Coronation of Pope Pius XII.

[HMiS]

http://dolby.dyndns.org/upfoo/mov/1114008073338.mov  

 

(MOV-video file, see www.applequicktime.com for Player)

 

His Holiness Pope Pius XII during the recitation of the Pater Noster:

http://www.the-pope.com/piusxii.html

 

(WAV)

 

 

[Kephapaulos]

I very much enjoyed seeing and hearing our last strong pope, Pius XII. Sander, is there then though no sound for the video?

 

Anyway, do you think Pius XII was partly fooled by modernists with certain gradual liturgical alterations since 1945? I kind of think so, but I do not blame Pius XII. He probably thought that such changes were alright and in line with proper liturgical reform, but unfortunately, it seems the modernists used such changes to justify their eventual liturgical revolution.

 

Please pray for us, Pius XII, that our Holy Mother the Church be restored and taken away from those who are displeasing in the sight of the Lord, so that He may be all the more glorified.

[creimann]

In "New Mass": Conclusively Invalid... Fr. Trinchard quotes A. Bugnini as using the phrase "skillfully led to believe" in connection with liturgical alterations.

[HMiS]

Anyway, do you think Pius XII was partly fooled by modernists with certain gradual liturgical alterations since 1945? I kind of think so, but I do not blame Pius XII. He probably thought that such changes were alright and in line with proper liturgical reform, but unfortunately, it seems the modernists used such changes to justify their eventual liturgical revolution.

 

No, I don't think Pope Pius XII was fooled by Modernists, although he might have been slightly misinformed on unauthorized experiments like were done in the Netherlands from 1954 until 1965. Pope Pius XII fully knew why and that he reformed the Liturgy of Holy Week.

 

I personally think the reforms of 1955, as for the Divine Office and Breviary, were chaotic and should have been annulled, but in the end there is nothing to be sad against them on arguments based on the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Faith.

 

Therefore I cannot understand there are some sedevacantists who use the pre-1955, as Pope Pius XII's disciplinary laws are to be obeyed and as far as I know he died in 1958, three years after having lawfully implemented the 1955 liturgical reforms.

 

I think the changes of 1955 were not necessary (as to Holy Week, the simplification of feasts was a good thing) and are not laudible in themselves, as they were partially designed by Archbishop (then still Father) Professor Bugnini himself. But there is nothing to be raised against them, because they fully express the Roman Catholic dogmáta and these things are mere matter of preference.

 

Pope Pius XII was not naive in things of liturgy at all. His encyclical "Mediator Dei et hominum" serves for us traditionalist Roman Catholics as thé norm on which to criticize and even reject the Novus Ordo Missae, which built on the false premises condemned in 1947's "Mediator Dei".

 

However two things can be said critically of His Holiness Pope Pius XII:

• He trusted his successor would be Giuseppe Cardinal Siri and thus he created some progressists, out of diplomatic reasoning, to the cardinalate.
• After 1955-1958 there seems to have been a more relaxating, non-vigilant, attitude in the Vatican concerning some liturgical reforms and innovations. E.g. Cardinal Ottaviani, the later critic of the doctrinally deficient "Novus Ordo", celebrated versus-populum (towards the people) on an east-ward, open altar at the Liturgical Conference at Assisi 1956, of which the Modernists and false archeologists later profited as they had their "authority" (the "integralist" and "traditionalist" Cardinal Ottaviani) confirming in-facto non-de-jure the use of an altar which was turned towards the people.

Here are some other (Dutch-spoken) videos of Pope Pius XII, one during Easter, the other reporting of the magnificent Canonization ceremony of Pope St. Pius X in 1954.

 

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/ibg/pg_wk23_1954-bb.rm (St. Pius X's Canonization by H.H. Pope Pius XII in 1954.)

 

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/ibg/pg_wk16_1955-bb.rm (Easter Message and Urbi et Orbi by Pope Pius XII in 1955. After it some impressions from Archbishop Lefebvre's Episcopal See of Dakar, Africa, thoug non-religious report. Warned of a nuclear Third World War.)

 

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/ibg/pg_wk17_1954-bb.rm (Easter Message of 1954, by Pope Pius XII. Just after the funeral of the affluent zionist Rothschilds in Israel, play forward to 4:54 min! Warned of a Third World War of nuclear powers)

 

P.S. No the sound lacks in the movie in my first post.

