Skip to main content

After having noticed in Fr. Gregoire Celier the strange choices from philosophy-author-director to review-editor, after having observed in Celier-Sernine [Sernine is a pseudonym for Fr. Celier] the anti-complotism obstinately refusing to see the reality of a modern gnosis and Anti-Christian conspiracy, as Monsignor Delassus so correctly put it, a conspiracy that is obvious to anyone other than himself, after having discovered in Benedict XVI and the traditionalists the efforts deployed by this priest of the Society of Saint Pius X to push the faithful and his fellow priests towards a rallying to apostate Rome, much like the Institute of the Good Shepherd, it seemed necessary to continue our reflections on the designs and the supports of this priest whose very strange behavior does not prevent him from always being in command of this [or that] medium, or close to the command post of another medium. In short, he is to be found wherever he can exert his influence.

In our critical study of the book of MM. Pichon and Celier, we ended “Appendix II - Abbé Grégoire Celier according to his works”, by the following conclusion:

This enigmatic and often masked man is sometimes an irreproachable traditionalist priest, sometimes a modernist. And what according to St. Pius X characterizes the modernists is their ambivalence : “One page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, and you think you are reading a rationalist “(Pascendi, § 20). We have just seen that the writings of Fr Gregoire Celier are to be read with great caution. Was he sincere in his choices, or rather cleverly subversive? We won’t judge his intentions. We only observed that, in our fight for the defense of the faith and the Reign of Christ, this unreliable priest is more often our adversary than our ally.

Yet he has received excellent training. At the seminary he was instructed by the best masters of sound philosophy, of the history of the Church, of theology and of the most faithful Catholic doctrine. Ordained a priest, he is daily through the Mass in personal and intimate contact with God, the source of all good, all graces of wisdom and intelligence. So what is the key to this mysterious behavior?

First of all, his ambivalent behavior reminded us of those “false brethren” whom St Paul is said to have endured (II Cor 11:26 and Gal. 2: 4). “False brethren” is obviously not an insult, but the Biblical term used by the Apostle to designate those who, though true brothers, are “sons after the flesh”, slaves of form and letter, and who caused suffering for the “sons of promise” who live according to the spirit. Thus Abel was persecuted by Cain, Isaac by Ishmael, Jacob by Esau, Joseph by his brothers, etc.1. The false brothers, very zealous, “filter the gnat and swallow the camel”. And if we can not avoid their “persecution,” if we can not prevent them from harming us, we must suffer them, since God allows them for our sanctification. In this case, this “false brother”, this priest of the Society who was charged with informing, practiced cleverly disinformation as we have shown2. Moreover, he seemed to enjoy a mysterious protection that made him immune from criticism, invulnerable and irremovable.

As to this invulnerability, Max Barret3 recently reported to us the astonishment of Jacques Ploncard d’Assac:

Father Celier: there can be no more mystery …

In issue no. 81 (March 2008) of “La Politique “(SPP - BP 30030 - 83952 - La Garde Cedex), Philippe Ploncard d’Assac, referring to the departure from the SSPX of Fr. de Tanoüarn, writes (I underlined the “why”) :

On the other hand Fr. Célier is always untouchable while he pursues the same work. Why this gentleness while in his book ‘Benedict XVI and the traditionalists’, he wrote these lines, which are unacceptable for a supposed traditionalist:

§ p. 18 : “Let us not be fixated on the cassock, it is not worth it. I say this with all the more liberty than I wore the cassock with happiness and tranquility for twenty-five years. “

§ p. 70-71 : “This is - Vatican II - a council of the Catholic Church regularly convened which in itself deserves respect and adherence. (See the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted on the front of this “Courrier”!)

§ p. 88, in answer to Pichon’s question: “Does your project not consist in reconstructing the Church of Pius XII? “, Father Celier replied: “I do not feel a vocation as a museum guardian or taxidermist.”

§ p. 237 : “The rhetoric of the universal and all-powerful plot that flourishes in the circles close to the Society of St Pius X, participates in this mentality that seems unhealthy … “ etc..

