Author Topic: Opus Dei and Pope Pius XII (Read 4789 times)

CathMomof7 · « **on:** January 25, 2015, 12:48:20 PM »

I am starting to think that Pope Pius XII opened the floodgates of Modernism into the Church. NFP. Divine Mercy. Evolution. I am sure there are others. But specifically I have a question about Opus Dei.

Does anyone know why or under what circuмstances Pope Pius XII was encouraged to grant approval for Jose Escriva's group?

I am really confused by this, because from what I read, he didn't really approve of Escriva's philosophy personally, but yet he supported the organization of Opus Dei.

That group is a mess and, from what I have been reading, is really pulling the strings with all the Popes since JPII and definitely holds the purse strings.

In the U.S, Opus Dei has over 3,000 members with 64 centers in 17 cities. It is well know that they recruit new members near college campuses in major cities across the U.S. They also operate 5 high schools and have numerous retreat centers around the country. They have their own seminary in Rome.

Other than this, I don't know very much.

Can anyone shed some light for me? What exactly is Opus Dei? And why would Pope Pius XII officially recognize them?

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2015, 10:57:23 PM »

Here is a link about Opus Dei in their own words.

http://www.opusdei.org/en-us/

Nobody · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2015, 01:19:32 AM »

I can't tell you much of it's history. I do know it is a very dangerous sect and very cunning in giving your children a 'vocation' with them. Please, please, please, keep your children far away from them ! I speak from experience, since I have a lot of family who got sucked in at some stage and who are completely and hopelessly brainwashed.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2015, 04:55:17 AM »

Quote from: Nobody

I can't tell you much of it's history. I do know it is a very dangerous sect and very cunning in giving your children a 'vocation' with them. Please, please, please, keep your children far away from them ! I speak from experience, since I have a lot of family who got sucked in at some stage and who are completely and hopelessly brainwashed.

I am with you 100% on this.

This might be worth reading.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2015, 10:28:31 AM »

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.

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.

Nobody · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2015, 04:37:13 PM »

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.

Do you think Our Lord set up Judas and opened the floodgates ?

Unless you can prove that Pope Pius XII actively and willingly cooperated with evil, you may be doing him a great injustice to say the least.

And even if you could bring up some good arguments, is it really our business ? What purpose does it serve ?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2015, 06:14:38 PM »

Quote from: Nobody

Unless you can prove that Pope Pius XII actively and willingly cooperated with evil, you may be doing him a great injustice to say the least.

And even if you could bring up some good arguments, is it really our business ? What purpose does it serve ?

At no point did I presume to ascribe any motives to Pius XII. It's about WHAT he did rather than WHY he did it.

Yes, it's absolutely our business. What purpose does it serve? We need to go there in order to overturn this very naive "Fifties-ism" among Traditional Catholics; these Catholics would have you believe that everything was perfect with the Church in the 50s and then Vatican II just magically appeared out of thin air ... poof. These same Traditional Catholics keep quoting theology manuals before Vatican II as if "before Vatican II" made them instantly orthodox and reliable. St. Pius X talked about how modernism had IN HIS DAY thoroughly infested the Church's theologians. This problem goes back hundreds of years. Just look at what Pius IX had to fight off during his reign. Benedict XV started to let the Church's guard down, and it was a slow-motion train wreck from thereon out ... as allowed by God. We finish with Pius XII throwing up softballs for the modernists to take out of the park. Honestly, there wasn't a single orthodox and learned priest in the Diocese of Boston that Pius XII could have appointed as Bishop rather than Richard Cushing? As for why he did it, only God knows, and that's between God and Pius XII.

It's also important to understand the real theological problem of Vatican II; otherwise we are schismatics for rejecting Vatican II and for our failure to submit to the V2 hierarchy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2015, 07:19:17 PM »

Although we cannot presume to know the real intentions of Pope Pius XII, it is a fact that he did appoint a bunch of progressivists who initiated the Liturgical Reform that ultimately almost destroyed the Roman Rite, and even worse, did not defend the EENS dogma in a very critical moment where the sin of Liberalism was taking over. It paved the way for the official and total triumph of Modernism in Vatican II Council. Pope Pius XII appointed Bugnini as its gravedigger when he fatally made him Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948.

Quote

Pope Pius XII, having first surrounded himself with a "Praetorian Guard" (9) of scholars and experts, established the Pontifical Commission for the General Reform of the Liturgy in 1948 and stacked it with a majority of progressivists. These included:

•   Card. Clemente Micara – an ongoing protector since 1946 of serial predator Fr. Marcial Maciel – as President;

•   Fr. (later Archbishop) Bugnini – the future destroyer of the Roman Rite – as Secretary;

•   Fr. (later Cardinal) Giuseppe Antonelli – co-responsible with Bugnini for producing the Novus Ordo – as General Director;

•   Fr. (later Cardinal) Bea, Pius XII’s confessor, who had helped draft Mediator Dei and would play a major role in Ecuмenism at Vatican II;

•   Mgr. (later Cardinal) Dante, Papal Master of Ceremonies from 1947-1967;

•   Fr. Joseph Löw who would work with Fr. Antonelli to change the Easter Vigil in 1951 and Holy Week ceremonies in 1955;

•   Fr. Carlo Braga who collaborated closely with Bugnini and became Secretary of the Consilium under Paul VI.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f083_Dialogue_10.htm

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2015, 08:25:25 PM »

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.

It is not clear to moi. Bugnini( like Spellman) was very clever in hiding his agenda with a cornucopia of zelante words. I do not hold the Pope responsible for them.

I also don't agree that he sanctioned the persecution of Fr Feeney. Quite the opposite as he supports him in Humani Generis with the comment on EENS.

It is also not true that '99% of the Cards in the 1958 Conclave were his.

Whoever appointed the 1958 Cardinals, they elected the known favorite of the Pope as Gregory XVII. That is in all likelihood the truth.

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2015, 08:32:57 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

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?

Could a source be provided that will support use of the term fact---that Montini was signing the Popes name to something??? :confused1: