Author Topic: Opus Dei and Pope Pius XII (Read 5348 times)

Thurifer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2015, 11:55:31 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: CathMomof7
I am starting to think that Pope Pius XII opened the floodgates of Modernism into the Church. NFP. Divine Mercy.

It's quite clear that this was the case. Add to this list the liturgical experimentation. Pius XII set up and enabled Bugnini. Pius XII also pioneered some of the first ecuмenical conferences. And he allowed Cardinal Cushing to persecute and to condemn Father Feeney. Not to mention that 99% of the glorious prelates who brought us the glories of Vatican II had been appointed by Pius XII.

In regards to Bugnini, we had simplification of the Divine Office to 1955 rubrics which was quite different than 1911 rubrics. And the changes to Holy Week. That only lasted 5 years as the Divine Office was further simplified in 1960. It was transitional. Just like the 1960 Divine Office and the 1962 Missal was transitional for the Pauline Mass of 1969 and the Liturgy of the Hours.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2015, 01:02:38 PM »

Maybe the approval for Opus Dei was signed by Montini using Pope Pius XII's signature?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2015, 01:06:25 PM »

The driver for Pope Pius XII, a man who held the job for twelve years, said that in all that time Pope Pius XII never said a word to him.

Others have written elsewhere that Pope Pius XII was a very disengaged man.

It's a fact that Montini was signing Pope Pius XII's name to docuмents, or at least it is strongly suggested and that this may be the reason for Montini being shuttled off to the Archdiocese of Milan.

Perhaps Pope Pius XII was so disengaged that he allowed the rats to sneak in through the cracks.

Is being disengaged a sin? Is it a sin for the pope?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2015, 04:08:53 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus
And he allowed Cardinal Cushing to persecute and to condemn Father Feeney.

This was a key factor in paving the way for Vatican II. If Pope Pius XII would have defended the EENS dogma, it is very doubtful that VII would have actually happened. However, it is well known that the Church had already been infiltrated by the masons and that their agenda was already full steam ahead during the reign of Pius XII.

What? I actually agree with you on something? Yes, Suprema Haec is the foundation for all of Vatican II ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium cites it as a reference to that end.

Basically, the core problem with SH is in stating that subjective good intentions supply for the Catholic faith. Once you grant that, then it opens the floodgates to every error in Vatican II. That can be traced very easily.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2015, 04:33:52 PM »

There's a long history here. I want to start a thread on it at some point.

As we know, supernatural faith involves both the intellect and the will. More and more the intellectual part was understated in favor of the good will, all in line with philosophical subjectivism from the Renaissance to Descartes to Kant.

Molinists started by emphasizing free will over grace.

Right around that time, the mostly-Jesuit theologians started to question the necessity of explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, claiming that natural truths can in fact be believed with supernatural faith.

So, over time, supernatural faith in objective truths about God took a back seat to the will to believe what God teaches, and ultimately replaced it entirely.

Thus we have Vatican II and the ecclesiology of the sincere, subsistence ecclesiology, ecuмenism, partial communion, and ultimately religious liberty. It ALL FOLLOWS from this subjectivism. Many of the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests acknowledge subjectivism in Vatican II but they refuse to recognize its roots in the erosion of EENS over time.