Thus, like his companion de Tanoüarn, he tries to make believe that there is no Masonic plot. These inadmissible declarations should have given him an immediate dismissal by Fr. de Cacqueray, superior of the District of France, but this is not the case.

Why this protection, and why did Fr. Toulza think of covering it with flowers in the catalog of Clovis, n ° 74 of December 2007, and to advertise his book “Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists” by stating: “Clovis’ mission is to preach the truth, and point the finger at error”…! Does he consider that the statements of Fr. Célier, reproduced above, “preach the truth”? Why does Fr. Toulza refuse to “point at these errors with his finger”? (…) And that while my book “Masonry” is refused his signature and that “The occupied church” of my father, formerly recommended by Archbishop Lefebvre, disappeared from the catalog of Clovis in 2008 ?!

If Philippe Ploncard d’Assac writes “Why?” I will not do him the injury of believing that it is through naivety! Like many others, he has long understood, he knows, that he has the certainty that Fr. Celier is not there by chance! His eagerness to deny the existence of the “universal plot” against all logic suffices to describe him as one of the accomplices, if not the cogs, of this plot, immersed in the SSPX, where he developed patiently, intelligently and meticulously, an active and powerful network, which gives it a protection that can not be explained otherwise.

There can be little mystery about it!​ Little mystery? That is to say that the astonishing absence of certain works - or the presence of some others - in the catalog of the books of Clovis - France opened the eyes of Monsieur Ploncard d’Assac. He also pointed to the purpose of the editorial choices of Father Celier.

This reminded us of the subject of the very well-documented novel by Vladimir Volkoff ‘Le Montage’, which shows the recruitment and activity of an Agent of Influence4, and more specifically of influence through publishing. Hence the idea of applying this hypothesis to the problem of the activity of the immovable Fr. Celier in the media of the Society. It would explain many things and seems confirmed by many facts.

What is the role of the Agent of Influence? What is the behavior that results from this role? Vladimir Volkoff describes it at length with precision and caustic spirit :

The Agent of Influence is chosen for his art of ambivalence, his interdependence, his intellectual flexibility and his mimicry which, in any situation, allows him to find the opportunity and the way to influence in the desired direction, to change mentalities and opinions, and by imperceptible thrusts (or reading tips), to deviate the orientations of people. He therefore never presents himself in a definite form, nor with an obvious aim. He does not appear to be a partisan nor, a fortiori, a revolutionary or a provocateur. Knowing perfectly the society in which he works, he practices perfectly the technique of ‘infiltration’. Sometimes he seems to favor moving towards progress, sometimes he behaves as a conservative defender of established order and traditions. His propaganda is sometimes “for” change, when one expected rather “against”; other times he is “against”. And so he advocates innovation. Sometimes he says something forcefully but discreetly does the opposite. In order to give slack, to play in society, to destabilize the institution, to disunite it, to make it loose that which was firmly held and undo the existing order, it bends opinions sometimes in one sense, sometimes in the opposite direction, applying the technique of the “iron wire”, through which it is enough to twist it alternately in the opposite directions in order to break it.

By tendentious information, he prepares the opinion for the evolution desired by his masters or hidden inspirers. Working discreetly, slowly and in the dark, he avoids the limelight and never directly acts himself but through a chain of people, intermediaries or by interposed means. Thus, through diffusing and publishing, he carefully selects the works, the authors and the subjects that respond to his purpose of destabilizing, of dismissing such opinion and of inclining towards another. He uses the media at his disposal and distracts people’s minds by false problems, new and seductive but vain questions, by copious but exhaustive “dossiers” without synthesis or conclusion but which instill new ideas and divert it’s readers’ attention away from the real questions. Occasionally he is quite clever, but more often he disperses his thoughts while distracting, seducing with many pictures and innovative layouts that tickle the taste buds, give the illusion of information but do not nourish the intelligence, and which do not invite reflection because the latter, whatever he may say, is his enemy. In summary, it influences society in the direction of disintegration, demobilization, but without breaking or upsetting anything. In short, he thinks and acts like the modernist in the Church.​

This synthetic description of the behavior of the agent of influence corresponds perfectly to what we observed in Fr. Gregory Celier.

The effectiveness of his subversive work will be judged by the following testimony from an author that is very little known but nevertheless faithful to the Society of St. Pius X. In 1999 he asked Clovis to publish his original work of scientific apologetics. This book, eloquently appreciated by several censors and prefaced by a priest of the Society, explained how Providence had responded in Her most divine manner to the anti-Christian conjuration which seemed to triumph in the twentieth century. After sending a “press note” and several reminders, this book was finally presented in a few words in the catalog for Clovis - France books, but in the History section where, obviously, it did not belong, and that was all. Despite insistent reminders, there was no review in Fideliter, nor a more objective presentation in the catalog. This triggered the indignation of the author in question, who made a strong complaint to the District Superior of that time, a claim of which we have received a copy. It perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral behavior of the Agent of Influence and the impotence of his superiors, if he has any at all.

So here is a significant extract :

I beg you to go through the attached file of the letters that Fr. Celier and I have exchanged. You will find there expressions of good intentions :

February 1, 1999 : “Your work … we will gladly examine it … Your request will be examined with the most extreme goodwill “.

August 9, 1999 : “I forwarded your work to my collaborator in charge of the catalog …”

January 5, 2000 : “I will talk to my catalog manager again …”.​

Please note that the “catalog manager “obviously takes no responsibility and hides himself behind Fr. Celier. That is why, on the 10th of January, I wrote you about what I had discovered : Fideliter-Clovis is a “pétaudière” [disorganisation]. Did you intervene? I don’t know because you did not answer my letter. I assume you did, since I found my work presented in the catalog of February 2000. This misleading presentation in the History section and a petty brevity made me jump and protest.

But then Fr. Celier’s tone changed. May 24, 2000 :

“You think your work is of capital importance [I did not say anything like that at all] … Allow me to have the right to keep a more nuanced judgment on this subject, as a reader, and as a priest and as head of a broadcasting house.”

Fine ! But since this “responsible-reader-priest” has formed a “more nuanced judgment”, he must have read my book, or at least examined it before judging and discarding it. This reader-priest thus knows what it is that he disapproves of in my work. On the 9th of July, I asked him courteously to tell me in all charity, and even to give me a “fraternal correction”. Is that too much to ask between Catholics?

Father, I invite you to read carefully the reply I have received and of which I am sending you a copy. It is dated 6 August 2000.

The short of it is that I did not “apprehend the real situation” [= I did not understand]. The “reader-priest-publisher” had “no obligation … no desire to take note”. Quite simply, “he did not take note”. And this work of which he said “We will gladly examine it … your request will be examined with the most extreme goodwill”, this work has, by an unfortunate chance, fallen on the heap of “39,970 works published this year and not selected”. But, believe me, my book “was not refused nor dismissed”. In short, “the most extreme benevolence” was powerless against the opposite kind.

Father, the bad faith and intellectual dishonesty that permeate this letter are unspeakable and scandalous. I am deeply disappointed and even disgusted by Fideliter-Clovis. If, again, it were only a “pétaudière” [disorganisation], as I have said and written to you, the evil would not be very serious, but I see the “corruptio optimi” [corruption of the best], or “the fish rotting from the head”, as the ADEC newsletter put it in which you ask me to support your works. But how then, great God, if you do not support mine?

While the financial stakes are not insignificant, this is not what matters here. It is first and foremost the work of a layperson for the glory of Jesus Christ and for the salvation of a few souls. If I have deceived myself, or have stepped on the toes of your priests, let them have the courage, frankness, and charity to tell me.

It’s a matter of mutual trust. The question is whether you are interested and whether you want to restore it as much as I want. I really wonder. And since Fr. Celier has flattered himself to enjoy your confidence, it is you I question. In this case, please tell me clearly what your position is in this matter and what steps you will take to stop a scandal that makes me believe that the Society is infiltrated by people who want its demise under cover of an apostolate - lucrative - by publishing, as if the principle of subsidiarity did not apply to clerics.​ And here is the reply received from the District Superior:

Fr. Celier has given you the explanations which appear to me sufficient regarding the decision he has taken in this matter, which I leave as it is.

