
     We have related this dialogue, which accords with several public discourses of the Superior of Ecône, since it clearly shows the mentality of Paul VI, the Nuncios being no more than the faithful echo of the mind of the reigning Pope.
     And not only is the good faith of Paul VI in question, but there has been clear premeditation on his part.  Carefully re-reading the message to the Rulers, we learn from the mouth of Paul VI:
     - That the declaration on religious liberty is, for him, "one of the major documents of this Council".  Let us stress the change in passing: under the harmless appearance of a simple declaration, made to facilitate the voting, this text becomes "one of the major documents", and of such importance that it abrogates a common doctrine of the Church and destroys every Catholic state.
     - That the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ ought no longer to be recognised by States, and still less protected by law.  Henceforward, for Paul VI, Our Lord has no further need to be King over civil societies; he only asks that He be given freedom as it is given to everyone else.  Once again, officially, but this time by Paul VI, Jesus Christ is placed on the same footing as Barrabas.
     - That henceforth the order of his Master: "Go and teach all nations", is betrayed.  Not content with dethroning Him, Paul VI makes himself the defender of His enemies, in the person of the adepts of every false religion, and even of ideologies and groups which are destroying the Church.
     Here, in fact, is what Paul VI demands by way of this Declaration:
     That a man "is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.  Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious ..."
     "In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious bodies should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine, in what concerns the organisation of society, and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.  Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable, and social organisations, under the impulse of their own religious sense."
     By virtue of this principle, may not Marxist, and even anarchist groups enter into the category of "those who act according to their consciences?"  By virtue of this principle, would not such groups, as well as Masonic groups, lay claim to being religious groups?  Are not "the Great Architect", "Man", the "Working Class", the "gods" of modern man?
     And thus, by the will of Paul VI, in an official text, Our Lord finds Himself placed on the same footing as anarchists, Freemasons, Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants and African witch-doctors.

*     *     *

     Obstinacy in error, the characteristic of the formal heretic, is found in plenty in Paul VI.  Paul VI is thus formally a heretic; he has overturned the faith, he has left the Church.

     This conclusion may appear severe, even exaggerated, to some readers.  It is, however, wholly in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church, recalled by Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, of 20 June 1896: "The Church ... has regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of its children, all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from its own ...  There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole series of doctrine, and yet by one wprd, as with a drop of poison, taint the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.  The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to consider as outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church, whoever would withdraw in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by its authoritative Magisterium.



£ 2 per year - Surface Mail
($3.00 in U.S. and Canada)
£ 4 - Air Mail

All subscriptions run from January thru December.

Back issues are available for the years 1970-1977. £ 3 per volume (please specify!) (1971 only 5 issues.)

Beautiful hardbound copies:
     Volumes 2, 3 & 4 (1970-72) £ 10 ($17.00)
     Volumes 5 and 6  (1973-74) £ 10 ($17.00)
     Volumes 7 and 8  (1975-76) £ 10 ($17.00)

These prices include surface mail postage.
Send all orders to:

P.O. BOX 48

[NOTE (1998):  THE MARYFAITHFUL is still being published.  The subscription rate is currently $15 US, $20 Canadian or $15 US equivalent in all other foreign currencies (surface mail - $26 US equivalent for air mail delivery).  The back issues advertised above are no longer available; but some more recent bound yearly collections are.  THE MARYFAITHFUL also promotes The Marian Hour Radio Rosary Broadcast and would appreciate more supporting sponsors.  For further information write to THE MARYFAITHFUL at the address given above or telephone 701-464-5458.]


     Schism is the sin of him who separates himself from Christ's true Church.
     Heresy is the sin of the baptised person who rejects one or more dogmas.
     Apostasy is the infidelity of the baptised person who completely abandons the Christian faith.

     "In order to commit the sin of apostasy, it is not necessary to pass to a false religion, for example, to Islam or Judaism; it is sufficient for a baptised person to separate himself exteriorly from the Christian faith, lapsing for example into deism, into indifferentism, etc."
     "Those affiliated to a masonic sect should be ranked amongst the apostates." (Tanquerey, Syn. Theol. Mor. II, No. 665, 666.)
     In his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, of 8 September 1907, Pope St. Pius X said: "The Modernists ruin not only the Catholic religion, but all religion."  The same holy Pope declared, on 27 May 1914: "To seek to reconcile the faith with the modern spirit leads much further than people think, not only to the weakening of the faith, but to its total loss."

