What Did St Pius X Do Wrong?
I can’t hear anymore all this talk of the new ways how the Church must include, or integrate, or let feel welcome all kind of, obviously, unrepentant sinners.
What exactly did the Church in the time of St Pius X do that was wrong, and why?
Were there, in those times, no adulterers? No children born out of wedlock? No sodomy? Don’t make me laugh!
No. There was a massive amount of sin, because human nature is, after the Fall, automatically predisposed to sin.
Were our forefathers, then, “insensitive” to the “plight” of the adulterer? You bet they were! They were very sensitive to the danger of damnation, and had therefore no time for the rubbish of those who aren’t. If you believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell all the rest follows; if you waste your time talking about “new ways of accepting them” you simply do not believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell.
Think of it logically instead of emoting like a seventeen years old girl, and you will realise that there really is nothing in the middle. Every talk of “new” acceptance means an acceptance that does not include: 1) admission of grave sin and grave scandal, 2) repentance, and 3) amending of one’s way and putting an end to scandal. Therefore, any talk of “new” acceptance means making people more comfortable on their way to hell. Crucially, though, it makes the other pewsitters feel good and sensitive. Sensitivity is the opium of the small “c” catholic.
What did St Pius X do, exactly, that was wrong? Can you give me exact details? Did he not know that the child of the adulterers would feel bad? Of course he did! But you see, the likes of that great Pope were infinitely more interested in the salvation of souls than in the comfort of children! The Blessed Virgin in Fatima makes the children very uncomfortable, and does not give them any of the sensitive rubbish of the modern times!
Nor can you say that in those times such adultering couple and their children were rare. Firstly, and insofar as this was the case, they were rare (or less frequent) because the “insensitive” rules were openly preached and brutally enforced by a strong Church or, among the Proddies, by strong Christian feelings. Secondly, such situations were, actually, very common whenever Christian rules did not arrive, or where they were despised; the slums of (Protestant) Victorian London are a rather striking example of this.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t uphold Truth, and preserve “sensitivity”. You will never save souls by adapting truth to the sensitivity of children. I was told the brutal truths of hell when I was four. I am sure it did not harm my soul one little bit. Of course it would have hurt me to hypothetically discover that, say, my parents were living in sin. But then again this “hurtful” society created children whose parents were not living in sin! Conversely, it is this stupid sensitivity and fear to hurt anyone that creates the adulteries, the scandal, and the children born out of wedlock!
Was Pius X, then, not inclusive? On the contrary, he was very inclusive of the repentant sinner! Did he feel any need of “new” ways of including adulterers? No, it is very obvious the great Saint did not feel any need for them at all! Was he, then, unaware of how unpleasant it is to be born out of wedlock, or to be condemned by your community for living in sin? Of course he was not!
I could go on, but I think I have made the point.
There is nothing wrong in the way the Church has always done things. There can be no way, no way whatsoever, they were wrongly “insensitive” and we must find “new ways” to accommodate any sensitivity that was wrongly neglected before.
Let us realise that all this rubbish talk of finding new ways is the direct consequence of the loss of the fear of the Lord. If the fear of the Lord were still there, the priorities would be arranged differently.
Disagree with this, and you must admit that the Church was “not inclusive” or “not welcoming” in all her past history, all the way up to the enlightened Peron Generation: where air conditioning is evil, God scolds you but does not slap you, and it is necessary to “raise hell”.
St Pius X did nothing wrong. His Church was inclusive in the right way, and it was so out of real charity and love for the salvation of souls. Whatever harshness this charitable mentality caused was the unavoidable consequence of the harshness of the simple truths about salvation and damnation.
It is our generation that does not know what fear of the Lord is, and therefore forgets real charity and sinks in an ocean of diabetes-inducing talk of welcome and inclusion.
Get your priorities straight. The rest will follow from there.
Posted on August 6, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged communion for adulterers, Kasperites. Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.
The and Pre-Vatican II Mother Church was inhabited by the un-righteous and reprobates and they were aware of their failings, but clung on to The Faith nonetheless. The churches were full to overflowing and expansion the order of the day.
Post-Vatican II diocesan Mother Church appears largely to be inhabited by the self-righteous, with churches empty and retraction the order of the day.
I think you are being a tad too harsh with the Pre-V II, sixupman.
It is very reasonable to suppose most reprobates would have stayed away from Her then. I begin to fear they are rather attracted by Frankie’s Circus now, though…
I can see in the horizon “Francis” apologizing and in the name of the Church to the adulterers because according to him She has been too legalistic, vindictive and excluding. For sure they will be allowed to walk down the aisle in beautiful wedding ceremonies like nothing has happened.
I can see Francis wishing it.
I still can’t see he managing to do it. Not in an official, wannabe doctrinal way, I mean. What he will say next time he sees a microphone is everyone’s guess.
But I have been wrong before…
Amen! Yet, what I find contemptible are some of the Catholic blogs that contend to be virulently opposed to Francis and his “New Church” but ban comments and commenters that propose prayers for the early demise of Francis’ papacy. At least you, Mundy, are ethically consistent.
I do not follow the details, but I also cancel messages that exhude hate without charity rather than righteous anger.
We have all the ability – or the duty – to pray for the painless death of the Pope – and his eternal salvation, if he can; which I doubt… – but this does not mean that we can let the disgrace the man is become an occasion of sin for us.
I wish he would die, for the good of the Church. But I pray for his eternal soul too, and when it comes particularly difficult I try to pray more. We hate the Evil Clown, and we hope he will not be inflicted on us for long; but we hope to be all together in heaven one day.
Sir Mundy, you are a gentleman of the finest fashion and highest order. Thank you for your apt response!
Many thanks, Sir!
Not only fear of the Lord…but also fear of Mundabor!
That, my friend, is not likely to convert anyone…
I guess it would be difficult to have a fear of hell if one were to believe in, say, annihilation of the soul at death. From there you’re apt to fall for all kinds of error.
Personally, though, I doubt Francis thinks his umpteenth heresy of annihilation (publicly stated by his buddy, and never denied) applies to many people. I am pretty sure he either does not believe there is a God, or believes in some great mama in the skies who forgives pretty much everything to pretty much everyone.
It’s all an emo luv fest for the selfish, immature, evil sinner. It’s Satan wanting us to focus the attention all on him. Not only are we ooing and ahhhing for the wrong doer, we completely ignore or outright attack the victim, the godly and the innocent. Diabolical. God bless~