Counting on your understanding, I declare that this matter is definitely settled and classified for me.​

That’s all there is to it. On the one hand, the brashness of the impostor who knows himself invulnerable, on the other the mediocre lies of the impotent superior who must save face.

The scandalous edition of “The Straw and the Sycamore” showed that behind Fr. Gregoire Celier there may be a manipulator of the “friend-counselor” kind as Fr. of Tannoüarn was then for Paul Sernine (anagram of Arsène Lupine and pseudonym of Celier). De Tanoüarn was himself influenced by the militant atheist Alain de Benoist. But the exclusion of this priest proves that he himself had no protector and therefore could not protect Celier. Now, then, there is more than a friend but an “occult power” which, in view of the methods and the objective that these reveal, seems to be Freemasonry.

It can be seen that an effective Agent of Influence occupying a strategic position such as that of publishing requires protection which alas, may even render his superior helpless. In this case, it is a blackmail (or conditional threat), aimed not at the Superior but at the Society of Saint Pius X, and behind it, the Catholic Church itself. As soon as one has had the weakness of yielding once, the blackmail becomes permanent although remaining invisible and carefully hidden because it is unavailable. This is what makes it formidable so long as it is not placed in full light. Hence the practical recommendation of Pope Leo XIII : “In the first place, tear from Freemasonry the mask which it is covered with, and let it be seen as it is. Educate your people …5. But how can the Society instruct its faithful if its main publication is under the control of a man in the power of the Sect and who professes the non-existence of the conspiracy against the Church as if it were not a proven fact?

Now, for every enemy of the Church, Father Celier, being responsible for the media of the Society in France, was extremely useful to the subversion right where he was. According to his works, it seems probable that it was from his philosophic professorship in Niherne (1986) that he was “recruited” and that the protection of his “friends” was assured to him from his appointment as head of Fideliter -Clovis (1993 ?).

What is the basis of his “protection” as an Agent of Influence? Here is my hypothesis. It is currently unverifiable but it has the merit of being consistent with the facts.

In 1977, after the illegal occupation of the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris, there was a judgment made deciding the expulsion of the occupants, Bishop Ducaud-Bourget and the Society of Saint Pius X, but this judgment was never rendered enforceable despite the demands of the archbishopric of Paris.

Why this inertia of the executive power, that is to say, of the Ministry of Interior Affairs?

During the negotiations between the protagonists - Cardinal Archbishop of Paris Bishop Marty; The Mayor of Paris Jacques Chirac; The minister of the interior ; The District Superior Fr. Aulagnier; And the mediator, Academician Jean Guitton, a friend of Paul VI - it appeared that the status quo (that is, the non-expulsion of the traditionalists) presented advantages for each of the parties :

§ The archbishopric collected monthly its percentage of the collections6;

§ The few conciliar faithful attached to Saint Nicholas had easily found a place in a neighboring parish;

§ The SSPX enjoyed a well-located church, commensurate with its needs;

§ The Ministry of the Interior and Religious Affairs saw religious peace virtually assured and public order no longer risked being disturbed by “fundamentalists” seeking to squat an unoccupied church;

§ And Freemasonry, secretly mistress in this ministry7, found for all intents and purposes an ideal means of pressure on the Society. When Fr. Grégoire Celier was transferred from Niherne to Paris, one can believe that he found friends there (some of whom surfaced during the affair of “the Straw and the Sycamore”) to hold the stirrup and introduce him to influence in the media he had just been charged with. Protection came later without it being necessary to be initiated. The “useful idiots” and “fellow travelers” are no longer such.​

Be that as it may, the judgment of expulsion of the SSPX outside the church of Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet is still valid and constitutes a sword of Damocles hanging over its head, and it is very easy to discreetly recall its existence. It would suffice for a telephone message from the Ministry of Interior Affairs threatening the Society to enforce the 1977 deportation order if the District of France decided to transfer or punish Fr. Celier, or if only such a threat were reported.