*     *     *

     By the declarations and acts of Paul VI which we have dealt with above, we have shown, by contrasting them with Catholic doctrine, that his language and acts, by their equivocal character, manifest the Modernist mentality of their author.  Here, certain persons will seek perhaps to accuse us of making a formal accusation against Paul VI.  Here, in advance, is our answer.
     We have earlier shown that, by all the changes which he has brought about which overturn the Holy Mass, all the sacred rites, the constitution and government of the Church, Paul VI has incontrovertibly departed from the Tradition of all his predecessors.  He has committed schism.  In the second place, we have established his heresy on the precise doctrine of religious freedom.  Each of these two crimes has caused him to leave the Church and to lose the Sovereign Pontificate; the two, a fortiori.
     It is only after establishing the certainty of Paul VI's schism and heresy that we have permitted ourselves, as is our right and our duty, to reason through his own words and his government in order to discover the spirit which animates him.
     We have already recalled and sufficiently explained that the characteristic of Modernism is duplicity.  All the declarations and all the acts of Paul VI which we have reported are, if not openly heretical, at the least highly equivocal.  If we were living in the reign of a normal Catholic Pontiff, the accusation itself would be a reproach to us.  Unfortunately, it is not so now.  We are witnessing a full revival of Modernism, and under a Pontiff who "is presiding over the most profound and extensive destruction of the Church in her history, as no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing in such a short space of time".  (Archbishop Lefebvre)
     We are in a Church where everything is under attack; in a period when the principal members of the Church have realised all the desires of Freemasonry, and done it in the way the Freemasons wanted it done.  In such a context, when "our faith is in danger from within the Church" (Bishop Adam, of Sion), only the Modernists and their accomplices could reproach us for bringing an accusation against the Pope.
     In the absence of open declarations of heresy, how, in order to guard ourselves against him, are we to discover the wolf in sheep's clothing?  By relying on the great principle given us by Jesus for the discovery of intentions: "For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also." (Mt. VI, 21)  Why is it that "our heart" (our affections, our intentions, our secret desires) is there "where our treasure is"?  Because, as St. Augustine explains, "my love is the weight which draws me along, by that am I taken wherever I go".
     Let us then inquire towards whom and towards what the heart of Paul VI draws him.
     Certainly not towards Tradition, which he casts off so easily.  Still less towards Catholics, priests and bishops who defend the faith.  The whole world now knows that Paul VI has never received the international pilgrimage of faithful Catholics(26), who went to Rome for Pentecost some years in succession, and who passed a whole night in prayer beneath his windows.  Everyone also knows now what difficulties he made about receiving Archbishop Lefebvre, and that he received him in the end only because of unfavourable world opinion.
     On the other hand, the world unfortunately also knows how easily, how often and with what cordiality he receives schismatics, heretics, non-Christians and even the murderers of his sons, and the persecutors of our brethren.
     If we now consider where his treasure is, towards which he has directed the whole of his liturgical upheaval, we shall find that it is in the type of ecumenism which has been several times condemned by his predecessors because, as they tell us in their official documents, this ecumenism "overthrows from top to bottom the divine constitution of the Church", and because "it encourages indifferentism and is a cause of scandal". (Pius IX, Letter to the English Bishops, 16 September 1864.)  "It leads to the neglect of religion, that is to say to INDIFFERENTISM, and to what is called modernism." (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 6 January 1928.)
     Thus, is seems to us that no one who believes in the words of Jesus: "Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also", can dispute the conclusion, that "treasure" for Paul VI is not the "deposit of faith to be preserved", but "the modern world to be won over".  To convince ourselves of this, it is enough to recall his extra-ordinary admission, from which we have already quoted, in his Address at the last meeting of the Council: "The Church of the council has been concerned, not just with herself and with her relationship of union with God, but with man, man as he really is today ... all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the centre of his every interest, but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality ...  Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anticlerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the council." ...  But no clash followed, rather "a feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it (the council)", and "we too, in fact, we more than any others, honour mankind".
     Now let us hear St. Pius X once more: "To seek to reconcile the faith with the modern spirit leads much further than people think, not only to the weakening of the faith, but to its total loss."
     The total loss of faith is apostasy.  To be an apostate it is not necessary to adopt a false religion.  It is enough for a baptised person to separate himself exteriorly from the Christian faith and to drift, for example, into religious indifferentism.  Is this not the case with Paul VI?  His "ecumenism", which he extends to the "separated brethren" without distinction, to heretics of all sorts, and even to adherents of non-Christian religions, has resulted in religious indifferentism in practice.  Even if he retains the Catholic faith in his heart, exteriorly, in the practical judgments which urge him to promote his ecumenism, he has separated himself from it:
     - "The most certain dogma of our religion is that outside the Catholic faith no man can be saved." (Pius VIII, Apostolic Letter, 29 March 1830; see also the Athanasian Creed.)
     - "... this article of faith, which the innovators dare to deny, namely the necessity of the faith and of Catholic unity in order to gain salvation." (Gregory XVI, Summo Jugiter, 27 May 1832.)
     - This "article of faith" is declared by Gregory XVI, in the same encyclical, to be "one of the most important and most evident of our dogmas".
     Not only has Paul VI separated himself exteriorly from the Christian faith, but he has sunk into religious indifferentism.  Are not the few examples given here the acts of a promoter of religious indifferentism?
     - To permit Anglican ministers, who are known not to be priests, to concelebrate in a church in the Vatican?
     - To ask an Anglican, who is not a priest, to bless a Catholic crowd?
     - To kneel before a schismatic and kiss his feet?
     - To make no protest when a schismatic Patriarch (Alexis of Moscow) claimed to exercise authority over the Ukrainian Catholics?
     - To recall the Catholic doctrine of marriage in Humanæ Vitæ, and then to allow entire episcopates to scoff at this encyclical with impunity?
     - To deliver ad experimentum such sacred matters as confession, intercommunion and Extreme Unction?
     - No longer to condemn the heretics who are decimating the flock?
     - To permit the public celebration of Mass for non-Catholics?

