Thank you, Mr. Louis-Hubert Remy

Mr. Louis-Hubert Remy (with his satellites: ACRF, Catholicapedia, Editions Saint-Remy) has responded, twice, to what we wrote about the pseudo-retraction of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. Once was just not enough, in fact, as Mr. Remy considered it necessary to ask Mr. [Alfred] Denoyelle, (who was first to spread the pseudo-retraction), to find out more.  We would like to publicly thank Mr. Louis-Hubert Remy:

not only for his insults (ignoble, liars, dishonest, slanderers, blasphemers, gurus, cesspools of impurity, swindlers, etc. etc.) and good wishes (Father Ricossa is destined to be vomited out by God and die a bad death) but also for the inquiry he made with Mr. Denoyelle, from which we learn:

  1. That the original of the Bishop Guérard des Lauriers “letter” doesn’t exist (anymore). An original, dear Mr. Remy, is not a photocopy and even less the scan of a photocopy which, as everyone knows, can be easily manipulated.
  2. That the date of the “letter” does not exist. Now the date would be decisive, because there are writings and public declarations by Bishop Guérard des Lauriers which attest to his fidelity to the thesis of Cassiciacum: his interview in n. 13 of Sodalitium, May 1987 (; and his statement before the consecration of November 25, 1987, for example. If the letter was prior to these dates, the “retraction” thesis would be proven false.
  3. That the person who supposedly received the “letter” is dead (and therefore cannot deny or confirm receiving it) and Mr. Denoyelle does not mention his name.
  4. That Denoyelle’s study (étude) which would have convinced Bishop Guérard, according to Denoyelle, does not exist (anymore).
  5. That the said study, according to Denoyelle himself, was not a study, but a “mémo”, a series of quotes from other authors (Msgr. Farges, Mauro Cappellari future Gregory XVI…). While the “letter” speaks of a “study” by Denoyelle, and its conclusions, which are unknown to us.
  6. Finally: it is completely impossible that Bishop Guérard changed his opinion because of the quote by Msgr. Farges on the real distinction (not of reason) between prime matter and substantial form. Even a first-year philosophy student, in fact, knows that prime matter and substantial form – although truly distinct – are not separated in reality. But every first-year philosophy student also knows that secondary matter (the composite of prime matter and substantial form, for example Peter) can very well exist without an accidental form (for example being Pope). All the more so since – reread Bishop Guérard’s interview – the Thesis does not speak so much about the matter or form of the Pope, but about Pope materialiter (from the point of view of matter) and Pope formaliter (from the point of view of form): that is, of conclave’s elected (pope materialiter) who, due to an obstacle, did not receive from Christ the formal aspect of the Papacy which constitutes him as Pope (“being with” Him on the part of Christ). The objection based on the inseparability between prime matter and substantial form was well known to Father Guérard, so it is impossible that seeing it reproduced in a quote from Farges could have in any way brought about a change of opinion, especially since Bishop Guérard was an Academician of Saint Thomas like Msgr. Farges, and what’s more a teacher at the Lateran University, and not a student in his first year of philosophy.

We therefore have one certainty: Bishop Guérard des Lauriers always publicly defended the so-called Cassiciacum Thesis, and this until the end of his life, and he never said that he had retracted it; not to us, not to Mr. Remy, nor to his friends who visited him in hospital (no one tried to “manipulate” Bishop Guérard, dear Mr. Remy, at least not us).

Against this certainty we would have a letter that no longer exists, sent to who knows who, written who knows when, in which it speaks of an essay (étude) which is not an essay, and which in any case no longer exists, based on an unfounded argument and in any case already well known to Bishop Guérard. And that the individual who had similar “proof” of Bishop Guérard’s “retraction”, in which he is converted to Denoyelle’s theses (no one knows which ones), waited 30 years to let the world know.

Believing, on this basis, in a retraction by Bishop Guérard is like believing that donkeys can fly. But even if donkeys did fly, we see no reason to “retract” a thesis that proves, even in this case, to always be true and never refuted.

Furthermore, Mr. Remy, an expert of the counter-revolutionary and anti-liberal school by virtue of the 10,000 volumes in his library (even if he often confuses the anti-liberal Catholics and the fideist “traditionalists” of the 19th century) publishes, without any comment or the slightest criticism, Denoyelle’s topic following which Sodalitium wouldn’t be a serious magazine:

Vous évoquez l’abbé Ricossa et ses confrères. Il y a de nombreuses années déjà, certains articles publiés par eux faisaient scandale. Je pense notamment à l’accusation de meurtres rituels d’enfants et de cannibalisme dont les juifs se rendraient coupables chaque année lors de notre fête de Pâques. C’était la reprise presque littérale de l’accusation dont les premiers chrétiens avaient fait l’objet de la part des païens. En écrivant des choses non fondées, on favorise les attaques que les juifs dirigent déjà assez contre l’Église (notamment dans la “Jewish encyclopedia”).

[You mention Father Ricossa and his confreres. Many years ago, some articles published by them caused scandal. I am thinking in particular about the accusation of ritual murders of children and cannibalism of which the Jews would be guilty, every year, during our Easter celebration. It was an almost literal repetition of the accusation to which the first Christians had been subjected by the pagans. By writing unfounded things, we encourage the attacks that Jews direct more than enough against the Church (notably in the “Jewish encyclopedia”)].

What is scandalous is that Catholics who are not modernists (or rather: “anti-liberal” Catholics as L.H. Remy defines himself) can compare the issue recalled by Denoyelle to anti-Christian slander. It would be the case of remembering that the Church has expressed its opinion on the issue several times, among other things with the Bull “Beatus Andreas” by Pope Benedict XIV, and that the Church venerates many of these children as blessed. As for the historical authorities, it is enough to mention Msgr. Benigni and, on the Jewish side, Prof. Ariel Toaff in his volume “Blood Easters”. By reporting A. Denoyelle’s statements without any critical comment, L. H. Remy and his acolytes have thrown the most profound and irrevocable discredit on his qualification as an expert of the anti-liberal Catholic school.

In conclusion, we repeat again: thank you, Mr. Remy! You could not have better demonstrated to us the truth of the Thesis, and the amateurism of its detractors.

Verrua Savoia, January 28, 2020

Previous article on this question: