Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matto on October 22, 2021, 12:14:40 PM
-
https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/ (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/)
Leo XIII: the first liberal pope . . .
Ralliement.
By a plinio-ite at 1P5
Leo XIII: The First Liberal Pope Who Went Beyond His Authority
Liberal Catholics: “The Sole Rule of Salvation Is to be With the Living Pope” (as Long as He is a Liberal…)
In a previous article (https://onepeterfive.com/understanding-true-ultramontanism/), I cleared up the misunderstanding that has led some traditionalists to blame ultramontanes and a so-called spirit of Vatican I for the “papolatry” exhibited by some Catholics who believe that the pope must be obeyed even when acting against the Church’s traditional teaching. I will now demonstrate that it was not the ultramontanes but liberal Catholics who pushed the limits of papal infallibility far beyond those set by Vatican I’s dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus. [Editor’s note: “liberal” in the 19th century meant Catholics who wanted to compromise with the Liberal world created by the Masonic French revolution. This terminology and its meaning is similar but also different from the term “Liberal” as used in English to refer to churchmen alive today.]
This drift toward absolutism began with the ralliement (1884), a papal policy of rallying around the Republic that Pope Leo XIII imposed on French Catholics. Liberal Catholics, eager to reconcile the Church with revolutionary modernity, enthusiastically welcomed this course of action. On the contrary, ultramontane Catholics emphasized the limits of the pope’s magisterial power and opposed his undue intrusion in France’s temporal affairs.
The episode was masterfully analyzed by Professor Roberto de Mattei in his book Le ralliement de Léon XIII – L’échec d’un projet pastoral (https://amzn.to/3BTYkPt)(Leo XIII’s Ralliement – The Failure of a Pastoral Project). To avoid separation between the Church and the French State, Pope Pecci urged Catholics to unite with the Republic and fight anti-clerical laws from within the system. Vatican diplomacy sought to obtain the French government’s goodwill to recover the territories that the Kingdom of Italy had taken from it.
Leo XIII’s new policy had two major difficulties. First, it challenged the monarchical convictions of a majority of the French clergy and laity. Second, French elections had brought Masonic and secularist governments to power. These governments had introduced divorce, expelled the Jesuits, forbidden priests and religious to teach in public schools, abolished religious instruction in schools and imposed military service on clerics.
Pope Leo XIII was an intellectual with solid principles, but he was a liberal at heart. He naively believed that republican anticlericalism could be defused by convincing liberals that the Church did not oppose the Republic but only its secularism. Unlike the pope, the French faithful clearly saw that the de-Christianization of France was not an accessory element but the very raison d’être of the republican regime. For these Catholics, accepting the Republic meant acquiescing to the “republican spirit,” that is, the egalitarian and anti-religious bias of the revolutionary ideology of 1789 that would then be allowed to permeate society as a whole.
Leo XIII chose Cardinal Charles Lavigerie (1825-1892), archbishop of Algiers as the “authorized intermediary” between Paris and the Vatican to implement the ralliement policy. Toasting at reception for officers of the French Mediterranean war fleet gathered in Algiers in 1890, he urged them to accept the republican form of government, arguing that the union of all good citizens was France’s supreme need and “the first wish of the Church and her Pastors.”
Leo XIII joined the fray a few months later, granting an interview (the first ever by a pontiff) to a pro-government Parisian daily, Le Petit journal. He stated, “Everyone can keep his personal preferences, but in the field of action, there is only the government that France has given itself. A republic is a form of government as legitimate as any other.” His encyclical Au Milieu des sollicitudes [On The Church and State In France] came out three days later, soon followed by the Apostolic Letter Notre consolation a été grande [Our Consolation Has Been Great]. In the latter, the pope insisted on his idea of “accepting the civil power as it actually exists without ulterior motive and with that perfect loyalty which befits a Christian.”
For Catholics accustomed to fighting the Masonic Republic, this about-face posed a problem of conscience. It is similar to that raised by Cardinal Joseph Zen and the Catholics of the underground Church in the face of the ominous agreement signed between the Holy See and the Chinese Communist regime.
At the time, the majority of the French episcopate gave a cold reception to the ralliement policy. Some prominent ultramontane figures, such as Bishop Charles-Émile Freppel of Angers, openly opposed it. Cardinal Lavigerie let loose the first salvo of “magisterialism”— the error of giving more importance to a pontiff’s teachings and gestures than to that of Tradition. Lambasting those “intransigent” Catholics who claimed to follow Pius IX in order to oppose Leo XIII, the cardinal declared, “The only rule of salvation and life in the Church is to be with the pope, with the living pope. Whoever he may be.”[1] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn1)
The same instruction soon came from the pope’s own pen. The occasion was a letter from Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pitra, one of the prominent representatives of the “partito piano” (party of Pius IX) to a Dutch correspondent. The recipient promptly published the text he had received from the cardinal. Its most crucial passage defended ultramontane journalists and praised the Catholic expansion that had taken place under Pius IX, without saying a word about his successor. A press campaign was then unleashed against the old cardinal, accusing him of seeking to oppose Leo XIII’s policy with his own. A Belgian newspaper even accused him of being “the schismatic leader of a small church that wants to lecture the pope, posing as more papal than the pope.” The secular press joined with liberal Catholic newspapers demanding that the cardinal be punished.
At the instigation of Cardinal Lavigerie, the pope published a letter in the Osservatore Romano (https://archidiacre.wordpress.com/2020/05/26/leon-xiii-lettre-epistola-tua-17-juin-1885) addressed to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris. The missive demanded that the faithful obey him in an exclusively political matter that had nothing to do with faith, morals, or ecclesiastical discipline. It would be much like Pope Francis making mandatory his beliefs on immigration or climate change. The abuse of magisterial power manifested in Leo XIII’s letter deserves being transcribed in its entirety. However that would be beyond the scope of this article. Thus, I will cite its more significant parts (with my comments in italicized square brackets).
It is not difficult to see that, perhaps because of the misfortune of the times, there are some Catholics who, not content with the submissive role the Church has assigned to them, believe they can take up one in their government. At least they imagine they are allowed to examine and judge the acts of authorities according to their own way of seeing things. That would be a serious disorder if allowed to prevail in the Church of God, where, by the express will of its divine Founder, two distinct orders have been established most clearly: the teaching Church and the taught Church, the Pastors and the flock, and among the Pastors, one who is the Head and Supreme Pastor for all. Pastors alone have been given the full power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful has been imposed the duty to follow these teachings, to submit with docility to these judgments, to allow themselves to be governed, corrected, and led to salvation. [Yes indeed, this is true in matters of faith, morals and church discipline, but regarding everything else, the faithful are free to have personal opinions.]
And to fail such a sacred duty, one need not make an act of open opposition to the bishops or to the Head of the Church: it suffices to make opposition in an indirect manner, which is all the more dangerous as people seek to hide it more with contrary appearances. [This is a reference to the ultramontanes, who were the champions of papal infallibility.]
It is also a proof of insincere submission to establish an opposition between one Supreme Pontiff and another Supreme Pontiff. [Sounds familiar…] Those who, [choosing] between two different directions, reject the present one and stick to the past do not show obedience to the authority, which has the right and duty to direct them. In some respects, they resemble those who, after a condemnation, would like to appeal to a future council or a better informed pope. [This is another attack on the ultramontanes, which accuses them of being conciliarists.]
Displaying centralism and authoritarianism hitherto unknown, Leo XIII added:
What one must hold on this point, then, is that in the general government of the Church, apart from the essential duties of the apostolic ministry imposed on all pontiffs, it is up to each of them to follow the rule of conduct which he deems best according to the times and other circuмstances. In this, he is the sole judge, having in this matter not only special insights but also a knowledge of the general situation and needs of Catholicity, according to which his apostolic solicitude should be regulated. [But is the pope infallible in everything he does? If not, one can then legitimately have a contrary opinion.] It is he who must procure the good of the universal Church, with which the good of its various parts is coordinated. All others subject to this coordination must assist the action of the Supreme Director and serve his purposes. [Not if they believe in conscience that he is mistaken.] As the Church is one, as her Head is one, so is her government, to which all must conform. [The present canon law recognizes the right of the faithful to express their disagreement with due respect to pastors.]
Six days later, one leading parish priest in Paris described the new climate in the Church as follows:
The bishops must recognize and proclaim that the pope is always right. The parish priests must proclaim and acknowledge that their bishop is always right. The faithful must recognize and proclaim that their parish priest, united to his bishop and united to the pope, is always right. It is like the gendarmerie, but it is not very practical, and history testifies that it has not been very practical. [2] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn2)
For his part, Cardinal Lavigerie congratulated Leo XIII for resisting the winds of discontent from the faithful and ultramontane newspapers: “By this act of truly pontifical vigor, Your Holiness has condemned a tyranny of the new kind, which was trying to impose itself on the Catholic hierarchy.” [3] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn3)
After publishing the Encyclical Au milieu des sollicitudes, the pope further hammered the nail into the coffin. While recognizing that his policies dealt with a temporal matter, he wrote to the bishop of Grenoble:
There are some, We regret to say it, who, while claiming to be Catholics, believe they have the right to oppose the direction given by the Head of the Church under the pretext that it is a political direction. Oh well! Facing their erroneous claims, we maintain each of the acts that previously emanated from Us in all their fullness and continue to say: ‘No, undoubtedly, We do not seek to make politics; but when politics is closely connected with religious interests, as is happening in France at present, if anyone has the mission to determine the conduct that can effectively safeguard religious interests, of which the supreme end of things consists, it is the Roman Pontiff.’[4] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn4)
As soon as the encyclical appeared, Mr. Émile Ollivier ─ a former minister of Emperor Napoleon III, who was far from being ultramontane ─ wrote in a column in the daily Le Figaro:
While waiting for the future to decide between Pius IX and Leo XIII, one can freely choose between two opinions; for, like our forefathers, we can say: non de fide—it is not of faith. As for those who consider the papal letter an ex-cathedra definition, it would be a waste of time to argue with them. One must send them back to school.[5] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn5)
The former Bonapartist minister was not exaggerating. After moral theology professors concluded that papal directives obliged on pain of mortal sin, two liberal Catholic newspapers wrote that those who continued to publicly support the monarchy were committing a grave sin. It was reported that some faithful had been denied absolution for having committed the “sin of monarchy.” In his memoirs, Cardinal Domenico Ferrata, the former nuncio to Paris, commented that the Apostolic Letter Notre Consolation “henceforth excluded all equivocation: one had to accept it or declare oneself a rebel to the word of the pope.” [6] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn6)
The ultramontanes avoided both pitfalls. They neither rallied to the Masonic Republic as Leo XIII wanted nor rebelled against his authority. They simply resisted him as Saint Paul had resisted Saint Peter “to his face” (Gal 2:16) or mutatis mutandis, as Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira resisted Paul VI’s Ostpolitik.[7] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn7)
Between October 1891 and February 1894, a small group of religious and laity met monthly in an ad hoc association called Our Lady of Nazareth. Its aim was to “act on the next conclave and obtain that the present pope not be given a successor who continues his liberal and political erring ways, so disastrous for the Church.” In July 1892, the group’s main leader, Father Charles Maignen, released a study “whose conclusions [were] likely to allay concerns of French Catholics who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to adhere to a government that persecutes the Church.” He stated, “Leo XIII did not act by virtue of the spiritual power that the Supreme Pontiff can exercise indirectly in the temporal order [ratione peccati], and consequently, his teachings, advice, or even orders, do not bind French Catholics in conscience.” In another study that was never published, titled Un pape légitime, peut-il cesser d’être pape? (Can a legitimate pope cease to be the pope?), Father Maignen addressed the delicate problem of a pope-heretic. [8] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn8)
Therefore, we can conclude without hesitation that exaggerated devotion and submission to the pope to the point of believing oneself obliged to obey him in matters unrelated to the faith or when he teaches or commands error does not come at all from exaggerated “ultramontanism” or a supposed “spirit of Vatican I.” On the contrary, it comes from the liberal Catholic current.
What was the result of the policy of “rallying” around the republic? As Leo XIII himself recognized, it was a complete failure. At an audience shortly before his death to Jules Méline, former President of the French Council, he said:
I have sincerely attached myself to the Republic, and that has not prevented the current government from recognizing my feelings and ignoring them. They unleashed a religious war that I lament and which harms France even more than the Church.[9] (https://onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/#_ftn9)
If Pope Francis is sincere, like his predecessor, he will soon have to say the same thing about his agreement with Xi Jinping. And acknowledge that Cardinal Zen was right.
José Antonio Ureta
-
NO time to read this shinola till later. Leo XIII as a Liberal is absurd. :confused:
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fordo-ab-chao.fr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2FCardinal-Rampolla.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
"Non ho avuto lamentele sul papa. Non mi ha mai scrutato."
(I had no complaints about the pope. He never scrutinized me.)
-
Wait, wait, wait.
The "Ralliement" politic was awful (Fr. Álvaro Calderón told in his book "Prometheus" that the Ralliement was one of the reasons that the catholics gave up to fight the Social Kingship of Christ) but saying Leo XIII was a liberal seems like a huge leap. Even with the Rampolla del Tindaro's case.
-
Pls clarify what you mean by the 'Card Rampolla case"... :confused:
-
Pls clarify what you mean by the 'Card Rampolla case"... :confused:
The Emperor (for whom prayers are found in older missals) vetoed his election. There is some suggestion of possible Masonic leanings, but +Rampolla offended the Emperor with his pro-French policies. His nephew forged his signature for financial gain, and his secretary was +Giancoma della Chiesi, later Benedict XV. The election after the veto resulted in St Pius X who abolished the jus exclusiviae or Imperial veto. Leo XIII admitted the ralliement failed, but Francis won't do similar over Red China. Francis helped Communists, harmed faithful Catholics and got money for it. That's for him a hattrick.
-
Pls clarify what you mean by the 'Card Rampolla case"... :confused:
A lot of people say that Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro was a mason - supposedly from Ordo Templi Orientis - that deceived many people on Rome for years, even Leo XIII, one of the wisest recent Popes. The Emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph I, vetoed his election on the 1903 Conclave - see, he had the majority of votes, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto were the 2nd - using an old privilege (that I must say the Divine Providence gave it).
Some say the Emperor had some agents investigating Rampolla del Tindaro for a long time, and when they discovered affiliations with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Franz Joseph immediately knew what he had to do.
-
Leo XIII admitted the ralliement failed, but Francis won't do similar over Red China. Francis helped Communists, harmed faithful Catholics and got money for it. That's for him a hattrick.
That makes a lot of difference, you see. Leo XII admitted the failure.
-
The Emperor (for whom prayers are found in older missals) vetoed his election. There is some suggestion of possible Masonic leanings, but +Rampolla offended the Emperor with his pro-French policies. His nephew forged his signature for financial gain, and his secretary was +Giancoma della Chiesi, later Benedict XV. The election after the veto resulted in St Pius X who abolished the jus exclusiviae or Imperial veto. Leo XIII admitted the ralliement failed, but Francis won't do similar over Red China. Francis helped Communists, harmed faithful Catholics and got money for it. That's for him a hattrick.
I've heard Pope Leo XIII's papacy was marked by nepotism? That would mean men of questionable character were inside the Vatican.
While, I could make the case that the Brit-Jєω, Cardinal Newman was a product of that overall scandal, I'll save it for a later.
Rampolla slipped in as Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State and is accused of infecting a whole generation of Cardinals.
(Pope Benedict XV, Roncali, Montini and Pacelli).
Recently on this forum , it was mentioned that Rampolla had insisted that Montini and Pacelli were not to attend seminary, but to be home schooled.
And it appears there is no historical record for either popes normal seminary education & formation.
There is not much hard evidence on Rompolla's freemasonic membership.
St. Pope Pius X is said to have had his apartment belongings burned so as not to further scandalize the Church.
However, in that era, Italy was rife with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. If you ever read about Holy Pope Pius IX's battles with them, you'll understand how bad it was.
Finally, it must be Divine Providence that we recently learned from Mark79, that Pope Bergolia is a direct Episcopal descendant from Card. Rampolla.
-
Fools-- It is Franz-Joseph( no friend of the martyred Franz- Ferdinand) that is FMason-- Not Rampolla....:fryingpan:
-
The jews at the New York Times liked Rampolla too. They praised him right after St. Pope Pius X died.
Previously posted by Merry: NYT Sep 6 1914 (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=5554)
They later wrote an article in 1928 (?) implying that Cardinal Merry De Val murdered Rampolla.
Would you believe it? :popcorn:
-
After reading the article for a couple of minutes I found exactly what was expected-- acc to author, the first indication that Leo was a 'Lib' is the ralliement. This has been refuted numerous times in the past & the full story is of course omitted..... :sleep:
-
After reading the article for a couple of minutes I found exactly what was expected-- acc to author, the first indication that Leo was a 'Lib' is the ralliement. This has been refuted numerous times in the past & the full story is of course omitted..... :sleep:
That's why I don't trust any plinio-ite: they shoot on everyone just to prove Plínio Correa is the second Messiah (almost). I acknowledged once a site that loves Plinio that calls Mgr. Lefebvre schismatic, that hates modernism, calls some traditionalist authors schismatic, communists (???) and etc.
When you see something related to praising Plinio, or by IPCO or TFP, run away.
-
Finally, it must be Divine Providence that we recently learned from Mark79, that Pope Bergolia is a direct Episcopal descendant from Card. Rampolla.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbergj.html
Yes, he is. But is it matter so much? I mean, Card. Merry del Val was a nice churchman, and was consacreted by Card. Rampolla del Tindaro
-
Recently on this forum , it was mentioned that Rampolla had insisted that Montini and Pacelli were not to attend seminary, but to be home schooled.
And it appears there is no historical record for either popes normal seminary education & formation.
Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (Pius XII) attended state primary schools and Visconti Institute for his secondary education. He then studied at the Appolinare Institute of Lateran University and the Gregorian University before ordination in 1901.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pius-XII (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pius-XII)
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini (Paul VI) attended the Cesare Arici school run by the Jesuits and received a diploma from the Arnaldo da Brescia public school. His education was often interrupted by illness. He entered the seminary in Brescia (reports say that during his seminary formation he was dispensed to lived in the family home because of frail health) and was ordained in 1920. He concluded his studies in Milan with a doctorate in canon law and later studied at the Gregorian University.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Blessed-Paul-VI (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Blessed-Paul-VI)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI)
-
Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (Pius XII) attended state primary schools and Visconti Institute for his secondary education. He then studied at the Appolinare Institute of Lateran University and the Gregorian University before ordination in 1901.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pius-XII (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pius-XII)
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini (Paul VI) attended the Cesare Arici school run by the Jesuits and received a diploma from the Arnaldo da Brescia public school. His education was often interrupted by illness. He entered the seminary in Brescia (reports say that during his seminary formation he was dispensed to lived in the family home because of frail health) and was ordained in 1920. He concluded his studies in Milan with a doctorate in canon law and later studied at the Gregorian University.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Blessed-Paul-VI (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Blessed-Paul-VI)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI)
Montini couldn't fit-in, in seminary because he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
He was actually on record as being arrested for a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ act in a public urinal in Italy. He was a Jєω too.
(https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs)Diabolical Secrets of VII (https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs)
-
Montini couldn't fit-in, in seminary because he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
He was actually on record as being arrested for a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ act in a public urinal in Italy. He was a Jєω too.
(https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs)Diabolical Secrets of VII (https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs)
And below is what you conveniently forgot to include in your post:
In 1894, aged 18, Pacelli began his theology studies at Rome's oldest seminary, the Almo Collegio Capranica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almo_Collegio_Capranica),[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-13) and in November of the same year, registered to take a philosophy course at the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Gregorian_University) and theology at the Pontifical Roman Athenaeum S. Apollinare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Roman_Athenaeum_S._Apollinare). He was also enrolled at the State University, La Sapienza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Rome_La_Sapienza) where he studied modern languages and history. At the end of the first academic year however, in the summer of 1895, he dropped out of both the Capranica and the Gregorian University. According to his sister Elisabetta, the food at the Capranica was to blame.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-14) Having received a special dispensation he continued his studies from home and so spent most of his seminary years as an external student. In 1899 he completed his education in Sacred Theology with a doctoral degree awarded on the basis of a short dissertation and an oral examination in Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin).[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-15)
Pope Pius XII bio (Jєω-wiki) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII)
And when one looks at his Jєω-wiki bio, it raises more questions than it answers:
1. The family (Jєω) banking background.
2. The Black Nobility
For #2, we've discussed the "Black Nobility" on this forum several times, related to the SSPX's connection to the Palavachini family. It's not good.
The Palavacini's are currently known as European high-end mobsters, even though they've done their best to scrub their images clean on the web.
And let me ask... What happened to the Black Nobility?
Perhaps a periti from Menzingen's office of historical propaganda can advise us on this forbidden topic?
-
And below is what you conveniently forgot to include in your post:
In 1894, aged 18, Pacelli began his theology studies at Rome's oldest seminary, the Almo Collegio Capranica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almo_Collegio_Capranica),[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-13) and in November of the same year, registered to take a philosophy course at the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Gregorian_University) and theology at the Pontifical Roman Athenaeum S. Apollinare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Roman_Athenaeum_S._Apollinare). He was also enrolled at the State University, La Sapienza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Rome_La_Sapienza) where he studied modern languages and history. At the end of the first academic year however, in the summer of 1895, he dropped out of both the Capranica and the Gregorian University. According to his sister Elisabetta, the food at the Capranica was to blame.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-14) Having received a special dispensation he continued his studies from home and so spent most of his seminary years as an external student. In 1899 he completed his education in Sacred Theology with a doctoral degree awarded on the basis of a short dissertation and an oral examination in Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin).[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-15)
Pope Pius XII bio (Jєω-wiki) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII)
And when one looks at his Jєω-wiki bio, it raises more questions than it answers:
1. The family (Jєω) banking background.
2. The Black Nobility
For #2, we've discussed the "Black Nobility" on this forum several times, related to the SSPX's connection to the Palavachini family. It's not good.
The Palavacini's are currently known as European high-end mobsters, even though they've done their best to scrub their images clean on the web.
And let me ask... What happened to the Black Nobility?
Perhaps a periti from Menzingen's office of historical propaganda can advise us on this forbidden topic?
Hard to imagine the food being bad at any Italian institution, including a seminary.
But I could be wrong. I've just always been of the impression that Italians take food seriously, and that they prepare it well.
-
I came to the conclusion awhile back that Incred is a judaic baiter.
It should be pointed out that the Venetian (Frankist) Black Nobility is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY than Papal( Guelf) Black Nobility. :cowboy:
-
Many years ago I discovered that Pope Leo XIII gave licence for a modernist approach to Biblical interpretation that promoted Modernism in the womb of the Catholic Church.
A Modernist is best described as a Catholic one day and a modernist the next day. I recall many of my friends were shocked until they were shown the evidence.
History records that the modernism that led to the demise of the traditional Catholic faith began in the middle of the 19th century. This fits in with Pope Pius VII's 1820-35 acceptance of heliocentric science and ordering all heliocentric books be taken off the Index. In 1616 and 1633, in the Galileo case, heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy because it contradicted the geocentrism of the Bible, an understanding of ALL THE FATHERS. Pope Urban VIII stated in 1633 that if this one interpretation of Scripture was changed based on a scientific theory, it would "PUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH IN DANGER." This happened in 1835 and led to other scientific theories like uniformitarianism (long ages) and evolution being used by 'Biblical Scholars' to change other traditional meanings in Scripture.
This 'modernism' (liberalism) became so bad that Pope Leo XIII had to try to stop the ROT in his encyclical Providentissimus deus. Alas, wherein he did warn of all the dangers to biblical understanding, but then had to back up his predecessors in their U-turn from a geocentric meaning of Scripture to an updated heretical heliocentric one. Here are the two passages under Pope Leo XIII's name that changed the Bible from Tradition to Modernist;
‘15: But we must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’
‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers , as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us, “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’
’18: The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas.’
Thus was the licence to turn the supernatural creation by God into a natural evolutionary one that did not need a Creator as atheists were claiming since the mid 1850s. In my next post I will give examples of how this licence was used by so many since 1893. First though, the latest use of Leo XIII's licence..
"Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that: Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science [like geocentrism, Biblical ages, a world-wide flood, etc?]. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred." --- Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX.
-
Here are some of the endless confirmations of Pope Leo XIII's licence to chainge Scripture based on the 'science' of natural origins:
‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’ -- James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.
‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’ --- E. C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.
‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this [Galileo’s] advice in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’ --- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission. ---
‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible…. “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’ --> D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225.
‘Galileo’s principle has apparently become the official hermeneutic criterion of the Catholic Church. It is alluded to in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo (1893), referred to in Guadium et Spes of the Vatican Council II (1965).’--- The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367.
‘On the other hand, Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’--- J. T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.
‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’ --- Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68.
‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between Biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’--- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, 2007, p.264.
‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to Biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”’--- Catholics United for the Faith – what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010
‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.
‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’ Vatican Observatory website 2013.
‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’--- Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013
-
I came to the conclusion awhile back that Incred is a judaic baiter.
It should be pointed out that the Venetian (Frankist) Black Nobility is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY than Papal( Guelf) Black Nobility. :cowboy:
Thank you Roscoe!
You've long defended Cardinal Rampolla, but we've never seen you come forth with evidence of his virtuous life?
Perhaps the most disastrous thing St. Pope Pius X unknowingly did was to put Rampolla in charge of the Vatican archives.
A perfect opportunity for him to trash Church history on тαℓмυdic judaism :facepalm:
-
Hard to imagine the food being bad at any Italian institution, including a seminary.
But I could be wrong. I've just always been of the impression that Italians take food seriously, and that they prepare it well.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.com%2Fresizer%2FmtWaon4F85evOpjwtXoUkmJU1_Q%3D%2F700x0%2Fsmart%2Farc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2FRZN6ZRUUARBBFERUOYIYYQZIOI.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
"Hey a Pacelli !
You no lika my food... Ima gonna beata yo ass!"
-
Thank you Roscoe!
You've long defended Cardinal Rampolla, but we've never seen you come forth with evidence of his virtuous life?
Perhaps the most disastrous thing St. Pope Pius X unknowingly did was to put Rampolla in charge of the Vatican archives.
A perfect opportunity for him to trash Church history on тαℓмυdic judaism :facepalm:
Pius X was PRESENT( & btw you were not) IN THE CONCLAVE( & voted for Card Rampolla) when the alleged 'veto' fiasco took place. Unless he slept through it, he has to be aware of the controvery. It is therefore impossible that he could appt him to anything 'unknowingly'..
I think I'll listen to the Pope instead of you. :popcorn:
-
Pius X was PRESENT( & btw you were not) IN THE CONCLAVE( & voted for Card Rampolla) when the alleged 'veto' fiasco took place. Unless he slept through it, he has to be aware of the controvery. It is therefore impossible that he could appt him to anything 'unknowingly'..
