Satan’s “master stroke”

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Satan’s “master stroke” Mar 24, 2019 11:42:35 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 11:42:35 GMT

From the Dominicans of Avrille:

Satan’s “master stroke”

(Part 1 of 2)

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 94, Autumn 2015)

1. Satan Launches his “master stroke”

We know that Pope Paul VI spoke of the auto-destruction of the Church and of the smoke of Satan which had entered the Temple of God:

“The Church finds Herself in a time of anxiety, of self-criticism, we could even say of auto-destruction. It is akin to an interior upheaval, which is both acute and complex, and which no-one would have expected after the Council.”¹

“Faced with the situation in the Church today, we have the impression that through some crack or fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God. There are doubts, uncertainties, problems, anxiety, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is no longer trusted. […] It was thought that after the Council the sun would have shone on the history of the Church. But, instead of sun, we have had clouds, storms, darkness, searching, uncertainty. […] How was this able to happen? An adversary power has intervened, whose name is the devil, this mysterious being to whom Saint Peter alludes in his letter.”²

Just as the High-Priest, Caiaphas, prophesied that it was necessary for Our Lord Jesus Christ to die in order to save His people³, but without understanding his prophecy, so Paul VI saw that the Church was auto-destructing via the action of Satan, but without understanding the process.

On 13 October 1974, the anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima, in a written work entitled “Satan’s Master stroke”, Archbishop Lefebvre described in a striking manner how the auto-destruction of the Church was happening. Here are some extracts from that text:

“Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. […] We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience. […] You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.”

“Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. […] Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.“

2. Satan continues his “master stroke”

It is not only in the immediate aftermath of the Council that Satan used his master stroke. He began all over again after the consecrations of 30 June 1988 in order to try to divide Tradition. Here is how Dom Thomas Aquinas describes the scenario in the last Letter to the Friends of Santa Cruz Monastery:

“On June 30, 1988, after having prayed for a long time, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops so that Holy Church could continue Her mission. This ceremony stirred up the predicted storm. Rome thundered excommunication (invalid because Archbishop Lefebvre’s act was licit and necessary due to the situation in which the Church finds Herself) and the newspapers published the news with great gusto.However, Rome was not the only one to disapprove of these consecrations. Some within Tradition also opposed them: Dom Gérard Calvet, Prior of the Sainte Madeleine Monastery in Le Barroux, France, Jean Madiran, director of the Itinéraires magazine, Father Bisig⁴, and some others. Dom Gérard said that it was necessary to remain within the visible perimeter of the Church. In order to accomplish this, he regularized his canonical situation with Rome, abandoning Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, bringing with him the Benedictine nuns of the Annonciation Monastery in France. He also tried to bring with him in his opposition to the 1988 consecrations the Brazilian foundation of Santa Cruz.

And what were his arguments? They were subtle and threatened to undermine the monks of Santa Cruz:

"You must obey me”, he said, “because this decision does not concern the Faith. It is a prudential question. You must obey me because of your vows”.

These are not his exact words, but that was the essence of his argument. Dom Gérard had already declared: “Rome is giving us everything and is asking nothing from us. How could we refuse?” He thus employed every means to convince his monks, the faithful and friendly priests: to disobey him would be a mortal sin, a sin against our vows.

What were we to say faced with such an argument? “Our Faith is exposed to great risks by this agreement with Rome. We cannot accept it”.

“You must come back to France”, Dom Gérard told me. “There are fifty monks in the monastery to protect your Faith”.

Even though Dom Gérard said there was no risk for our Faith, even though Dom Gérard said that his decision was purely prudential, the truth was completely different. Even though this decision was prudential, it had serious consequences for the Faith. By submitting himself to authorities who were not professing the Catholic Faith in all its integrity, Dom Gérard was placing our monasteries in a situation whose harmfulness would be demonstrated over time: the New Mass celebrated by monks, Religious Liberty defended by Father Basile, the departure of several monks as well as a new orientation for the whole monastery of Le Barroux.”

3. A means of resisting pointed out by Archbishop Lefebvre

Satan’s master stroke has been working well for about fifty years. It is to be foreseen that the devil will continue using it. How can we resist and not allow ourselves to be tricked by it?

