“[The Modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses,” [St. Pius X] said of his antagonists. “But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”
“Lambs. Not a fool but a lamb. Lamb. With Christian cunning, but always a lamb. A lamb Because if you are a Lamb, He will defend you. But if you feel as strong as a wolf, He will not defend you, He will leave you alone, and the wolves will eat you alive. Like a lamb.
“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind’- they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself.”
“Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, 13. Emphasis mine.
Whilst it is very sad to have to comment again and again on the Pope’s words, I think it is worth doing, because the careless words of the Holy Father have become such a common occurrence that without any reaction we will drown in a tidal wave of novel thinking without even noticing.
in the times of the young Roman republic, marriages were made with the two family clans meeting very publicly in two groups standing in front of each other, and the pater familias (the head of the clan) of the bridegroom’s family again very publicly physically seizing the girl from her side and bringing her to his family’s side. The lack of reaction of the bride’s side was meant to show to the community the seizing happened with their consent. This “taking with the hand”, in Latin manu capere, became in time known as mancipio, that is, the taking of a person under the authority and dominion of another person.
Conversely, to be freed from another’s authority or dominion (to “take away from the hand”, ex manu capere) became in time known as emancipatio.
Therefore, a man (or woman) says to his day that he is emancipated, or has emancipated himself, to signify that he is not subject anymore to some authority of the past.
Exactly this is the meaning of the Pope’s words, who gave Monsignor Marini a true Judas’ kiss by saying that he decided to keep him – notwithstanding the suggestions of some – in order for the old to coexist with the new; though he, Francis, is, rather, emancipated in his liturgical vision.
It astonishes me that so many commenters would see and report the Pope’s words as good news. On the contrary, the Pontiff’s very choice of this word – emancipation – shows an ill-concealed contempt for the Mass of the Ages, seen as the dominion and authority of an old way of thinking from which he, the Pope, has freed himself.
The words of appreciation for Monsignor Marini, and the vague references to the old being also, in some way, worthy of existence are of little consolation, when the Pontiff in the same breath so bluntly shows his liturgical colours. I have difficulties in imagining even Paul VI of disastrous memory express himself in such a way, though undoubtedly the thinking was pretty much the same. Much less can I imagine Pope Benedict expressing himself thus during his reign.
You might say that this was a spontaneous, careless remark, to which we should not attach undue importance. I reply that it is exactly this kind of spontaneous talk that best reveals how a man thinks. Let us say it once again: the Pontiff considers the Traditional Mass the expression of an old liturgical thinking, from whose dominion and authority he has freed himself. The Pinocchio Masses, the puppets moving around, the crucifixes where Christ seems to be on holiday: this is his way of understanding the liturgy.
Nor there is any indication that having Marini near him will do much good. The Trinity Sunday Mass just celebrated is, if you allow the neologism, as Un-Marinian as they come, bar the Pinocchio & Co. Make no mistake, as Pope Francis “feels” himself into his new role his Masses will become worse, not better.
So there we are, with a Pope proclaiming his “emancipation” from, erm, pretty much the entire liturgical history of the Church whilst, ever the Jesuit, paying some lip service to it. He might not attack the TLM openly, because he does not seem sufficiently interested in such a fight and because an open confrontation on such heavy matters would expose his limitations in liturgical matters at the very least, leaving aside that modern Jesuits aren’t the born warriors anyway; but the hostility is clearly there in the thinking, if not yet openly in the acting.
Whence the end of such a liturgical – and not only liturgical – misery may come is beyond what I can rationally think. Expect Pope Francis’ appointments of bishops and cardinals to have pretty much the same quality as his liturgy, with the results we can easily imagine.