I think I'll listen to the Pope instead of you. :popcorn:
Roscoe Rampolla :confused:
-
Roscoe Rampolla :confused:
Roscoe,
In your family bloodline, is there some connection with the Rampolla name?
I ask because your position that Rampolla’s papacy being thwarted was a bad thing?
How could a Freemason being Pope be good ?
Giuseppe Sarto was of humble stock and it was noted he had no aspirations or confidence to be Pope. He voted for Rampolla and even at the post Rampolla voting rounds, it’s unlikely he voted for himself.
Within the traditional Catholic movement, it is widely held that Pope Pius X’s election was of Divine Providence to keep the ʝʊdɛօ-masons from destroying the Church at an earlier point in time.
Do you have another take on these historical events?
-
Within the traditional Catholic movement, it is widely held that Pope Pius X’s election was of Divine Providence to keep the ʝʊdɛօ-masons from destroying the Church at an earlier point in time.
MO is that you are either insane or insincere. :incense:
-
Pius X was PRESENT( & btw you were not) IN THE CONCLAVE( & voted for Card Rampolla) when the alleged 'veto' fiasco took place. Unless he slept through it, he has to be aware of the controvery. It is therefore impossible that he could appt him to anything 'unknowingly'..
Of course he voted Rampolla, not many knew about his affiliations to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Also, St. Pius X tried to avoid so much being Pope - he says it in his first speeches - so it's understandable.
-
The prob w/ the above post is that the lie Card Rampolla was a FMason is apparently believed.... :laugh1:
-
The prob w/ the above post is that the lie Card Rampolla was a FMason is apparently believed.... :laugh1:
Okay, so we’ve established that you believe Rampolla is innocent of the charges of being a high level mason.
So we need to bring forth more solid evidence of his masonic connections for you.
-
edit :sleep:
-
The jews at the New York Times liked Rampolla too. They praised him right after St. Pope Pius X died.
Previously posted by Merry: NYT Sep 6 1914 (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=5554)
They later wrote an article in 1928 (?) implying that Cardinal Merry De Val murdered Rampolla.
Would you believe it? :popcorn:
Lol! The Jєωs lied since Christ walked the earth and will continue to lie till the end of this world 🌎 🔥
-
edit :sleep:
Roscoe, you’re only good for three posts, then you need a nap :confused:
-
Actually there very premise of this entire topic is heretical. There is NO SUCH THING as going beyond Authority of Il Papa...:popcorn:
-
Then it means you approve of Papa Francis’s abuse of authority? :facepalm:
-
The anti-pope Frank is Not true Il Papa..:popcorn:
-
Actually there very premise of this entire topic is heretical. There is NO SUCH THING as going beyond Authority of Il Papa...
So the pope can add books to Scripture?
-
Yes :popcorn:
" I AM THE CHURCH"--- Pius IX
-
Yes :popcorn:
" I AM THE CHURCH"--- Pius IX
Pio Nono's quote was before the Jєω/masons infiltrated the Church.
Bl. Pope Pius IX put the Jєωs back in the ghetto.
-
Card Rampolla originally ordained as Priest by Pius IX :popcorn:
-
Card Rampolla originally ordained as Priest by Pius IX :popcorn:
:popcorn:
Cardinal Rampolla – the archetypal Freemason cleric
Published on May 24, 2021 (https://ecclesiastical-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.com/2021/05/24/cardinal-rampolla-the-archetypal-freemason-cleric/) Link (https://ecclesiastical-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.com/2021/05/24/cardinal-rampolla-the-archetypal-freemason-cleric/)
The first significant inroad made by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ into the heart of the Church was the appointment of the influential Cardinal Rampolla as Secretary of State. Ordained in 1866, Mariano Rampolla was made a bishop by Pope Leo XIII and appointed Apostolic Nuncio of Spain in 1882 for five years.
It was during this time that Pope Leo released his landmark encyclical condemning Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Humanum Genus. Released in April of 1884, this was to be his final official condemnation of the Craft. Only six months later, Pope Leo received his famous vision of the devil ‘conversing’ with God and subsequently wrote the prayer to St Michael. The date of that vision is particularly significant: it was October 13th – precisely 33 years before the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Some time after this, the Pope decreed that the St Michael prayer and the Salve Regina be recited after every Low Mass.
In 1887, the Pope promoted Rampolla to Cardinal and in the same year, appointed him as his Secretary of State. (16 years)
It seems strange to think that a Pope who was so opposed to Masonry allowed a character like Rampolla to achieve such prominence. Perhaps Pope Leo’s confidence in Rampolla reflected something of the latter’s character: he has all the hallmarks of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Leo XIII died in 1903 and Rampolla became known as the best potential new pope, or ‘papabile.” This was despite Rampolla’s liberal tendencies already being widely known.
In an unusual political intervention, the French Foreign Minister urged the French Bishops to vote for Rampolla, in order to maintain the support given to the French by Leo XIII.
Some of Rampolla’s other supporters at this time were Bishop Pietro Gasparri, Rampolla’s Under-Secretary of State, Msgr della Chiesa, and his private secretary, Eugenio Pacelli. Another supporter, Bishop Rafael Merry del Val, became Pro-Secretary of the conclave. This followed the sudden death of the original Pro-Secretary, Msgr Volpini. The Pro-Secretary plays an important ceremonial role after the election of a new pontiff and is also automatically elevated to the role of Cardinal at the same time as a former Cardinal is elevated to the papacy.
Cardinal Rampolla received the highest tally in the first vote and things appeared to be going his way. Suddenly there was an unheard-of intervention by the Metropolitan of Krakow, Cardinal Puzyna, on behalf of His Imperial Majesty Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary. Franz Josef was invoking a power of veto that had not been used in 400 years to eliminate Rampolla as a candidate. Del Val had tried without success to stop this intervention from taking place.
When Rampolla realised that the request was valid, he asked that his supporters transfer their votes to the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto. The final ballot in fact elected Cardinal Santo and he took the name Pius X.
Pius X abolished the Imperial Privilege soon after his election, possibly due to the common opinion that the Emperor was motivated by political intentions. The true reason behind the intervention was not known until a decade later.
Rampolla was replaced as Secretary of State by Bishop Merry del Val; other progressive prelates, supporters of Rampolla, still held their important posts in the Vatican. Rampolla became Secretary of the Holy Office in 1908.
The truth behind the Emperor’s intervention was not revealed until 1918, after Rampolla’s sudden demise. Amongst the Cardinal’s private papers were docuмents that indicated he was a member of the Ordo Templi Orienti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis)s, or OTO, an occult arm of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This cult incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Kabala and Eastern mysticism and is the foundation of Aleister Crowley’s ‘sex magick.’
Of special interest in our own days is one aspect of the initiation ritual of the eleventh degree of the OTO: sodomy. Msgr Jouin (https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ-Monseigneur-Jouin/dp/116318747X)believed that Cardinal Rampolla was initiated into the OTO in Switzerland and that he was a Grand Master of the OTO.
-
:laugh1:
-
:laugh1:
When you posted that I was either insane or insincere...
As the psychologists say, I think you were “projecting”.
-
" I AM THE CHURCH"--- Pius IX
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
:confused:
-
:facepalm:
No comprende-- Are you saying that I am wrong & Pius IX didn't say that( I am The Church) or is Pius IX wrong or what exactly are you trying to say?
:confused:
-
You obviously don’t understand the context of Pius IX’s statement.
-
Possibly you could explain it for us...?:popcorn:
-
Bl Pope Pius IX made this statement ("I am the Church") in regards to his power to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which he did define in 1854. A few years prior to this statement and dogma, he was forced to escape Rome because of a revolution where the Prime Minister was αssαssιnαtҽd. So, for context, 1) he said this having escaped a life-or-death situation, 2) he was aware of the infiltration in the Church, and 3) he was getting pushback from the Cardinals, some of whom were pushing the heresy of collegiality and telling him that he must wait to define the dogma when all the bishops/cardinals agreed on the definition.
Vatican I and the doctrine of infallibility had not been defined (1870), so this pushback and call for the heretical collegiality/democracy of the Church is what prompted Bl Pius IX to lash out and correct the liberal Cardinal, when he shouted "I am the Church". The point/context of the statement is that in matters of dogma/infallibility, the pope IS ALONE.
To be clear, Bl Pius IX was not saying the pope is all that matters, or the pope can do whatever he wants in the Church, or that he has no rules to follow or that he can change doctrine or the sacraments. These matters are beyond his authority. He was simply correcting liberal Cardinals on the matter/power of the Pope in relation to infallibility/doctrine, which had not yet been clarified at Vatican I.
-
The very first line of the above response is WRONG. The "I am The Church" quote comes from the Vatican I Council. I would advise reading Fr Cuthbert's History Of The Vatican Council. :popcorn:
-
The article I read may have been wrong, but the point is the same: He said "I am the Church" in regards to infallibility, when liberal cardinals were pushing collegiality/democracy.
-
Thanks for reply but It is absurd to call Pope Leo a liberal... :popcorn:
-
Thanks for reply but It is absurd to call Pope Leo a liberal...
:facepalm: That's not even close to what i'm saying. Just forget it.
-
I find the One Peter article quite interesting. I have suspected for quite a while that it was the liberals that pushed for this "ultra" in ultramontanist.
When you think about it, it makes sense. If the Alta Vendita is genuine, it plays into the hands of the liberals and their man in the chair of St Peter.
-
:facepalm: That's not even close to what i'm saying. Just forget it.
Thanks but I am referring to the OP(Topic)-- not what you said...:popcorn:
-
edit
-
I find the One Peter article quite interesting. I have suspected for quite a while that it was the liberals that pushed for this "ultra" in ultramontanist.
When you think about it, it makes sense. If the Alta Vendita is genuine, it plays into the hands of the liberals and their man in the chair of St Peter.
:confused:
-
:confused:
Did you read the article? It explains it.
-
You obviously don’t understand the context of Pius IX’s statement.
Do you think Pope Leo XIII was( is) a 'liberal'? :popcorn:
-
Did you read the article? It explains it.
Do you think Il Papa Leo XIII was (is) a ' liberal'? :popcorn:
-
Do you think Il Papa Leo XIII was (is) a ' liberal'? :popcorn:
Answer the question and stop being cantankerous. Yes or no, did you read it?
-
Yes
I answered your question. Pls answer mine- do u think Pope Leo XIII was(is) a 'Liberal'? :popcorn:
-
Yes
I answered your question. Pls answer mine- do u think Pope Leo XIII was(is) a 'Liberal'? :popcorn:
From the article and accurate.
“liberal” in the 19th century meant Catholics who wanted to compromise with the Liberal world created by the Masonic French revolution. This terminology and its meaning is similar but also different from the term “Liberal” as used in English to refer to churchmen alive today.