Archbishop Lefebvre himself gives us some good advice.

First off, distinguish the two Romes:

“We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.⁵”

Then we must clearly manifest our refusal to follow neo-Modernist Rome. Some weeks after writing his text on “Satan’s master stroke”, in his famous Declaration of 21 November 1974, Archbishop Lefebvre returned to this distinction of the two Romes and explained his refusal to follow neo-Modernist Rome:

“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. “

In his Spiritual Journey⁶,“written for us in 1990, as his spiritual will and testament⁷, Archbishop Lefebvre reaffirmed with force the necessity of breaking with neo-Modernist Rome, once more called “Conciliar church”:

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!”

As Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “it is the superiors who make the subjects⁸” and not the opposite. Whence the necessity of maintaining a respectful distance from the Modernist Roman authorities and of observing the principle which was that of the Society of Saint Pius X between 1998 and 2012: “No canonical agreement with Rome before a doctrinal agreement”.

This principle was bequeathed by Archbishop Lefebvre after the failure of the negotiations of 1988. Here, for example, are some extracts of the article entitled “À une reprise des colloques, je poserai mes conditions” (“If talks were renewed, I would lay down my conditions”), which appeared in Fideliter No. 66 of December 1988:

“I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion on the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” Thus, the positions will be clear.”

This principle was repeated very many times by the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X, notably by the Chapter of 2006:

“The contacts made from time to time [by the Society] with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement."

In 2008, Bishop Fellay judged, correctly, that this principle is based on the order of the nature of things:

“It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of Faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. […] Each day brings additional proofs that we must clarify to the maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.⁹"

And yet, in March 2012 Bishop Fellay announced that he was abandoning this principle, because of the improvement in Rome since 2006¹⁰, and this abandonment was supported by the General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X in July 2012: the condition of an agreement on doctrine no longer figures amongst the six conditions laid down for a canonical recognition.¹¹

Since then, despite many pleas, Bishop Fellay has refused to return to the old principle. Whence the troubles which Tradition has been experiencing for three years now.

(Continue to Part 2)

1. Paul VI, Declaration of 7 December 1968. Source in French: Documentation Catholique, 5 January 1969, Column 12.
2. Homily of Paul VI of 6/29/1972. Source (in French): notredamedesneiges.-overblog. Text in Italian: www.vatican.va/… Strangely, it is not the text itself which is reproduced, but a “report”, which is undoubtedly the work of the Curia offices.
3. “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people”(John XI, 50).
4. Founder of the Society of Saint Peter
5. « Le coup de maître de Satan » (“Satan’s Masterstroke”), 13 October, 1974.
6. Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, Angelus Press, 1991.
7. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais , sermon of 1 January, 2015.
8. Fideliter, 70, p.6.
9. Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 73, 23 October, 2008.
10. “The Chapter in 2006 set forth a very clear line of conduct in matters concerning our situation with respect to Rome. We give priority to the Faith, without seeking for our part a practical solution BEFORE the doctrinal question is resolved. This is not a principle, but a line of conduct that should regulate our concrete action. […] If there were a change in the situation of the Church with respect to Tradition, then that might necessitate a corresponding modification of the conclusion. […] Now there is no doubt that since 2006 we have witnessed a development in the Church, an important and extremely interesting development, although it is not very visible. […] This requires that we take up a new position with respect to the official Church. […] This is the context in which it is advisable to ask the question about some form of recognition of the Society by the official Church. […] Our new friends in Rome declare that the impact of such recognition would be extremely powerful on the whole Church.” (Bishop Fellay, Cor Unum, 18 March, 2012).

