Behold, we make all things new again.
So might I suggest would be a rather fitting motto for today’s ecclesial movers and shakers.
From the sacred liturgy to the goal of ecumenism; to the nature of the Petrine Office and the relationship between the Church and the State, you name it, there’s nothing that the Captains of Newchurch (aka the powers that be in the post-conciliar hierarchy) cannot reconfigure, redefine or otherwise repurpose to suit their anthropocentric aspirations.
As the events of Low Sunday (otherwise known as Divine Mercy Sunday) made perfectly clear, even the designation of “Saint” and the meaning of “heroic virtue” are subject to a makeover.
Next up?
The legacy of Pope St. Pius X, the last Roman Pontiff to be canonized before it was decided that “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown” (Gaudium et Spes – 12).
On June 13th, Zenit interviewed Fr. Bernard Ardura, O. Praem, president of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, about its “Study Day” program entitled, “Saint Pius X: A Reforming Pope Facing the Challenges of the New Century.”
According to participant Professor Alejandro Mario Dieguez of the Vatican Secret Archive, speaking to VIS, the initiative is an attempt “to recover the historical Pius X and not that of myth, the Pius X of ecclesiastical governance and reform, and not that of popular piety, recomposing the complex and fascinating personality of this pontiff.”
Could these people be more transparent?
Look, it’s no secret that “piety” surrounding the person and papacy of Pope St. Pius X is “popular” almost exclusively among those who haven’t yet drunk the conciliar Koolaid. With this being the case, it seems rather obvious that the aim of this effort to “recompose” the legacy of Pope Pius X is ultimately ordered toward the discrediting of so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics).
The last thing the neo-modernists really want is for the faithful to sink their teeth into that which Pope St. Pius X taught so clearly on any number of important topics.
So why call attention to him at all?
Though the occasion of the centenary of his death is being claimed as the impetus, I suspect that something else is afoot, and it’s not all that difficult to figure out.
Pope St. Pius X is, in many ways, the polar opposite of all of his post-conciliar successors, but none more than Pope Francis, the latter citing humility as a reason to forgo the trappings of his exalted office; the former being humble enough to embrace them.
One hundred years following his death, the pontificate of Pius X still offers sustenance for Catholics who are hungering for “doctrinal security,” the same that Pope Francis has seen fit to ridicule.
To top it all off, Pope St. Pius X is the namesake of a Society comprised of bishops, priests, religious and laity who have the audacity to think and feel and worship as Catholics always have done so, at least prior to the opening of the Church’s windows to the world at Vatican II.
As such, the dirty work of discrediting his magisterium, especially those teachings that testify against so many of the enlightened men now running the show in Rome, must be addressed.
But how?
By consigning it to what John Courtney Murray called, “an historical problematic;” i.e., by asserting that said teachings are in some sense outdated. “Pius X, we can say, was working in a particular context,” Fr. Ardura said, and he went on to explain:
“The Church in which we believe, is inspired by the Holy Spirit in a context that is not by some accidental cause, but contains the substance of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, we don’t have to relativize these realities, which are fundamental, because otherwise, we would have to put into discussion all we believe.”
Now, then, that was crystal clear, was it not?
If you have no blessed idea what Fr. Ardura is talking about, don’t feel bad; neither does he in all likelihood.
For clarity, let us turn to he who was appointed to serve as Pope Francis’ right hand man in the reform of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, who said, “The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism.”
With this being the mindset du jour, I suppose it only makes sense that Fr. Ardura would say of Pius X, “His condemnation of modernism obscured the positive parts of his ministry.”
Take that you self-absorbed Promethean neo-pelagian Catholic bats who think that his condemnation of modernism is among the positive parts of his ministry!
So, for what then does Pope St. Pius X deserve credit?
According to Fr. Ardura, “He was more aware than other papal predecessors that the state of the pontificate had to go forward and could not go backward, only forward.”
Yes, which is precisely why Pope Pius X renounced the Triregnum and the sovereignty it symbolized, refrained from condemning heretics in favor of dialogue, and sought to promote a more synodal Church in place of the monarchical model that was given by Christ.
No, wait… that’s the agenda of the neo-modernists!
Pope St. Pius X, truth be told, really was all about going “back,” in a sense, back to Our Lord Jesus Christ. In his first encyclical, E Supremi Apostolatus, the Holy Father could not have been more clear and succinct in explaining his own motto, Instaurare Omnia in Christo:
“We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that of restoring all things in Christ so that Christ may be all in all.”
Even so, Fr. Ardura insists that, “all the activities of Pius X were reformative,” and what’s more, he and Pope Francis are of like mind in believing “that whatever can be reformed, should be.”
This may very well be true as it concerns the view of Pope Francis, but a program of “restoring all things in Christ,” is not the same as “reforming whatever one can,” especially when man (his poverty, his loneliness, his employment status, etc.) is the centerpiece of the effort.
In any case, Fr. Ardura went on to credit Pius X for advancing “the idea of adults going to Communion more often.” This much is true, but he went on to say, “Before, the thought was that one had to have confessed before going to Communion.”
Perhaps this is just a moment of clumsiness on Fr. Ardura’s part, but it has always been, and remains, the case that one must be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion worthily. Pope Pius X, in other words, didn’t change anything in that regard.
Moving on, Fr. Ardura said, “Also important were his liturgical reforms, including those of sacred music.”
Once again, Fr. Ardura is speaking of “reform” when truly “restoration” is the far more accurate word.
To be exact, Fr. Ardura is referring to the document of Pope Pius X, given moto proprio, wherein the Holy Father saw fit to “raise [his] voice at once in reproof and condemnation of all that is seen to be out of harmony” with the ongoing effort to “restore sacred music to the fullest honor.” (cf Tra le Sollecitudini)
Given that Fr. Ardura and Professor Dieguez are representatives of the Holy See, the majority of Catholics will simply accept their commentary as trustworthy nourishment for mind and soul. Sadly, as readers of this space know all too well, we don’t live in such innocent times.
These men are too clever by half; presuming to deceive the masses, if not themselves, with pseudo-academic pursuits that have little to do with teaching the authentic faith and everything to do with promoting the cult of man.
In the end, however, Our Blessed Lord will show all of us, including them, what it really means to make all things new again.
Louie, after reading the quote about Vatican II putting an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism (the synthesis of all heresies), and noting Father Ardura’s apparent desire to paint Pius X as a fellow progressive, what came to our minds was the vision Pope St. Pius had before his death, —
of a future Pope fleeing the Vatican over the bodies of his brethren.
Only we’re picturing it with Pope Pius running behind them, wielding a baseball bat.
No matter how far they take this, we’re still in the boat with Jesus, who promised to stay till the end, even though the storm is still raging..
Louie writes: “Pope St. Pius X is, in many ways, the polar opposite of all of his post-conciliar successors, but none more than Pope Francis, the latter citing humility as a reason to forgo the trappings of his exalted office; the former being humble enough to embrace them.”
Or as Pope St. Pius himself puts it:
“[The Modernists’] general directions for the Church may be put in this way: Since the end of the Church is entirely spiritual, the religious authority should strip itself of all that external pomp which adorns it in the eyes of the public. And here they forget that while religion is essentially for the soul, it is not exclusively for the soul, and that the honour paid to authority is reflected back on Jesus Christ who instituted it“
(Pascendi, #25; emphasis added).
“The Church in which we believe, is inspired by the Holy Spirit in a context that is not by some accidental cause, but contains the substance of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, we don’t have to relativize these realities, which are fundamental, because otherwise, we would have to put into discussion all we believe.”
Louie, you should find a picture of Sir Humphrey Appleby to put beside that quote 🙂
Very refreshing. Thank you.
Pope St. Pius X is a great prophet of our times. His motto was “Instaurare Omnia in Christo”. Of course this translates into “Restore all things in Christ.” But even in the translations of his encyclicals I have seen a subtle deviation of this straightforward translation. Sometimes the word “renew” is used in place of “restore”. If by renew we mean “re-new” or make the old new again, then this could be appropiate. But if by “re-new” we mean “renovate” so that the old is disposed of and the “new” takes its place then I’m sure that St. Pius X would have a big problem with that.
But this is exactly the tact taken by the “new” Conciliar Church. It “renovates” or wreck-o-vates. It throws out the “old” and brings in the NEW and IMPROVED. Except that the “old” is a priceless treasure, while the “new” is mostly a pile of worthless trinkets.
Good post. I was reading elsewhere about how fast and loose the modernists were with their citations to authority at VII. Some of the citations didn’t support the position for which they were cited, or said the opposite. I guess Pope St Pius X is getting the same treatment.
OT: In the 60s Paul VI gave us a protestantized service very similar to Lutheran and Anglican services. Now Francis is threatening to give us protestant marriage standards. If Francis has the temerity to follow through with this, will he rehabilitate Thomas Cranmer next? Will Thomas Cranmer be canonized a “Catholic” martyr and saint? Will both Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Moore be Catholic saints at the same time? How does any of the make any sense? Will Catholics finally realize that the joke has been on them and subversives who were protestant sympathizers (Benedict XVI) all along have succeeded in taking the reformation into the heart of the Vatican?
I think that if the modernists go through with this we should start calling anyone in the hierarchy who goes along with it closet Cranmerites and traitors to the true Catholic church.