The only way out I can see is the Holy Ghost coming to our help and either radically changing this Pope’s ways, or providing for a big surprise when the time or the next conclave comes. It is true that the Cardinals, and not the Holy Ghost, elect the Pope, but it is also true that when the appointed time comes the Holy Ghost can move them in secret ways to pave the way for one reversing the current situation of fast degradation of Catholic patrimony, including but not limited to liturgical matters. Pope Bergoglio certainly won’t improve the average quality of a college of cardinals already able to elect him, so there you are…
I will not hold my breath waiting for improvements. My impression is that the Church is being punished, and there is no saying when this will end. A noted theologian – who then became Pope – wisely remarked that when the Bride behaved particularly badly, the Bridegroom disciplined Her with some dire affliction. The Great Schism in 1054, the heresies of the XVI Century, perhaps also the temporary obliteration of the Catholic Church from a very secularised France in the wake of the French Revolution can be seen as examples of this.
We are being punished. The utter madness of the “springtime of the Church” triggered the present decay; both in an earthly, practical, causal way and in a more general way, as Divine Punishment as just consequence of the arrogance of clergy – and countless followers – thinking they could reinvent Catholicism and make it sexy, easy, popular, and outright comfortable.
We are being punished, and deservedly so. Not for the first time in the history of the Church, or the last.
When one live in times of “emancipated” Popes, the only way is to cling the more firmly to the received Truth, and renew one’s efforts of prayer.
In your charity, pray for the Pontiff, too.
I receive from reader “Papapiusdecimus” (whom I thank from the heart for the kind words) an extremely interesting link, published above.
This appears to be the only film ever made about the great pope St. Pius X. Googling around, the year of production appears to be 1951. De Gasperi was Prime Minister, and Pius XII was Pope. A dream team by any standard of today, and probably of any day.
The names involved in the production of this movie make clear, even before seeing it , this is a quality production.
Unfortunately, this is youtube format, and no subtitles.
It appears the movie was also dubbed in English, title “The Secret Conclave”.
Those of you who have Netflix might be able to see it, says here. Please can someone of my readers with Netflix subscription let me know if this is available.
If any reader can indicate where they might be found this would be wonderful, but of course I understand this must be nearly impossible. I will try to discover whether the film was dubbed in other languages (French perhaps? Or maybe Spanish? They were Christian countries back then… ).
I will try to have the thing downloaded on a USB key and put on my TV. I doubt very much the quality will be satisfying, but I want to say it after I have tried.
Those of you who don’t understand the language will, I am sure, at least enjoy its beautiful sound.. 😉
Please do not forget three Hail Mary for our good reader Papapiusdecimus, who – I think – deserves them entirely.
In an age where effeminacy prevails at all levels and a more than alarming level of “sensitivity” is the fashion of the time, it might seem unusual to read about someone calling for the enemy to be “beating with fists”, without “counting” or “measuring” the blows, and striking “as one can”.
Utterly, utterly inacceptable, says the teacher is Islington. What will her unavoidable “gay friends” think? Urgh, monstrous!
Well, you only need to click here to persuade yourself that these words were pronounced (fists, blows, and all) by one of the best Popes of all times.
What does this teach us? Very simply, that the Popes of the past – more importantly, the greatest Popes of the past – thought and spoke like men instead of limiting themselves to the whining of their during- and post-V-II successors, who regularly are oh so “saddened” and “hurt” and generally passive-aggressive, but never think they could do with manning up a bit for a change.
Unavoidably, their pansiness translates in the pansiness of the entire Church, which will then perforce be infiltrated by either pansies, or positively evil men.
Hence the “saddening”.
Oh for a Pope with attributes, like the ones we used to have.
Interesting video of the always inspiring Michael Voris*, based on the concept of oath.
Think of it, one is surprised of how many people take an oath. Civil servants; military men; judges; jurors; witnesses…..
You would think that of all people, Catholics would be the one with the least difficulties in taking an oath. The granitic nature of Catholic teaching should make this so banal as to not even be matter of discussion, right? Unfortunately, we all know that this is not the case. This is not the case because heterodoxy has spread in many quarters of the Church; has been encouraged to spread by the very people who were in charge of avoiding its diffusion; and has now spread to the point that many Catholics do not even know that they have been fed with superficial common places in the best case and with heresy in the worst.