     All these examples, and there are many more, clearly prove that Paul VI, exteriorly, in his practical conduct, has separated himself from the Catholic faith; he has lapsed into religious indifference; he has, in practice, apostatised from the Catholic faith.

*     *     *


     In her official prayer, the Church addresses this invocation to God: "ut domnum apostolicum ... in sancta religions conservare digneris, te rogamus audi nos", "that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to preserve our Pope ... in holy religion, we beseech Thee, hear us".  Since the Church makes us ask God that the Pope should be preserved in holy religion, it is surely because she knows that it could happen that be might not remain faithful, and that he could fall into heresy or even into apostasy.  And the promise of Christ's special help for Simon Peter and his successors, what are we to make of that?
     The Church knows this promise and she believes in it, but she knows also, that Simon and his successors must themselves be first converted: "And thou, when thou shalt be converted, confirm thy brethren."  To be converted themselves means, among other things, to lose their mentality of "Simon, son of John" (or of Giovanni Battista, son of Montini) and to acquire the mentality of Peter, which is that of Christ.  And the Church, who knows history, knows that the possibility of error, heresy and schism, even in a Pope, is no mere wild fancy.  In periods of crisis especially, she has examined this question, and through her great Doctors, she teaches us what we must do if this misfortune should befall us.
     We have shown that Paul VI, who presides over the most profound and extensive destruction of the Church in her whole history:
     -  has separated himself from the Church and has committed schism,
     -  has taught error with obstinacy and has fallen into heresy.
     -  has, finally, apostatised by separating himself, in practice, from the Christian faith and in falling into religious indifferentism.

     A schismatic, a heretic, and an apostate, Paul VI, to borrow an expression from Cardinal Journet, has "committed spiritual suicide"; of his own accord he has left the Mystical Body of Christ, he has excommunicated Himself.  Now, according to St. Antoninus, "if a Pope should become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any sentence, separated from the Church.  In fact, a head separated from a body cannot, so long as it remains separated, be the head of that same body from which it is cut off.  Thus, a Pope separated from the Church by heresy ceases, by that very fact, to be head of the Church; he could not be a heretic and remain Pope, because being outside the Church he cannot possess the keys of the Church.(27)
     Further, by reason of the imminence and gravity of the danger presented by a Pontiff who upholds heresy, any one of his subjects, in virtue of fraternal correction, may warn his superior and resist him to his face.  Furthermore, it is necessary to denounce heresy publicly, in order that all may prepare to arm themselves against it.