“We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”
Name that Pope. (Hint: he wasn’t BFF with a pro gay, pro abortion Rabbi)
Now that I think about it the part of my comment that was OT may be related to the topic of this thread after all. I suspect they will say that someone like Pope St. Pius X and Pope Francis can coexist in their big tent Catholic Church at the same time without contradiction because, e.g., there is no doctrinal certainty. This may be how they will soften up the lukewarm mush-brained average NO pew sitter for when they reject traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and rehabilitate Luther and Cranmer. A Catholic need not worry about schism because they will be able to find a “Catholic” Church somewhere that offers the brand of Catholicism that is to their liking. Francis already called a heretic a fellow bishop after all! This is how they defuse tradition by rejecting the law of non-contradiction and making a mockery of Church unity in faith (unity in worship has already been destroyed). If this is what they’re planning, how do any of these charlatans not realize they are doing the devil’s work?
“The Church in which we believe, is inspired by the Holy Spirit in a context that is not by some accidental cause, but contains the substance of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, we don’t have to relativize these realities, which are fundamental, because otherwise, we would have to put into discussion all we believe.”
–
This doozy of a sentence reads like it was uttered by a person in the very process of suffering a stroke. I’m not sure if the larger measure of diabolical disorientation is necessary to state it, or to buy it.
What does that paragraph even mean??
Maradiaga: “The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism.”
But that means he’s a reactionary, because we’re now in the age of post-modernism!
Brilliant, Louie. “If you have no blessed idea what Fr. Ardura is talking about, don’t feel bad; neither does he in all likelihood.” – “[VII] meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism.” In real terms what this means is that the new church heirarchy shook hands with satan and betrayed their predecessors – this is the ‘peace’ VII seeks.
–
Pope Saint Pius X addresses ‘reformers’ who are ‘corrupters; also addresses the call the frequent and ‘worthy’ Holy Communion “The people should not only be urged to receive Holy Communion frequently, but also how dangerous and fatal it would be to approach the Sacred Table of Divine Food unworthily”:
–
EDITAE SAEPE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON ST. CHARLES BORROMEO
–
“In those days [the days of Saint Charles Borromeo (1500s)] passions ran riot and knowledge of the truth was almost completely twisted and confused. A continual battle was being waged against errors. Human society, going from bad to worse, was rushing headlong into the abyss. Then those proud and rebellious men came on the scene who are “enemies of the cross of Christ . . .Their god is the belly…they mind the things of earth.” These men were not concerned with correcting morals, but only with denying dogmas. Thus they increased the chaos. They dropped the reins of law, and unbridled licentiousness ran wild. They despised the authoritative guidance of the church and pandered to the whims of the dissolute princes and people. They tried to destroy the Church’s doctrine, constitution and discipline. they were similar to those sinners who were warned long ago: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.” They called this rebellious riot and perversion of faith and morals a reformation, and themselves reformers. In reality, they were corrupters. In undermining the strength of Europe through wars and dissensions, they paved the way for those modern rebellions and apostasy. This modern warfare has united and renewed in one attack the three kinds of attack which have up until now been separated; namely, the bloody conflicts of the first ages, the internal pests of heresies, and finally, in the name of evangelical liberty, the vicious corruption and perversion of discipline such as was unknown, perhaps, even in medieval times. Yet in each of these combats the Church has always emerged victorious…God, however, brought forth real reformers and holy men to arrest the onrushing current, to extinguish the conflagration, and to repair the harm caused by this crowd of seducers. Their many-sided zealous work of reforming discipline was especially consoling to the Church since the tribulation afflicting her was so great. Their work also proves the truth that “God is faithful and . . . with the temptation will also give you a way out ….” In these circumstances God provided a pleasing consolation for the Church in the outstanding zeal and sanctity of Charles Borromeo…His exhortations (which We have also made in Our decree, Tridentina Synodus) to pastors and preachers concerning the ancient practice of frequent Holy Communion is most worthy of notice. “Pastors and preachers,” the holy Bishop writes, “should take every possible opportunity to urge the people to cultivate the practice of frequently receiving Holy Communion. In this they are following the example of the early Church, the recommendations of the most authoritative Fathers, the doctrine of the Roman Catechism (which treats this matter in detail), and, finally the teaching of the Council of Trent. The last mentioned would have the faithful receive Communion in every Mass, not only spiritually but sacramentally.” He describes the intention and affection one should have in approaching the Sacred Banquet in the following words: “The people should not only be urged to receive Holy Communion frequently, but also how dangerous and fatal it would be to approach the Sacred Table of Divine Food unworthily.” It would seem that our days of wavering faith and coldness need this same fervor in a special way so that frequent reception of Holy Communion will not be accompanied by a decrease in reverence toward this great mystery. On the contrary, by this frequency a man should “prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup.”
