Skip to main content

By "dialogue", we don’t mean a conversation, or a discussion, but rather an agreement and relations between people whose thinking is divergent, subject to doctrinal concessions.

We can say that in the 20th century the communists were the masters in this area. Despite the atrocities they were able to commit, with this weapon [of dialogue] they succeeded in seducing a great number of Christians who had nevertheless witnessed their exactions.

Father Dufay made a detailed analysis of the mechanism of dialogue between communists and Catholics in China. It is striking to note that the communist methods are almost identical to those used by modernist Rome with regard to the traditional communities. After summarizing Father Dufay's explanation, we will draw a parallel with the dialogue between Rome and these communities.

Dialogue Between Communists and Catholics in China

General principle

First of all, the general principle is that everything that emanates from the communists is to be interpreted in the Marxist sense. When they speak of "patriotism" for example, it is [to be understood] according to Marxist principles, for a Marxist and therefore materialist purpose.

Make Catholics slide onto political terrain

In order to tempt Christians to join their movements and to involve the Church in the Revolution, they begin by accusing her of being complicit in imperialism. They thus seek to tempt it to enter the political arena, transforming religion into a political issue. Thus, the problem is flawed right from the start. Catholics are invited to be activists "as Catholics". Therefore, the civil authority claims the right and duty to control the policy of this religious group, carrying out the necessary purifications. Any opponent will no longer be a defender of the faith, but a political resistant. From there on, the government incites war against faithful Catholics by means of the progressives; they sow mistrust towards the former, and raise the latter against them. Since the terrain is profane, there is no longer any question of martyrdom, so the will to resist disappears.

Ambiguous formulas

The seduction of dialogue comes from the ambiguous formulas used by the communists: they present themselves as ardent defenders of patriotism. Isn't patriotism an obligation for Christians? When we hear how the communists become patriots, is that not already a victory for Catholicism?

The proposals put forward by the communists always have a possible Catholic interpretation. Furthermore, they say they want this interpretation. But then, in their actions, they use their own meaning and principles. They know full well that words do not have the same meaning on both sides. Their whole policy of seduction and reaching out is based on this knowledge. The Revolution is primarily a praxis; words are only a tool. Her method being dialectic, she uses a misunderstood proposition as a ram against the "target truth". Here, in this case, it will oppose "patriotism" and the Vatican.


Once Christians are drawn into this ambush, concessions and compromises begin to flow. In a certain group, someone makes an accusation against a certain bishop who is considered unpatriotic. At first, [such accusation] bothers other Catholics, but they are forced to follow suit, having admitted the principle of patriotism. Thus, they act against their own conscience; and quickly they fall into moral decay. Communism makes the Church crumble under the corruption of consciences, from which one does not rise. It is worse than an apostasy, it is a repetition of acts against the faith, and ideas are completely blurred.

From then on, resistance becomes impossible

Not all of them open their eyes at the same time; thus the Catholic block divides and disintegrates, piece by piece.

Conclusion: right from the start, refuse dialogue and prefer martyrdom

Therefore, we must reject this slide, which is disingenuous and fought with unequal weapons. Marxists' smiles are infinitely more dangerous than their weapons. Whenever communists feel resistance among Christians, they throw out some ballast. This means that for them, breaking the dialogue is undesirable; it is essential to their goal. What do we do then? Can we continue this dialogue? No, because by this merry-go-round, the communists drag Catholics into their materialistic dialectic: it is therefore faith that is at stake. To save [this fath], we must accept persecution and martyrdom. And so, by making martyrs, communism prepares its own defeat. "Have courage, I have overcome the world," said the King of Martyrs.

Dialogue Between Conciliar Rome and the Traditionalists

General principle

If we apply all this to our own situation, the first principle is that what comes from the modernists is to be interpreted in a modernist sense. We have seen this among other things, in the expression of the "Council seen in the light of Tradition". Their goal is to involve everyone in the revolutionary dynamics of Vatican II, that is, the evolution of dogmas, then ecumenism, the basis of the "new evangelization", and ultimately, the unity of humankind in the diversity of beliefs, each being equal and free.

