Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 17232 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:07:51 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Specifically--- what 'bad things' things happened under him. Can U name some of the 'many of high repute' who were scratching their heads and why?

I realise that WWII happened while he was Pope. Are U blaming him for the war?

See the above quotes at the beggining of this thread for the answers. Father Stepanich is one and he says there were others.

I believe he protected Jews in WWII and that is obviously a good thing. All of us are mixed bags having some good and some evil about us for some it is 99/1 in one way or the other but none of us is perfect.

I don't think I need to win this dispute though. I'll take him over those who followed any day, not even close. But . . .

I'm sure he suffered alot and was probably of good will. No unCatholic agendas I hope. But so much will be revealed on the last day. Things we can not imagine. We have already learned so much about the conciliar "pope" that not long ago we never would have imagined.

I'm just concerned with the truth.

Now whether posting these facts serves a good purpose is another question.

He was a valid Pope.

1. Should we avoid any negative truth about him since he was Pope?

2. Or is it important to get to the root cause of all that has befallen us?

I'm sure legitimate arguments can be made for both sides.

I believe all the facts should be known so a future Pope won't make the same mistakes.

Our next Pope needs to be strong in every way, not just one who manages to avoid heresy. Maybe seeing all the details that opened the door to where we are will help.

Did you know that since Leo XII the only Pope not to have diplomatic experience was Piux X. He just told it like it was and did not pander to anyone. I'm sure he was hated, and that is a good sign. No honey or vinegar, just straight. That is how I like it and I believe we should desire the truth no matter how sad or uncomfortable it is so that we can avoid past mistakes.

That is my motivation. If anyone can docuмent that the original posting is false I'll gladly embrace it. I want his reputation to be clean. I don't want anything negative about him to be true. I certainly am not into knowingly falsely accusing anyone.

There are negative private things that should be kept private if they do not hurt anyone our put souls in peril. But when it comes to Popes I believe it is a different story. If we can't hold them accountable who can we hold accountable?

They have so many souls in their hands in a manner of speaking.

I am not looking to get anyone angry or scandalized when I post unpopular things. I know by posting contraversial things that I can learn. It gives people the opportunity to correct me with docuмentation if possible. It also gives them the opportunity to merit by defending him. I am glad to defend him as a valid Pope and as one who risked alot by housing the Jews. And he did many other good things. I would like to think I'd be willing to die for him were I alive when he was Pope, though I'm not sure I am man enough to do it.

I hope that clarifies. And I'll be glad to see the first posting proven wrong. I also welcome any charitable explanation as to why posting such a thing even if it is true does more harm than good or is evil in and of itself. I will carefully read anything on that topic.

I hope my motives were pure this time.

roscoe · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:32:58 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: roscoe
Specifically--- what 'bad things' things happened under him. Can U name some of the 'many of high repute' who were scratching their heads and why?

I realise that WWII happened while he was Pope. Are U blaming him for the war?

See the above quotes at the beggining of this thread for the answers. Father Stepanich is one and he says there were others.

I believe he protected Jews in WWII and that is obviously a good thing. All of us are mixed bags having some good and some evil about us for some it is 99/1 in one way or the other but none of us is perfect.

I don't think I need to win this dispute though. I'll take him over those who followed any day, not even close. But . . .

I'm sure he suffered alot and was probably of good will. No unCatholic agendas I hope. But so much will be revealed on the last day. Things we can not imagine. We have already learned so much about the conciliar "pope" that not long ago we never would have imagined.

I'm just concerned with the truth.

Now whether posting these facts serves a good purpose is another question.

He was a valid Pope.

1. Should we avoid any negative truth about him since he was Pope?

2. Or is it important to get to the root cause of all that has befallen us?

I'm sure legitimate arguments can be made for both sides.

I believe all the facts should be known so a future Pope won't make the same mistakes.

Our next Pope needs to be strong in every way, not just one who manages to avoid heresy. Maybe seeing all the details that opened the door to where we are will help.

Did you know that since Leo XII the only Pope not to have diplomatic experience was Piux X. He just told it like it was and did not pander to anyone. I'm sure he was hated, and that is a good sign. No honey or vinegar, just straight. That is how I like it and I believe we should desire the truth no matter how sad or uncomfortable it is so that we can avoid past mistakes.

That is my motivation. If anyone can docuмent that the original posting is false I'll gladly embrace it. I want his reputation to be clean. I don't want anything negative about him to be true. I certainly am not into knowingly falsely accusing anyone.

There are negative private things that should be kept private if they do not hurt anyone our put souls in peril. But when it comes to Popes I believe it is a different story. If we can't hold them accountable who can we hold accountable?

They have so many souls in their hands in a manner of speaking.

I am not looking to get anyone angry or scandalized when I post unpopular things. I know by posting contraversial things that I can learn. It gives people the opportunity to correct me with docuмentation if possible. It also gives them the opportunity to merit by defending him. I am glad to defend him as a valid Pope and as one who risked alot by housing the Jews. And he did many other good things. I would like to think I'd be willing to die for him were I alive when he was Pope, though I'm not sure I am man enough to do it.

I hope that clarifies. And I'll be glad to see the first posting proven wrong. I also welcome any charitable explanation as to why posting such a thing even if it is true does more harm than good or is evil in and of itself. I will carefully read anything on that topic.

I hope my motives were pure this time.

BF75 is probably right & I really should not answer your lunacy. However Fr Stepanich was a libeler of Fr Feeney & it is now evident he is a libeler of Pius XII whose Bull Humani Generis supported Fr Feeney.

roscoe · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2012, 08:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Alot went on when he was Pope that was not good and had many of high repute and good will scratching their heads.

Facts are stubborn things. Some don't want to accept them. Others can.

So far only one person has been named that is allegedly 'of high repute & good will'.

MO is that he doesn't qualify.

Since there are allegedly 'many', possibly more names can be provided.

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:22:22 PM »

Mr. Roscoe,

It requires much humility and sincerity to appreciate the great achievements of Popes such as Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII. Those who with false pride choose to twist the truth by slyly mixing good and evil together so as to make everything look bad and suspicious are only belittling great men to make themselves look bigger.

That L. of T. presumes to judge great Popes like Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII is gravely delusional, to say the least. For any Catholic with some serious knowledge of history his gross distortions of fact are downright bizarre. To take such anti-Catholic diatribes seriously is to waste our precious time when we could be studying real Catholic history and religion instead. Jansenists have always engaged in this sort of dishonest fear-mongering, and these falsehoods are no different. They are in truth straight from out of the Protestant Reformation.

Better for us to buy snake oil from our friendly local carnival carny than pollute our minds by watching the slithering sleights of hand constantly performed by L. of T. Almost all of our Popes before V2 were holy men, and there's an end to it.

Most of the few exceptions were Anti-Popes, and (as Archbishop Lefebvre strongly suspected) probably still are. It seems only hard-hearted Jansenists like L. of T. really have much trouble telling the difference.

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2012, 12:03:36 AM »

I have not seen LOT's post re: Ben XV(15?) but I suspect--- if for no other reason that his office was attained with the assistance of election fraud of some sort--- that he may be an anti-pope.