 

 

Here is a short video of Pope John XXIII:

http://www.rai.it/RAInet/ammMultimedia/media/GiovanniXXIII.ram

[HMiS]

Italian movies on Pope Pius XII:

 

Funeral, November 1958:

http://www.rai.it/RAInet/ammMultimedia/media/FuneraliPioXIIeTogliatti.ram

 

Portrait of His Holiness:

http://www.rai.it/RAInet/ammMultimedia/media/PioXII.ram

 

Election (1939) of Pius XII, "one of the shortest in the history of the Holy Roman Church":

http://www.teche.rai.it/multiteca/video/religione/z.ram

 

 

[gladius_veritatis]

Therefore I cannot understand there are some sedevacantists who use the pre-1955, as Pope Pius XII's disciplinary laws are to be obeyed and as far as I know he died in 1958, three years after having lawfully implemented the 1955 liturgical reforms.

 

I think the changes of 1955 were not necessary (as to Holy Week, the simplification of feasts was a good thing) and are not laudible in themselves, as they were partially designed by Archbishop (then still Father) Professor Bugnini himself. But there is nothing to be raised against them, because they fully express the Roman Catholic dogmáta and these things are mere matter of preference.

 

I agree that the changes were not necessary, and perhaps ill-advised as to timing (with all of the modernist rats gnawing at the hull of the Divine Bark of Peter), but you are right about the tenuously-justified rejection of these rites.  The principle the rejection is based upon is epiekia, but I do not see it.  The Pope who instituted these changes, lived to use them himself, and did not see fit to undo what he had done.  Also, those who reject them do not argue at all against the Catholicity, the orthodoxy, etc., of the rites, nor do they argue that to use these rites is somehow sinful (which would be the only really solid argument).  Even had a snake more slithery that Bugnini been involved, if the power that ok'd it is legitimate, then we have the Holy Ghost's word that all is pleasing to God (even if it may not be the most perfect arrangement of these things in history).

[HMiS]

I agree that the changes were not necessary, and perhaps ill-advised as to timing (with all of the modernist rats gnawing at the hull of the Divine Bark of Peter), but you are right about the tenuously-justified rejection of these rites.  The principle the rejection is based upon is epiekia, but I do not see it.  The Pope who instituted these changes, lived to use them himself, and did not see fit to undo what he had done.  Also, those who reject them do not argue at all against the Catholicity, the orthodoxy, etc., of the rites, nor do they argue that to use these rites is somehow sinful (which would be the only really solid argument).  Even had a snake more slithery that Bugnini been involved, if the power that ok'd it is legitimate, then we have the Holy Ghost's word that all is pleasing to God (even if it may not be the most perfect arrangement of these things in history).

 

Agreed, though I think it can be justified too. But the "epikeia" in this case seems to me like mind reading or channeling rather than authentic Catholicism. What when St. Thomas Aquinas would revert to Greek in the liturgy, because this was the practice in the Roman Rite from 70 AD to 150 AD, during a short Sede Vacante period? That would be - in principle - the same thing. I don't think to use the pre-1955 liturgy is sinful, as the Benedictines, Capuchins and some other Orders of the Roman Rite were exempted from implementing the new Holy Week liturgy until the death of Pope Pius XII. But it seems weird to do so as a secular priest right now. At least to me. 

[Kephapaulos]

So Pius XII then did not realize or think though that the Modernists later on after his death would use his liturgical reforms as an excuse?

[HMiS]

So Pius XII then did not realize or think though that the Modernists later on after his death would use his liturgical reforms as an excuse?

 

No, he did not know and could not know, as he had most solemny given obligatory rules for the Liturgical Movement in 1947's encylical "Mediator Dei et hominum" and condemned it in the errors the post-conciliar reform would embrace. He never embraced errors in his liturgical "reform" (modifications).

 

On top of that Pope Pius XII hoped - and had himself created the situation, that - another conservative Roman Pontiff would be elected after his death, e.g. anticommunist Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, who would not have allowed such an abominable reformatory thing out of himself (but who later on accepted it somehow in Genua).

 

He thought he had restored the liturgy to its old Roman customs in 1955, which is correct only in some aspects, and thus to have satisfied the demands of reasonable liturgists.

 

But Pope Eugenio Pacelli did know the dangers of liturgical innovation. But his reforms, though chronologically preceding the post-Vatican II liturgical disasters, did not "help" the later modernist innovations except for making the people think liturgical reform was allowed somehow - a notion totally absent in the Eastern Schismatic and Eastern Rite Uniate Catholic Churches, where the laity and many priests would get enraged if something was done to the Coptic liturgy of the Lamb or the Divine Liturgy. Psychologically it helped a bit, but liturgically Pius XII's reforms of the Holy Week were not harmful in themselves. Not at all. Bugnini in 1955 and Bugnini in 1969 produced two totally different results. The first modification being Roman Catholic and the latest meaning plain protestantization.

 

His Holiness Pius XII was aware of the dangers in liturgical innovation and the radical Liturgists' extremism and neo-protestantism.

 

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary,
destroy the universal  flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments,
and smite her with remorse for her historic past," --Eugenio Cardinal
Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII,  (1939-1958), to Count Enrico Pietro
Galeazzi in 1938.

"We observe elsewhere, with anxiety and some apprehension an undue
fondness for innovation and tendency to stray from the path of truth and
prudence. Certain plans and suggestions for the liturgical revival are mingled
with principles with, either in fact or by implication, jeopardize the sacred
cause they intended to promote and sometime introduce errors."  -- Encyclical Mediator Dei et hominum, 1947, Pope Pius XII

"The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before
she returns to the catacombs." Allocution, Pope Pius XII.

 

"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism was only the most visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against the Church and the traditions of Divine Revelation ... I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy...^a A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God¹ ... In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'² ... I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past³."  -- Pie XII Devant L'Histoire, Mgr. Georges Roche et Philippe Saint Germain, ed. R. Laffont, 1972, p. 52-53. (Mgr. Roche was Pope Pacelli's friend and well known biographer, already during life. The quote was written down by Pope Pius XII while he was still Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Vatican Secretary of State during the 1930s, and not yet Pope.)

          ^a This is a clear indication, that the message of Our Lady of Fátima was not exclusively about things past, but especially about the future. Not about WW II and 1989, but about a longer period. About the liturgical reform and the "progressiveness" which would invade the Church. This is why Pope John XXIII refused to reveal the Third Secret (while a Fr. - later sedevacantist Bp.! - Malachi Martin hás read it, but refused to reveal it) and referred to Sr. Lucy as a "prophet of doom and gloom" at the Opening Speech of Vatican II in 1962! The Fatima message condemned modernism and change. After all, even John Paul II's Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi wrote: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

        ¹ This is another interpretation of the "errors of Russia". These errors are not merely political Communism, but especially philosophical naturalism, evolutionism, that man can do what he wants and can create a paradise himself...that he has become God. In fact, this is what the Vatican II defenders teach, among them Benedict XVI sadly enough: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, La Foi Chrétienne, hier et aujourd'hui, p. 130: "Do we, then, still have the right to re-absorb Christology into theology [the methodical study of those truths revealed by God]? Must we not rather passionately acclaim Jesus as man and consider Christology as [a form of] Humanism, an Anthropology? Or could authentic man, simply because of the fact of being completely and authentically man, be God and could God be, precisely, authentic man? Could it be possible that the most radical humanism and the Faith in the God of Revelation merge together here to become one and the same thing?" (end quote) The answer is that the struggle concerning these questions, and which continued throughout the first five centuries of the Church, (open quote) "has, in the ecumenical Councils of that period, resulted in an affirmative [sic!] answer to all these questions" (La Foi Ch'retienne, p.140).

         ² The Tabernacle has been removed virtually everywhere. And after all, though rediscovered, Eucharistic adoration has been discarded the way it was and when it is rediscovered it is erroneously interpreted to a mere spiritual act, where Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist (transsubstantiation).  1966 Council peritus Fr. Ratzinger authored a book in German titled “Die sakramentale Begründung Christlicher Existenz” (“The Sacrament is the Foundation for Christian Existence”) which downplayed the act of Eucharistic devotion based on the contention that God’s presence could not be localized. A popular translation of his words reads: “This is repugnant to the man of serious thinking who is aware of the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God, who is present, this is a senseless act which the modern man rightfully rejects.” Pius XII referred to our times, with its invalid "eucharistic celebrations" and removed tabernacles. 

      ³ What this means is clear. Pius XII prophesied the scandalous "apologies" of John Paul II to the Jews, the muslems and the Cerularian-Photian schismatics of the East. And what about the latest encyclical which implicates to have Catholicism as a state religion - as before the Council and by decree of all Popes up to Pius XII (notably Venerable Pius IX) - means to "coerce" (force) people into a religion? What about not wanting to "return to the pre-conciliar church", an attitude found in Theologian Ratzinger's works all over from 1962 to present?