–
Repeat – “These men were not concerned with correcting morals, but only with denying dogmas…They called this rebellious riot and perversion of faith and morals a reformation, and themselves reformers. In reality, they were corrupters.” Sound familiar?
–
Who was St Charles Borromeo? “Papal Secretary of State under Pius IV, and one of the chief factors in the Catholic Counter-Reformation….He also was a member of a commission for the reform of church music, and chose Palestrina to compose three masses.’ Oh if only reform these days involved utilizing the divine gifts of a Palestrina.
–
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/St._Charles_Borromeo
p.s. note that Pius X was referring to Trent as his authority for more frequent Holy Communion.
One of the most important tasks for revolutionaries is to rewrite history to suit their own ideas and agendas. Once people’s knowledge and perception of history has been changed, it is a relatively easy task to fully develop one’s evil agenda without any significant opposition. Hence, the true legacy of Pope St Pius X in fighting against modernism must be blotted out from memory to give way to the One World Church.
dear Edu,
What an excellent comment. Thank you for it.
Dear Mr. V.,
I, along with others, wish to thank you for the terrific treatise in this post. In my opinion it can be a source & also instructive —when Traditionalists {aka Catholics,} are engaging in that solemn nonsense of proselytism.
Another very interesting blog entry, Louie.
You might well be correct in your analysis namely that the post Vatican II church wish to change/alert the public perception of Saint Pope Pius X to the extent of trying to equate Pius to Francis.
The only valid similarity between both men as far as I can see is that they were elected pope. That is the only point where the twain does actually meet.
I worked in the media for a time. The first thing a media organisation does to provide “news” and “comment” is to take today’s date and see what happened on this date in previous years. Centenaries would be the first point of reference for these organisations.
1914 resonates far more than Napoleons abdication (1814), in 2014, and therefore the death of Saint Pope Pius X and all that he stood for gains significantly more attention given the times we live in now.
You are very wise to point out “These men are too clever by half; presuming to deceive the masses, if not themselves, with pseudo-academic pursuits that have little to do with teaching the authentic faith and everything to do with promoting the cult of man”
One hopeful p.s. to fellow Catholics ready to despair:
Our Lady of Good Hope (Quito) and Anne Catherine Emmerich each predicted all of this disaster over 100 years ago, and assured us of a magnificent restoration of the Church–including one thing that caught our eye: The restoration of the Red Cope, and a Pope who will welcome it.
Our job is to help mitigate the Chastisement by continuing the mandate of Christ even now, despite the attempts to spin and re-write it.
We work among what some of you call those “mush-brained” N.O. pew-sitters quite regularly, and can tell you it takes much prayer, sacrifice and perseverance (along with extra TLM’s) to hold on to our sanity and before seeing results, but they are possible.
One priest we prayed for and have periodically disturbed with corrections for 40 years now, went from being a local pastor who regularly hosted Richard McBrien as a guest speaker, and who forced sex-ed on the Grade School he presided over, against parents protests, TO NOW being an outspoken promoter of the Fatima messages, who hears confessions on Friday nights to help encourage people to make the First Saturdays, and gives amazing homilies on the errors of the modern world, the need for a hatred of sin and to make greater use of the Sacraments, especially confession, and to refuse to give in to the perverted sexual ideas of our pagan society. How’s THAT for progress!!!?
Keep the Faith, Folks. NOTHING is impossible for God!
We’re in those pews regularly on behalf of the True Faith, along with quite a few others, by the way, who have doubled and tripled their prayer lives, Adorations, Masses, Rosaries and letters and talks with “bad” shepherds and misguided fellow Catholics. We don’t think they are as easily stereotyped as many who blog here seem to believe. Just sayin’.
That same Ardura is going to host a big anniversary commemoration for V2 next year. He is collecting personal journals etc from participants and observers of the time.
Yes, the forces of liberal bigotry not only want to claim that it is “correct” for everyone alive to agree with them, but also that those in the past really agreed with them. It’ll probably work, too.
Also, they intend to change the meaning of words – which Francis does all the time.
An extreme example: the parish priest of the tranny who won the singing contest in Austria (because of (reverse-discrimination) said this:
“Putin thinks he’s a real man with his big muscles and shooting,” said Father Unger.
“But it’s [the tranny] who’s the real man because he’s fighting for rights.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/eurovision-winner-conchita-wurst-always-3559577
————–
Sure, what a “fight”. When the whole Western world now kowtows to homosexuals, that liberal idiot Unger lies and claims otherwise.
Always always always the claims of eternal victimhood, even after they have become the victimizers.
bigfred,
There’s an old Jewish proverb that says something like,
Man makes plans…God Laughs….