This explains why Fr. Grégoire Celier is untouchable. It will be noted that even though he was discharged from Fideliter and Clovis, he now writes in DICI and is still dealing with the site “La Porte Latine”. But whatever the reasons for his departure from Fideliter-Clovis, he has found another occupation, and always in the media of the Society. Simple coincidence, it will be said. But what is remarkable is that in this position he can act precisely for the same purpose concealed in his work “Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists”, a design that we highlighted in our critical study of 17 July 20078.

Let’s look at this very current fact.

The article of the “Letter to our brothers priests” of March 2008.

Today it is in the “Letter to our brothers priests” that Fr. Celier exercises his talents. He was appointed editor-in-chief and Fr. de La Rocque, overburdened with pastoral tasks, entrusted him with the editing. Thus, in the large issue of March 2008 (n ° 37), eleven pages out of twelve are entirely of his pen. Only the Editorial is by Fr. de Cacqueray, District Superior, who presents Fr. Celier as “a connoisseur of the history of the liturgy,” a presentation which we shall not dispute. But let us see what this erudition serves. We will be edified.

This synthesis “went to the best sources,” says the editorial, and is devoted to the history of the mass known as [the Mass of] John XXIII. We see applied the knowledge of the Agent of Influence. He uses the same methodology as in “The Mortal God” and in “The Ecumenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform”. With a self-confident virtuosity, and with the confidence he enjoys, Fr. Celier accumulates quotations (as always taken out of their context) by authors, most of whom prepared, in the “Liturgical Movement” of the first half of the twentieth century, the future reform of 1969 : Yves Congar, Bouyer (ex-Anglican, proselyte of the Paschal Mystery), Dom Botte, Romano Guardini, Dom Oury, Max Thurian (of Taizé), Cardinal Ratzinger (cited four times! ), and even Bishop Bugnini (!!!). To read these quotations, all (even Bishop Bugnini) seem to be ardent defenders of the Traditional Mass, but the truth is that they all paved the way for the Mass of Paul VI and welcomed it, even when they did not participate in its “manufacture”. On the other hand, there are no quotations from the authentic contemporary defenders of the Traditional Mass: neither Archbishop Lefebvre, nor Dom Guillou, nor Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, whose works are published by Fideliter. (Is Father Celier afraid to frighten his conciliar “brother priests”?). In any case, the authors cited could not do otherwise but to support the statement of Benedict XVI in his 2007 motu proprio : the two forms of the Roman rite are equivalent (!) and these two forms should be mutually enriched. So we have to make a “reform of the reform” and move towards the “pipaule” mass. This is the implicit but obvious conclusion of this article.

Moreover, it should be noted that these quotations are crowned by the conclusion expressed by Fr. Celier: “the liturgy is the fruit of a continuous development” resulting from a “living process of growth”. “The forms of a rite are living realities” (…) in which “the actions of God and man’s response embodied themselves in a concrete form at the same time” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1998). Here we find the root cause for the rejection of the Ratzingerian theology of living Revelation and Tradition9 of which Fr. Celier is today the discreet zealot, in between the SSPX and the conciliar priests with a conservative tendency, and perhaps even leaning towards the Society.

Finally, it will not be surprising to discover, in this overview of the history of the traditional Mass, a revealing absence. That the miracle of the Holy Mass has been providentially perpetuated for some 2,000 years, this should have aroused in a priest an incoercible jubilation. Well no ! The “knowledgeable connoisseur of the history of the liturgy” that is Fr. Celier remains cold as a forensic doctor writing his report: no emotion, not the slightest impulse of the soul upwards. It is true that an Agent of Influence must manipulate without enthusiasm. When he has this, it is his to loss as shown by Vladimir Volkoff.

