#10 (G) - Pamphlets of Fr. Helmuts "the Hammer" Libietis

God's Way, Not Ours

In the book of Isaias we read: “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways My ways!’ saith the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts’.” (Isaias 55:8-9).

According to our way of thinking, if someone is in charge of something, then they should be left alone to get on with the job and we leave it to them to make all the necessary decisions in order to make things happen! Similarly, in the momentous situation of a potential “union with Rome” one hears phrases like “Bishop Fellay is the only one with the ‘grace of state’ to be able to make the decision!” Or now, since the General Chapter of July 2012, it seems that this ‘grace of state’ has been ‘transferred’ to the General Chapter, who will now vote on any such potential “union with Rome.” Yet our ways are not always God’s ways, and God’s ways are, sadly, not our ways!

Even though God’s Providence puts certain people in charge of certain enterprises, and also gives them the ‘grace of state’ to fulfill their duties therein, God sometimes “throws a spanner in the works” by then guiding those leaders from below—sometimes from way down below! There are many, many examples throughout the Old and New Testament periods. “The foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the strong” (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Holy Scripture says, through the mouth of St. Peter —the leader chosen by Jesus—“God is not a respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). Jesus could have appeared directly to His ‘leaders’–the Apostles–immediately after His resurrection, but He speaks to His Apostles through Mary Magdalen, who is sent with a message for those placed above her. The leader is corrected by a subordinate when St. Peter is corrected by St. Paul—“But when Cephas (Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). Popes and kings have been given advice by mere men and women in weighty matters—St. Catherine of Siena counseled popes; St. Joan of Arc counseled the king; St. Margaret Mary wrote to King Louis XIV of France telling him to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and place the Sacred Heart on the flag of France—the king refused to do both things. In recent times, Sister Lucy of Fatima counseled popes and bishops to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart—but to no avail. Some listened to these counsels “from below” others did not. History eloquently shows the consequences of listening and not listening!

Why does God place chosen souls in high positions and then seeks to counsel them through their subordinates? It is an exercise in humility and dependence upon the mysterious ways of Divine Providence, rather than a vain dependence on self—often an implicit independence from God. Similarly, throughout the history of the Church, popes and bishops have turned to the plentiful sources of wisdom found in the various religious orders—not just for advice, but very often for a helping hand in the many cares and anxieties that they faced. This is humility and charity at work! This is the part of the communion of saints!

We hear much said of a “prudential decision” regarding this potential “union with Rome.” According to St. Thomas Aquinas, prudence is a virtue most necessary to man. Prudence is the knowledge of how to act, how to conduct one’s life rightly. Prudence is no mere knowledge of what things are (of what is so), but of how to act (of what to do). As Aristotle says, prudence gives orders. Prudence commands. It does not, indeed, take over the work of the will. It shows with certitude and authority how the will ought to choose. Prudence is not only a private virtue, looking solely to the individual good conduct of a person; it also serves the common good. Political prudence must be in the rulers and legislators on one hand, and in the citizens on the other hand. True prudence, as a virtue, is only in the good. Serious sin casts out prudence. A sinful person in his evil life may exercise a kind of craftiness that has the outer look of prudence, but it is not the genuine article. A person in the state of grace has prudence, for he has charity, and charity cannot exist without prudence.

The parts of prudence are: memory, understanding, docility, shrewdness, reason, foresight, circumspection, caution. Memory of past experiences is essential. If we forget past events, we are unlikely to allow ourselves to be guided by them. Understanding as a knowledgeable grasp of things, is manifestly necessary for prudent action. Docility, or readiness to be taught by others, makes experience fruitful. A stubborn and opinionated person is never a prudent person. Shrewdness, not in an ugly sense as low craftiness, but as the quick estimation of what is suitable in a situation, is necessary for a prudent person. Right Reason, not as the thinking mind which guides the will, but as the right use of that mind, is clearly necessary. Foresight, or the clear view of how future contingencies may bear upon the present occasion, or may depend on how the present situation is met, is a part of prudence. Circumspection (circa “around” and spectare “to look”) looks at all possibilities and angles. It sees what is suitable here and now in existing circuмstances. Caution looks to avoid evil, especially evil that wears the mask of good.

The following advice, originally published in Portuguese by the Benedictine mother-house of Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, Nova Friburgo, Brazil, on 20th April 2012, by Arsenius (a Benedictine monk) shows a prudent approach to the issue of “union with Rome” and was thus accepted and published by the traditional Dominican Order of Avrillé, France, in their summer 2012 issue (No. 81) of Le Sel de la Terre (The Salt of the Earth). Thus we can say that the following is both the mind and teaching of the traditional Benedictines of the Monastery of Santa Cruz (Holy Cross) of Nova Friburgo, Brazil and also the traditional Dominican Order of Avrillé, France. Let us hope it also becomes the prudent approach of the Society of St. Pius X in its prudent future dealings with Modernist Rome.

THE ADVICE OF THE BENEDICTINES & THE DOMINICANS IN DEALINGS WITH MODERNIST ROME

Considering...
(1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard [superior of the traditional Benedictines in France] when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. It was an agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome was giving everything and asked for nothing;

(2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said, after the consecrations, that, from this time onwards, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church documents condemning modern errors;

(3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a protocol of agreement with the Vatican in order to obtain permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;

(4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world, while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;

(5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, was, subsequently, forced to accept the fact that its members can now also celebrate the New Mass;

(6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

(7) That in time of war, to carefully follow the positive laws (for example, the traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to suicide;

(8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);

(9) That being “reconciled” with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;

(10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided, so as not to become sick like them.

(11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a “state of necessity”, which gives them the right to have recourse to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the Sacraments and assist at the Mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.

We judge...
(1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities first condemned the modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church, and which have been condemned by previous Popes;

(2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;

(3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of Tradition;

(4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

(5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;

(6) That it would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:

(a) will lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;
(b) will stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;
(c) will leave us to be “contaminated” by progressivism;

(7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would given permission by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because it would not considered to be a grave and general “state of necessity.”

Objection...
One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions, he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.

We answer...
... that even if this were true, nonetheless, from May 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary, since that time he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal documents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death. The motive, that led to this change, was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.

Conclusion
...Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.