To
Paul Danon
Please find below the accumulated correspondence on the subject of Pope Pius XII; the most interesting and informative being that of a Gary, forwarded by Jodie...
My interest in the subject has been awakened, and I am piqued to know more... Where do we go from here?
You had written:
You say we aren't allowed to doubt Pius XII's being pope but could you explain why, please? Some folks have legitimate problems with his successors as occupants of the Vatican palace. Are they wrong?
I believe Pius XII did take considerable power but I can't see how that alone guarantees that all he
did was right. Surely what matters is what he did.
My answer: We, the Catholics reject Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Charlieboy because they are outright heretics and so cannot be popes. This is in inescapable conclusion of the internal logic of the Christian faith so that one cannot be Christian unless one accepts this fact; on the contrary, one who accepts these moral lepers as their spiritual fathers repudiate Christianity.
The same does not hold for Pius XII, Eugene Pacelli, or any of his predecessors
in the legitimate line going up to the Apostle Peter, via Martin V, Innocent
II, etc. The issue is: is there any ground to doubt the legitimacy of Pius
XII? Or more precisely, just as we know, from their voiding of the Christian
religion, that Roncalli and company are heretics, refugees from holiness and
piety, was Pacelli also guilty of this same crime: Did Pacelli fall?
I believe that there is no case that he did, despite the difficulties that surround some of his acts of commission or omission...
Yours truly,
Prakash Mascarenhas
Many thanks. Are you open to any negotiation on Pius XII? Best wishes
I do not understand the term 'negotiate Pius XII'. Perhaps you could be more specific?
Good of you to reply. My term was "negotiation on Pius XII". Do you insist that everything he did and taught was right? Best personal wishes.
Problems With Pius XII
Here is the position of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy on this issue, his reply to Mary Ball-Martinez. However, my position is different.
First of all, I admit that I am not precisely familiar with the subject matter of the complaints made against Pope Pius XII, so I am not able to take a proper stand on them. However, even then, I do have a position.
From first principles, we can choose to doubt any and all popes, and end up with utter chaos and anarchy, and the certain shipwreck of the faith. This is Occultism, makes shipwreck of the faith, therefore is anti-Christian.
Obviously, then, we are to take the opposite attitude, that though we do not know for ourselves, we must accept all those purportedly legitimate successors as being entirely orthodox until specifically proven otherwise.
The operative word is 'specifically.'
We believe in the supremacy and victory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the founder & sustainer of the Papal Government, and we believe that in order to prevent the loss of souls out of any inadvertent mistake He
SUPPLIES.
As to the specific internal situation in the soul of Eugene Pacelli, I can with confidence say that there is no man living on earth who is privy to these facts. Only God knows.
As far as the external forum is concerned, we are not allowed to doubt Pacelli as being a legitimate successor of Peter and governor of the Church.
As for his acts, in the external forum, I believe that he has
demonstrated
his honesty and orthodoxy.
I believe that certain persons abused his confidence to commit wrong,
and
that Pacelli did not either by negligence or positive assent
countenance
and partake of these is obvious from his actions in dismissing all of
them
and taking the reins of the administration directly into his own
hands, at
his age and condition, and end these mischiefs.
That action in itself is sufficient to vindicate him from all
insinuations,
allegations and whatnot.
In addition to that, as probable direct cause of these his actions, (I
have
heard that) he was poisoned. If true, it is evidence of probable
martyrdom.
However, since I have no reliable evidence of this, I am entirely
willing
to discount and disregard this.
Therefore, I can say with confidence that, in sum, we can disregard
the
complaints and aspersions made against Pope Pius XII.
Prakash Mascarenhas
How kind of you to reply.
I think one should be familiar
with the subject-matter of the complaints against Pius XII to be able to have
a position. I agree that it is dangerous to doubt popes but it's not wrong to
challenge those who claim to be pope but aren't.
You say we aren't allowed
to doubt Pius XII's being pope but could you explain why, please? Some folks
have legitimate problems with his successors as occupants of the Vatican palace.
Are they wrong?
I believe Pius XII did
take considerable power but I can't see how that alone guarantees that all he
did was right. Surely what matters is what he did.
I send best personal wishes.
Without going into the
arguments - we think your position is perfectly sound...
Dear Friends,
I would like you to help me with information regarding the somewhat controversy over Pope Pius XII involving changes made to Holy Week, etc.
Problems with Pope Pius XII: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy's position & Mine
Also, I would like information from Catholic Sources about the Christero movement in Mexico. I did a goole.com search and I don't particularly like what I found, to an extent about Fr. Vega, and more about Gorostiega...
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Prakash Mascarenhas
Dear Prakash,
I am looking into the calendar
change matter, which I also consider very important. As for the problem in Mexico,
have you read Blood Drenched Altars? This was written by Bishop Francis Clement
Kelly, who was Bishop of Oklahoma City before I was born there. My mom has done
some research on this and I will ask her what she knows. Please formulate any
specific questions and I will get back to you with answers.
Pope Michael
>>I would like you to help me with information regarding the somewhat controversy over Pope Pius XII involving changes made to Holy Week, etc.
What problems in particular
are you concerned about?
Jake
Dear Prakash,
I am convinced that changes
of the Holy Week are very useful and practical. Pope Pius XII. was a very good
Pope. Mrs. Martinez should not get involved in theology, it is not good for
her.
Every Pope can change even
liturgy, but it should be "ad melius", to the improvement of the liturgy.