11.“Sine qua non conditions to be laid down by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X in the case of a canonical recognition: 1 Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences ; 2 Exclusive use of the liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we have at the moment (including holy orders, confirmation and marriage) ; 3 The guarantee of at least one bishop. – Desirable conditions: 1 Our own ecclesiastical tribunals, in the first instance ; 2 Exemption of houses of The Society of St Pius X in respect of diocesan bishops ; 3 A Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition, dependent on the Pope, with a majority of members, and the presidency, from Tradition”. (Father Christian Thouvenot, Circular Letter to Superiors of 18 July 2012. French source: tradinews.blogspot.fr/2012/07…)

[Emphasis - in the original)

Last Edit: Mar 24, 2019 11:46:58 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Satan’s “master stroke” Mar 24, 2019 12:12:17 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 12:12:17 GMT

From the Dominicans of Avrille

Satan’s master stroke

(Part 2 of 2)

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 94, Autumn 2015)

4. Should we return to the old principle:

“No practical agreement without doctrinal agreement” ?

Today, under Pope Francis, it is no longer possible to argue for a supposed improvement in the situation in Rome, but this does not stop certain people from raising objections to a return to the “old principle”. Here are some objections which are voiced and the responses which can be made to them:

Objection 1

Between “no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement” and “practical agreement without doctrinal agreement”, there is a middle way which is in conformity with the thought of Archbishop Lefebvre.

1st Response: The Devil fishes in troubled waters. In a matter of such importance (since the Faith is in danger), we must be clear.

2nd Response: The thought of Archbishop Lefebvre evolved with events. The more Conciliar Rome showed itself to be stubborn in its adherence to Modernism, the more he took his distance. After the failure of the negotiations, he took up a very clear position, which is the one we have explained above (i.e. in the first part of this article). Those who today want to make a practical agreement with Rome while claiming to be faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre are obliged to suppose that Archbishop Lefebvre would have changed his mind. It is more correct to think that Archbishop Lefebvre would, on the contrary, be even more wary of today’s Rome, because of the fact that it is even more Modernist than in 1988.

Objection 2.

But if the Pope grants us something (like the label of “Catholic Association” in Argentina, or even ordinary jurisdiction to confess validly and licitly during the Holy Year), without asking us for anything in exchange, then we are not going to refuse! It binds us to nothing.

Response: “Timeo Daneos et dona ferentes”¹, replies Virgil. We should instead have the wisdom and prudence to at least recall that we remain separated by a wall – i.e. the wall which separates Catholic doctrine from Modernism. Otherwise we could end up thinking that these little gifts are the proof that collaboration is possible².

During the Communist persecutions, Catholics who wanted to resist chose rather the policy of never accepting anything from the Communists (see “Le piège des pains au jambon” by Rose Hu, in Sel de la Terre 61, Summer 2007, p. 703).

Objection 3.

By refusing to follow the Society of Saint Pius X, you are dividing Tradition, whereas it needs to be united vis-à-vis Rome, in order to be stronger.

1st Response: Our strength lies above all in the truth which we defend. By “muting” this truth (by accepting a “practical agreement” with those who do not profess it), we lose our strength, just as Sampson lost his by allowing his hair to be cut.

2nd Response: Bishop de Galarreta had foreseen that if we continued down this path of a practical agreement, “many superiors and priests will have a legitimate problem of conscience and will oppose it⁴”.

3rd Response: Who causes division: the one who changes policy – without saying so clearly – or the one who does not want to change and simply explains why he does not want to change?

Objection 4.

But nothing has been signed! So, we can keep the current situation, while waiting for a better Pope with whom we will be able to make an agreement.

Response: Signing will be the end of the process. But once you accept in principle to place yourself under the direct authority of Modernists, you are committing yourself to a process of rapprochement. This is a process which is already well underway: in effect, since 2011, at least, there has been no serious condemnation of the errors and faults of Modernist Rome by the superior authority of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. Some underlings have been allowed to speak out, but even they less and less⁵.

Objection 5.

One cannot say, without further qualification, that principles – even practical ones – remain unchangeable. As a result, you are exaggerating when you make of this principle an unchangeable rule⁶.

Response: It is true that prudence must take account of circumstances and that the application of the principles can vary. Saint Thomas Aquinas (II-IIae, q. 49, a.2) shows that the practical syllogism of prudence contains a universal Major (a first proposition) and a particular Minor (a second proposition).

This Minor, which is the observation of a concrete fact, is changeable according to the circumstances. But it is not a “principle” in the sense used here⁷.