This proves that in the Society he is indeed an Agent of Influence, faithful to his ideas, which we now know by all his works. It also proves that in this Society other priests think like him that it is absolutely necessary to approach Rome to avoid falling into schism or to try to convert these modernists. And it will be noticed that for this Agent of Influence, to approach Rome is not enough: its theological innovations must already be adopted. It is to this dark design that it is activated from now on, as we will see soon by analyzing a new document very important on account of the attempt of subversion that it reveals.

Morality: When there is a threat or blackmail, do not skimp, but pay the price to make it disappear, otherwise your whole future will be compromised, and even honor will be attained. In the sad affair of religious associations, against the threats of spoliation, Saint Pius X gave us this answer by showing a crucifix: “I look at the Cross”. And not having yielded to threats, he wrote to the French the encyclical letter once again stigmatizing the aim pursued by the permanent enemies of Catholic France: the destruction of the Church and the de-Christianization of France. This letter, in its conclusion, reminded the world “in the name of the Master of all things, that man ought to nourish, on earth, preoccupations higher than those of the perishable contingencies of this life, and that the supreme joy, the inviolable Human joy on this earth is the supernatural duty accomplished at all costs and, therefore, God honored, served and loved in spite of everything.“10

And then, if you read “The Montage”, Vladimir Volkoff will teach you that the Agents of Influence have an active life that lasts as long as a fire of straw lasts.

Hopefully this will happen soon!

Paul Chaussée, 13 April 2008

  • 1. Supporter les faux frères » est, avec la patience, classé par saint Benoît au 4e degré de l’humilité dans sa règle (chapitre 7). Cf. commentaire de Dom Jean de Monléon, o.s.b., in Les XII degrés de l’humilité.
  • 2. La désinformation est à considérer comme arme de guerre, très bien décrite par Vladimir Volkoff.
  • 3. Dans sa lettre hebdomadaire Le Courrier de Tychique du 9 mars 2008. Monsieur Max Barret fut, du vivant de Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, l’un de ses chauffeurs et son confident occasionnel. Il a récemment publié ses souvenirs sous le titre Mgr. Lefebvre, tout simplement. (“Les Roux”, 01400 Châtillon sur Chalaronne).
  • 4. Vladimir Volkoff, romancier et bon connaisseur des méthodes du KGB, in Le Montage, Ed. Julliard - L’Age d’homme 1982. En l’occurrence, cet ouvrage traite des techniques et activités de « l’agent d’influence » en matière littéraire (en particulier pages 58 à 70) mais le roman est la forme captivante et plaisante de décrire une affreuse réalité.
  • 5. Léon xiii, Encyclique Humanum genus, 1884, § 47-48.
  • 6. Un témoin de ces négociations se souvient que, certain mois de 1978, la somme remise à l’archevêché atteignit 70.000 F, ce qui représentait un joli “loyer”, et supérieur à la totalité des recettes de toutes les autres églises de Paris ! Cela a dû faire réfléchir le Cardinal.
  • 7. Alors qu’il était Ministre de l’Intérieur, Nicolas Sarkozy y reçut un jour une délégation du Grand Orient de France qu’il accueillit par ces mots : « Messieurs, vous êtes ici chez vous ! » N’oublions pas que les évêques et archevêques sont choisis avec approbation du Ministère de l’Intérieur et des cultes.
  • 8. Cette étude fut envoyée au Supérieur de District et au Supérieur Général et, fait révélateur, elle resta sans aucune réponse, pas même un accusé de réception ! Nous en déduisons que dans une affaire aussi gênante, ils ont jugé que le silence total était préférable. Toutefois, sauvant l’honneur, un évêque nous a répondu et approuvé.
  • 9. Révélation et Tradition vivantes selon le cardinal Ratzinger (et maintenant Benoît XVI) ont été évoquées en Annexe I de notre étude critique sur le livre de MM. Pichon et Celier Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes.
  • 10. Yves Chiron in Saint Pie X, réformateur de l’Église, Publications du Courrier de Rome, 1999, p. 207 ; et Documents pontificaux de Saint Pie X, Courrier de Rome 1993, t.1, p. 397.