Do not listen to female
experts!
Bishop Oravec
Apparently he shortened
the Palm Sunday gospel - which was impossibly lengthy. There were some changes
to the priest's breviary - (which is completely their own private prayers) and
perhaps to some ceremonial aspects.
There were NO changes to
the Mass, sacraments, doctine or beliefs.
ALL Popes have made admin
changes and so on - how else did the ceremonies, breviary rules etc get made
in the first place!!!
Also - compare Pius XII
to some of the Popes - e.g. - Pius IX and the Assumption for instance. All popes
have 'brought in things' - but they haven't changed dogma (Pius IX only really
confirmed what was believed anyway re Our Lady) - or belief - and neither did
PXII
| From |
jodie <pale horse> |
| Date |
Thu, 29
Aug 2002 23:15:03 +0000 |
Dear Mr. Mascarenhas,
This is from Gary, my friend,
who knows much more about it than I do.
"In
the final two and a half years of the pontificate of Pius XII, changes in the
Holy Week ceremonies were imposed that were inspired by Annibale (Hannibal)
Bugnini.
"Bugnini was
a Masonic agent and principal architect of the novus ordo - the invalid replacement
of the true Mass which was forced upon the Catholic world just twelve years
later.
"These changes
included the shortening of the Passion read on Palm Sunday, the distribution
of Holy Communion on Good Friday, the elimination of the triple candle (symbol
of the Holy Trinity) used during the procession on Holy Saturday, the incensing
and lighting of the Pascal Candle in the vestibule instead of the sanctuary
where the ritual can be observed by all, the elimination of eight of the twelve
prophesies read on Holy Saturday, and the moving of the time of celebration
from pre-dawn or early morning for the Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday ceremonies
to after sundown, and from early morning on Good Friday to 12 Noon.
"Of these
changes the only one which made any sense was the change in the time. The nocturnal
observance of those rites had been the practice of the Church in the first centuries,
but were abolished when late night services gave rise to all-night celebrations
by the lay people after the liturgical ceremonies were over, in which public
morality began to be adversely affected. This negatively impacted the penitential
aspect of the final and most somber days that lead up to the Feast of the Resurrection.
In addition, the Church moved the time of the Holy Week observances to the mornings
to better accommodate the faithful of the Middle Ages whose waking hours were
increasingly controlled by the demands of an emerging agrarian society in Europe,
in which most people lived on farms and had to get up early to care for their
animals.
"But by
1950, post-war Europe and America had been transformed into urbanized societies
in which travel to the local church in the evening was facilitated by modern
transportation, while the necessities of day-time employment in the cities made
it extremely difficult for the faithful to attend all the morning observances
of Holy Week. Many bishops had pleaded with the Pope to restore the ancient
practice of celebrating the Holy Week rites in the evening as had been the practice
700 years before, so that the faithful could attend them in greater numbers.
Therefore, in 1955, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, acceded to the reasonable entreaties
of the shepherds of the Church, and in his constitution, Maxima Redemptionis,
he restored the time for celebration of the rites Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday
to the evening, and for Good Friday, to 12 Noon.
"This is
the constitution which is constantly cited as the instrument by which the other
changes in the Holy Week rites were also imposed upon the Church. But it is
a lie. In Maxima Redemptionis, Pope Pius XII made no mention of changing the
rituals of Holy Week, only the times for their observance. Whether the sickly
Pope was aware or not of what was happening, we may never know, because he was
dead in less than three years after the new rites had been implemented.
"For whatever
reason, the order to change the rites of Holy Week was never promulgated by
any document signed by the Pope, and thus, their acceptance was never binding
upon the consciences of the faithful, who, on the contrary, were still bound
to observe the older ceremonies. Therefore, a growing number of Latin Mass centers
have rejected the Bugninian innovations and have reverted back to the pre-1956
Holy Week Missal. As you may have noticed, both the Father Lesance Missal and
St. Andrew Missal reprints reflect the observance of the complete and authentic
Lenten ceremonies right up to Easter Sunday, before any of the mutilations had
been enacted, which were a prelude to the eventual destruction of the Mass.
Therefore, our practice at St. Jude's has been to remain faithful to the integrity
of the ancient ceremonies of Holy Week, while complying with the order of the
last visible and true functioning Roman Pontiff, regarding the restoration of
their observance later in the day and evening. This he had the power and right
to do, and so, at St. Jude's, we obey that lawful, papal command.
"Sorry,
I did not have a chance to read Dr. Coomaraswamy's position or Prakash's
before composing this response to your inquiry. I have been over this material
so many times, I doubt that it would change what I have written above, in any
event.
"For information
on the Cristeros, I would first recommend the book, No God Next Door
(check with Omni Books) and perhaps to a lesser extent, Blood Drenched Altars
(TAN Books).
"We should
probably conduct a comparative study of the various works that chronicle the
vicious persecution by international Freemasonry against the Church in Mexico
during the 1920's and 30's, and the courageous efforts of the Mexican faithful
to resist that persecution, to see which gives the most comprehensive account.
"Another
good book is Father Joseph Schlarmanns' Land of Volcanoes (1950), which
is perhaps the best overall history of Mexico ever written in English from a
Catholic perspective. Used copies are usually available on various web sites,
such as bookfinder.com, abebooks.com, and alibris.com.
"Hope this helps a little bit!"
God bless you, Mr. Mascarenhas.
Yours in Jesus and Mary,
Jodie