The Major, however, is a principle, a general rule of action founded on human nature and therefore invariable: it is in this sense that the word “principle” is used in the quotes of Cardinal Pie, Monseigneur Freppel, Fréderic Le Play, etc.:

Let us not hope to seize once more, by means of secret capitulations, that which Heaven itself refuses to give us. The reign of expediency is over; the reign of principles is beginning (Cardinal Pie, First Pastoral Letter, 25 November 1849).

In a society which is everywhere collapsing, it seemed to me that the first thing to do was to straighten out ideas. What is necessary is to concentrate on improving the fundamentals in light of the principles. There is no other rule of reform than that of seeking what is true and confessing it, whatever may happen (Fréderic Le Play in 1865).

Let us know how to recognize that abandoning the principles is the real cause of our disasters (The Count de Chambord, 8 May 1871).

The greatest misfortune for any era or country is when truth is abandoned or diminished. One can recover from anything else; one never recovers from sacrificing principles (Monseigneur Freppel, 19 January 1873).

It is clear that, for these distinguished minds, the principles of which they speak are not variable rules.

Conclusion: let us keep the “old principle”

Undoubtedly the principle “no canonical agreement before a doctrinal agreement” is not one of the very first principles of the Natural Law (like the Ten Commandments). It is rather to be ranked amongst those common truths admitted by prudent people.

However, in the current circumstances, after more than 25 years’ experience of witnessing that those groups which have gone over to Conciliar Rome always end up abandoning the fight for the Faith, after observing that the situation in Rome, far from improving, is actually only worsening, it appears clearly that only the observation of this principle – left as a testament by Archbishop Lefebvre – will allow us to resist “Satan’s master stroke”.

1. “I fear the Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts”. These words were put in the mouth of Laocoön by Virgil in his Aeneid at the moment when the Trojans caught sight of the famous Horse…

2. “The talks and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, even though they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, have convinced us that the time for a frank and efficacious collaboration has not yet arrived” (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II, 2 June 1988).
3. For the story in English, see: Joy in Suffering by Rose Hu, SSPX Korea, 2011, pages 83-84.
4. Document of Bishop de Galarreta following the meeting in Albano of October 2011. Available in French on laportelatine.org
5. To cite some recent examples:

1. The sermon of Father de la Rocque (SSPX) of 6 September 2015, in which he said he did not want to participate in the Holy Year, was removed within 24 hours from the La Porte Latine website (website of the SSPX French District).

2. The book by François-Xavier Péron entitled Le Synode sur la famille. La Révolution du pape François (The Synod on the Family – Pope Francis’ Revolution), has been forbidden from being sold in the priories of the Society of Saint Pius X in France, whereas the book relates facts and texts in an objective manner and in a measured tone, is prefaced by Father Antoine (Superior of the Capuchins of Morgon, France) and whereas several priests of the Society of Saint Pius X collaborated in it, as well as Father Joseph, Capuchin, formerly Father Régis de Cacqueray (one time Society of Saint Pius X District Superior of France, before entering the Capuchins at Morgon, France).

6. The Editorial of Le Sel de la Terre 92 was devoted to “The Importance of the principles”. The text was reproduced in an abridged form in our Letter to Friends and Benefactors n° 20 (September 2015 ; on this Website). In it, the following is notably affirmed: “The principles, even those which are practical, remain unchangeable”. “One cannot say this without further qualification. Otherwise there would be confusion”, we read in the Courrier de Rome (June 2015, p.7). But the confusion comes, rather, from the fact that the author of the latter article uses the word “principle” to designate the Minor of the syllogism, which is the principle of the conclusion. But to speak in this manner is to give another meaning to the word “principle”. In order to designate this Minor, Saint Thomas Aquinas (in the article quoted above) uses more correctly the word “primum” (which can be translated as “premise”) rather than “principle” (“principium”), according to the better editions (the Leonine Edition – which can be found on the website www.corpusthomisticum.org/ – and the edition, in French, of Father Pègues from 1925. Only the Major of the syllogism of prudence can be called “practical principle”.

7. See the previous note.

[Emphasis in the original]