.
Most sedes today uphold the Papacy of Pius XII as if it's some kind
of shining city on a hill: untouchable, immaculate, pure, irreproachable,
and then the stark contrast with John XXIII who began from the first
moment with a NAME that had been moth-balled since over 500 years,
not for lack of interest, but because the last pope to use the name
was a huge embarrassment -- you know, like Francis is.
Pius XII was fortunate to live in a time when being an embarrassment
was something to be AVOIDED, and he managed to pull that off okay.
Unlike Francis.
Now, one might think that a pontifical embarrassment is some kind of
achievement to be desired or whatever.
So it's hard to see the shortcomings of Pius XII in context of the bad
examples that followed him. While he did have some stellar moments,
and one shining example for all time, the definition of the Assumption of
Our Lady body and soul into heaven, and a lot of other good points and
works such as the protection of refugee Jews who were fleeing nαzι
Germany, and the general protection of the Traditions of the Church in
a time when they were under severe attack, not all was so great in
his reign. There were several key negatives, which should not be
forgotten.
The first and most deleterious act was his reform of Holy Week, which
had NO PURPOSE. It was the most ancient of all the liturgy in the
year and it therefore survived for 1,900 + years only to be treated
with utter contempt during the pontificate of this same Pius XII. And
there was utterly NO REASON to change it, that is, unless you consider
what was going to happen over the next 18 years.
But was the Pope PLANNING those changes? We don't think so. And
so why were they made? Was he unaware of them being made? I've
never heard that he was, and I'm under the impression that he was
the celebrant using the changed Holy Week liturgy the year it was
first used. Is that not correct?
Other than Holy Week, Pius XII was the pope who brought in Annibale
Bugnini and posted him in the office of the Reform of the Liturgy. That
was an office that had not existed before. It was a NEW OFFICE that
Pius XII had started, with Bugnini as the head official, and the rest is
history. There was NO REASON to change the liturgy. The proof of this
is in the fact that hundreds of chapels all over the world are using the
same liturgy that had been changed, and it's JUST FINE. That's not a
small problem.
And there were other things. He trucked in a new Psalter. Why do
that? Once again: NO REASON. The first edition of the new Psalter
was a flop, though, and they had to re-do it with another new edition.
But there was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE OLD EDITION.
And so on. So the papacy of Pius XII was not spotless. But neither
was it heretical. He did not teach heresy. But the fact that he did
not teach heresy does not mean that his papacy was therefore
irreproachable.
The problem sedes have with this is they want Pius XII to be the
squeaky-clean role model and benchmark standard of greatness, and
any question or spotlight on a folly, however small (and some were not
small, as we have seen above) is an act of heresy in itself. Well, no,
it's not. And if it were not for this Pollyanna attitude, we would not
have to mention the problems. It's the attitude that IS the problem.
Pius XII was a good pope. He did not teach heresy; but he did bring
some long-lasting problems into the Church, most of which we are
still living with today.
.
Topic: A Defense of Pope Pius XII Against a False Allegation That He Taught Error (Read 12218 times)