Yes, I do think that a demand of Pope Benedict to all the clergy to take an oath stating in no uncertain terms their total obedience to the Magisterium would create great difficulties. But this is not the reason to avoid it. In my eyes, the fact that it would create such an outrage is the reason why it should be done in the first place!
Alas: good as he is, Pope Benedict is no St. Pius X and we will not have any oaths during his pontificate; rather, we’ll have a mixture of admirable liturgical restoration – and great courage in starting to spreading the truth rather than politically correct soundbites – and accommodating episcopal appointments which help to perpetuate the grave situation we have today.
Until the situation improves – and it will be a long time before it does – the duty of spreading orthodoxy will fall, to a not little extent, on the shoulders of the laity. The more so in those countries (like England or France) where the clergy is – on average – below an acceptable level of decency.
Let us be prepared, then, and let us pay attention not only to the Magisterium, but to the news and debates surrounding the Church. It will make it more easy – when the occasion invariably occurs – to refute the lies, defend the truth and perhaps help the one or other soul on her way to conversion.
* al always, you might have to log in, which is fast and free.
Below you will find another excellent product of the religious fervor of Michael Voris: “Teach First”, the “Vortex” message of the 20th July. In my eyes, some points are worth of special mention:
1) More than one hundred years ago, St.Pope X was complaining about the superficiality of catechesis. If I think of Italy, in those times the Catechism was customarily learned by heart and taught to every child, whilst Catholic devotions were so spread and so omnipresent (think of the processions! When have you last seen a proper procession?!) that everyone still able to breathe was exposed, volens nolens, to a massive amount of Catholic teaching. Still, it appears that at times (or in regions outside of the traditionally very devoted Italy) not enough was done.
One wonders what St. Pius X would say if he were among us today. I think he’d feel like kicking some backsides (not few of them purple, or red).
2) Faith itself is, to an extent, dependent from proper catechesis. Faith is like a plant that needs to be watered, not like a painting you hang on the wall and more or less forget there. This an another concept almost completely forgotten today and about which only the best among the priests will continue to insist: Faith is something you work at. If you listen to some atheists, it is as if they would have any right to be angry with an hypothetically existing God because He has not delivered the Faith to them.
3) The reason why the Catechism is at times neglected is, with the words of St. Pius X,
“…because[…] it does not lend itself to the winning of public praise”
It is not popular, the Catechism. It will never make of the priest the darling of the community. It will expose him to accusations of being “insensitive”, “intolerant”, “chauvinist”, “homophobic”, “uncharitable” (yes! Uncharitable!) and possibly altogether bad whilst the friendly Vicar down the road – with his suave smile and his easygoing, easy-to-accept theology of complacent tolerance for almost everything – will possibly not get many sheep, but will be considered by most a frightfully nice chap.
4) This vanity (says St. Pius X) is an obstacle to the salvation of souls (says Benedict XIV), which means that if a priest neglects proper catechesis, souls will be lost. I’d like to know when you have last heard a priest (or a Bishop) publicly speaking of salvation and damnation not in generic, easy to accept term (eg saying that those “destroying the environment” may commit a mortal sin: this is very easy as it is always someone else who “destroys the environment”), but in the same brutal terms used by Benedict XIV: that individual catechesis impacts individual salvation.
The reality of today is that even the most fundamental, most dramatic alternative of our life (in the end it will be Heaven or Hell, simple as that) is constantly pushed away from us from the very same people who should constantly remind us of it, whilst Hell is very often presented as something reserved for the Hitlers of the world, but very far from the reality of the sheep in the pews.
This is dangerous. Dangerous for the soul of the common parishioner, more dangerous for his priest, most dangerous for his bishop.
Enjoy the video