(1)  Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi
(2)  Read Matthew V, 27, and that which we are about to record of Pius IX on the subject of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M.
(3)  The celebration of Holy Mass, the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction and Orders do not require the power of jurisdiction in order to be administered validly.
(4)  The power to absolve (Confession), to command, to bind and to loose, require powers of jurisdiction.
(5)  To the objection that the secret heretic would be able to exercise a jurisdiction of which all but he would be in ignorance of its nullity, and that from this grave disorders would result for the Church - for example, in the hypothesis where a bishop secretly fallen into heresy might approve priests to hear confessions in his diocese -, Turrecremata replies that the Holy Ghost who rules the Church will always give to her whatever is necessary to lead men to salvation: in the present case by permitting secret heresy to be uncovered in time, or even by supplying directly whatever has not been done.
(6)  By the fact itself.
(7)  The magisterial power is a participation in the prophetic power of Christ.  It permits the holder to speak and to teach in the name of God.
(8)  Cf. Guérard des Lauriers, Dimensions de la Foi Ch. IV; notes 504, 628, 820. (Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1952.)
(9)  "How can authority, if it does not begin by listening, ensure the living transmission of the doctrine outwardly taught by the Apostles? ...  The first duty of the declarative magisterium is to allow itself to be taught, in order to be able to teach: to make itself totally attentive, wholly absorbent of the magisterial teaching of the preceding centuries in order to pass it on to the centuries to come ... Above all, authority requires to be taught in order to become a teacher." (Journet, Eglise du Verbe lncarné, Vol. II, pp. 637-639.)
(10)  We have shown these lines to Fr. G. des Lauriers.  He has given us to understand that his opinion is faithfully expressed in them.
(11)  We do not think that this expression: "The Church is not superior to the Pope" is entirely accurate.  In fact, the Church is the Body of Christ "Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia".  As this, she is superior to the Pope, as the whole is superior to a part.  Undoubtedly the Pope is the noblest part of the Body, the Head, but he is only the Head vicariously.  The true Head of the Church is Christ.
(12)  Jean de Torquemada, whose study we report, must not be confused with his nephew, the Spanish inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada.
(13)  We are thus concerned here not with just any disobedience, but with a disobedience which denies the very principle of authority within the Church, thus breaking ecclesiastical unity.
(14)  Good faith in this case seems to us absolutely impossible, since it is not possible that the occupant of the See of Peter could be ignorant, without grave fault on his part, of the plot against the Church; a plot recalled and condemned by his predecessors in official documents of which he could not be ignorant.  The supposition we make is purely gratuitous and has only one object: to avoid the objections of papolaters.
(15)  The monopoly of secular teaching, free and obligatory, a masterly masonic move, is an intolerable effrontery of the modern state.  It can train only atheists and liberals.
(16)  This question has been in my mind ever since I became convinced that the Roman Church is occupied by enemies who have seized all the key posts (see Issue No. 5 of the current series).
(*)  Before we come to the process of substantiating our accusations, we would like to let our English-speaking readers know that the proofs of our indictments they will find in the following pages of this review Fr. Barbara actually produced as early as issue No. 47 of the French edition of Forts dans la Foi.  Now issue No. 47 was first addressed to all the Cardinals and Patriarchs of Holy Mother Church.  Then and then only was it in fact released in Rome in the very heart of Christendom, on the occasion of a press conference held on Friday, 19 Nov. 1976.
     The next issue of Fortes in Fide will include, together with a report on this press conference a large selection of newspaper clippings testifying to the reactions that followed, especially on Radio Vatican, and also a translation of the letter to the Cardinals and Patriarchs.
(17)  See above pp. 12 et seq.