Drag the traditionalists from the doctrinal terrain onto the disciplinary terrain

To attract the Traditionalists into this movement, they begin with accusations: “You are dissidents, cut off from Rome”. Or, they make tempting proposals: the possibilities of a greater apostolic influence. And finally, nothing is more effective than giving gifts: the 2007 Motu Proprio, the lifting of the excommunications (2009), jurisdiction for confessions, episcopal delegation for our marriages.

Someone may object that Pope Benedict XVI, when he acknowledged that the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated and declared that priests from all over the world could celebrate it, that he did not make just a small concession. Certainly, we applaud the courage that it undoubtedly took him, since his words aroused a bad mood in almost the whole episcopate. But truth demans that we emphasize that Benedict XVI, in the very act in which he gives us these big concessions, that he also takes them back again at the same time, in the hope of laying the seeds for [the reciprocal acceptance of] the two Masses. He actually started a dialectical process to reform the reform, in which everyone is invited to make concessions.


As for the other concessions we mentioned, it is the Holy See that is the winner, because they appear to be a benign master, showing us mercy; and our refusal to make concessions will appear all the more odious; and in this way psychological pressure is exerted on us to stop fighting. And their advances give the public impression that things are getting better, when in reality, the fundamental problem, which is doctrinal, remains all the same.

Traditional Catholics are invited to come "as being faithful to Tradition"; they want to involve Tradition "as they are" in the Revolution; they must keep their "own charism". Through this game, the light of Tradition is no longer that which must enlighten every man; it is one opinion among many others.

Thus, the rallying process puts practical questions first, and the doctrinal problem as an aside. This is where the shift occurs. They certainly don’t deny the [problems with] doctrine, but they insist on regularization. And by dint of talking mainly about this, we end up thinking that we are in an irregular position. Everything is considered from this point of view. Just as the communists made religion a political issue, so the Roman authorities made adherence to the council a matter of obedience. In this way, the motive of martyrdom - faith - is removed. Any objection against conciliar errors or against ecumenical scandals will be labeled as disobedience or a sin against unity. Thus, there are no more martyrs, and little by little the resistance disappears.

Reduced to silence, forgetting the common good of the church

This shows that, by the very fact of [pursuing] a canonical recognition, we are reduced to silence. Archbishop Lefebvre said the same about Dom Gérard: “It is not true that they have not given up anything; they have given up the possibility of opposing Rome. They can't say anything anymore. They have to keep quiet.”

This point is fundamental, because it shows that, even if no doctrinal declaration on Vatican II is required of us, we are already stopping to criticise it, and in practice we are entering into the revolutionary machine  which effectively admits everyone with their own opinions, but only on condition that the opinions of their neighbour are acknowledged as acceptable [as well]. Thus, in fact, by remaining silent, the conciliar ideology is acknowledged as acceptable; therefore, it is an implicit recognition of Vatican II. And so doctrinal questions are quickly put into perspective, and modern errors are explicitly admitted.

This allows us to mention an important clarification: the question of the common good. Through our doctrinal struggle and our public opposition to conciliar errors, we defend the common good of the Church. By remaining silent, we would be admitted into the official Church with certain advantages, but in so doing, we would put our particular good above the common good. Such is the Liberal trap: to make the absolute [truth, tradition] relative. Indeed, at this moment truth and Tradition are considered as a good for certain retarded people (that’s us) and therefore a relative good, but in no way is it regarded as a necessary good for all, as an absolute.

On the contrary, our attitude is [or should be] that of members of the Church. The member is a part of a whole; the part is for the whole. What we want is the good of the Church, the common good, which is that Rome rediscovers its Tradition. Certainly, some may think that by a canonical recognition one could make the voice of Tradition resound more; the intentions are sincere, but we have seen that it is an illusion. Mr. Seguin's little goat thought that she would defeat the wolf, but the terrible reality imposed itself on her. What matters is the objective reality. We must reflect on this, for the common good here is a question of eternal salvation.