(18)  The publication of a Novus Ordo Missæ, and of new rites for the sacraments, belongs to the magisterial ministry of the Pope before coming under that of his jurisdiction.  It is thus symptomatic to find that the Novus Ordo Missæ was promulgated without being passed by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which is the supreme court in matters concerning the magisterial ministry of the pope.  Did Paul VI fear to submit his Novus Ordo Missæ to this Congregation, in case it was rejected as heretical?  We should remember that it was Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office under three Popes, who presented a very severe judgement against the Novus Ordo Missæ, saying that it "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". (Letter accompanying "A Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass", 1969.)
(19)  Implicaciones teologicas y morales del nuovo "Ordo     Missæ, p. 221.
(20)  Equivocation and lying are the characteristics of the pontificate of Paul VI.  On this subject, the following fact was reported to us by one of its authors.  After the second session of the Council, foreseeing the grave consequences which would arise from the use of words with a double meaning, Archbishop Lefebvre and a number of other bishops addressed a letter to the Pope in which they said: "Most Holy Father, we entreat you to beware of the ambiguous words which are to be found in the Council's texts.  If we end a Council with phrases which do not carry the precise meaning of the Faith we profess, we risk seeing drawn from these phrases conclusions which run wholly counter to the Faith."  And the Archbishop added: "We did not receive a reply to our letter."
(21)  The "nota prævia explicativa" was merely a supplementary device to deceive the minority of the Council Fathers, and make them vote for the schema.  Ever since, Paul VI has spoken of collegiality as though it had been voted for by the Council.
(22)  Cf. the French review Forts dans la Foi, No. 46, pp. 260 et seq.
(23)  This work has been done in French, at least for the famous "collegiality" of the Constitution Lumen Gentium: see Forts dans la Foi No. 21. from p. 143, "Collégialité et Synode des Evêques", by J. Rincelet, and the supplement to No. 24, "Le Cheval de Troie dans la Cité de Dieu, by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.
(24)  To give a single example of this diabolical guile in the art of dissimulation, let us recall the famous Article 7 of the General introduction to the Novus Ordo Missæ.  The first edition of the article (1969) drew forth such protests, that a new formulation was published in 1970.  Unfortunately, although the formula was modified, the suspect ideology was retained and Bugnini, the protégé of Paul VI, had the insolence to admit it in the issue of the Vatican publication Notitiæ of May 1970. (See Forts dans la Foi, No. 25, p. 14.)      This is how A. Vidigal draws attention to this dissembling: "After the modifications (in Article 7) it is still impossible to accept the new mass.  But there is another thing still graver.  A calm, objective and scientific analysis of the facts shows that the reform undertaken in 1970 had the effect of making the conspicuous errors less evident, without eliminating them in the least; to such effect that the doctrinal deviations and the ambiguities of the text became more subtle, and consequently more dangerous.  There is in this a supplementary reason, and a much stronger one, to stop faithful Catholics accepting the Novus Ordo Missæ."  (Implicaciones teologicas y morales del nuevo "Ordo Missæ", p. 222.)
(25)  This "still" in the mouth of a Pope is offensive to believers; it is an expression worthy of an atheist.
(26)  Twenty-two nations were reprensented at the last such pilgrimage, which numbered several thousand pilgrims.
(27)  We wish to emphasise that this text of St. Antoninus, on the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy is reported in the "Acts and History of the Ecumenical Council of Rome, 1st of the Vatican", and that this work (on the Council which defined the Infallibility of the Pope) contains a letter of Pius IX, which praises the editor and orders twelve copies of the work, "in order to support it with a vote in Our name".  Is it not significant that Pius IX, the Pope of Infallibility, did not find out of place in the history of the Council which declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the reminder of the possibility that a Pope could fall into heresy?

Fr. Noel Barbara:
     Crisis in the Church (Continued)
     Some precise details concerning the sins of heresy and schism
     The hypothesis of a schismatic Pope

Notes on certain other subjects:
     A. - On the Devil
     B. - On the expression "A Pope of the Sect"
     C. - On another consequence of the efforts of the Sect
     D. - On the Modernists
     E. - On the same subject
     F. - On the world about us
The answer to the question
Paul VI's schism
Paul VI's heresy
Some statements by Paul VI
Heretical declaration by Paul VI
Obstinacy in error
Apostasy of Paul VI
General Conclusion

NOTE:  The addresses shown above are no longer valid
and are shown merely for documentary purposes