No, I don't think he was Liberal in the way you are implying.
I do think he made a big mistake by thinking that the Masonic Republics could be reconciled with the Church and maintain some semblance of unity of Church and State.
-
Good analysis.
I read a Pope Leo XIII biography that offered no hint of scandals but explained the enormous political pressure the Pope was under from Germany & France.
It seemed logical that the Pope would try to defend his papacy by surrounding himself with family & friends.
But, it looks like both Rampolla and Newman were major management oversights, since we realize a century later they were Church infiltrators.
I think Rampolla’s story needs further research. His ascension as the Vatican Secretary of State was surely linked to the Divine intervention prompting the St. Michael prayer.
-
But, it looks like both Rampolla and Newman were major management oversights, since we realize a century later they were Church infiltrators.
Newman was a infiltrator? wow
-
Newman was a infiltrator? wow
There’s a lot on him, but briefly, he was a Jєω, who never renounced his Protestant books. Serious evidence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
He rebelled against Bl. Pope Pius IX’s “Syllabus of Errors”.
-
Please!
This line of thinking leads Catholics to literal protestantism. "The Church was corrupted a few years after Our Lord's Ascension..." or "The Catholic Church corrupted Christianity by adding elements of Roman paganism..." I'm serious -- these are literally protestant beliefs!
But even when they stop short of such protestant heresy, they are seeking perfection among a fallen people (mankind). You ain't gonna find it. No, not even in the Papacy.
Like that handful of idiots who think the Church went into eclipse 500 years ago -- they anathematize even St. Pius X.
I think another idiot even condemns St. Thomas Aquinas. It's a slippery slope once you go down the path of error.
-
I read a Pope Leo XIII biography that offered no hint of scandals but explained the enormous political pressure the Pope was under from Germany & France.
It seemed logical that the Pope would try to defend his papacy by surrounding himself with family & friends.
"Political Pressure" from Germany and France, eh? And who were the "periti" (so-called experts) who started V2? None other than the Cardinal masons from Germany and France.
Pope Leo was the pope directly before Bl Pius IX, who was imprisoned in the Vatican by the masons. The masons thought that they could pressure Pope Leo to be their Pius XII (i.e. start watering down the Faith) and they were pretty sure Bl Pius IX was going to be their JohnXXIII and give them V2. Instead, Leo resisted the pressure and Bl Pius IX converted from his early liberal days. Then Pope St Pius X came afterwards and *BOOM*, he set the Church straight (for the short term). The Italian masons have openly stated that Pope St Pius X delayed their plans by over 50 years.
When you read history, it's amazing how crazy the times were in the late 1800s. Not many people realize how close we were to having V2 in the early 1900s! The Masons were openly in control of everything. The Church infiltration started in the 1800s!
-
The Church infiltration started in the 1800s!
Yes, as long as you recognize that the Crisis in the Church didn't start until Vatican II. Not a day sooner.
If any of us were transported back to an American city in 1962, and failed to go to Mass at some Catholic parish that following Sunday, it would absolutely be a MORTAL SIN that would send us to hell if we died without confessing it. Unless we had some excuse (illness). Lack of transportation would be a difficult one, since parishes were usually within walking distance and most people DID have private vehicles and/or public transportation.
But imperfection in the Church started before Our Lord even left this earth -- remember when Our Lord made St. Peter head of the Apostles? And then on Holy Thursday St. Peter denied Our Lord? Then, just a few years later, St. Paul had to resist St. Peter -- the reigning pope -- to the face, "because he was to be blamed"?
Anything involving human beings is going to be slipshod, zig-zagging, full of twists, turns, errors, and corrections. It's like trying to herd cats. Human beings are walking bundles of imperfection.
For the philosophers and big-picture lovers among us, Bp. Williamson taught us that the high-point of civilization, the Church, Christendom, was around 1270-1350 with St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Literature world right around Dante. After that, it was a long slow descent to the Protestant revolt, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, destruction of Catholic Europe, until today when even the natural law is being attacked. You know, where 25% of the children in some classrooms claiming to be transsɛҳuąƖ, where drag queens read to children in public libraries.
-
There’s a lot on him, but briefly, he was a Jєω, who never renounced his Protestant books. Serious evidence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
He rebelled against Bl. Pope Pius IX’s “Syllabus of Errors”.
As an aside, Michael Davies relied much for his own work on St Athanasius on the research done by ++Newman.....while ++Newman was an Anglican!
Much of that work by ++Newman was debunked by his contemporaries in Rome.
And yet, Davies work is the basis of many trad Catholics views on Pope Liberius and the Arian crisis.
-
For the philosophers and big-picture lovers among us, Bp. Williamson taught us that the high-point of civilization, the Church, Christendom, was around 1270-1350 with St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Literature world right around Dante. After that, it was a long slow descent to the Protestant revolt, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, destruction of Catholic Europe, until today when even the natural law is being attacked.
The greatest exponent of scholastic philosophy was St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) whose school of thought is named Thomism, a form of scholastic wisdom that has received the special approbation of popes and councils of the Church up to Pope John Paul II that is. To St Thomas, Aristotle was ‘the philosopher;’ To Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) Aristotle was il maestro di color che sanno, the master of those that know, but St Thomas was fiamma benedetta, a flame of heavenly wisdom, wiser even than Aristotle.
‘Dante was a great verbal musician and his poetry reflects that. As you read it you will get a sense of the truth the man is telling. His vision is extraordinary. It is thoroughly Catholic. And that is why it is gone. That is why you have not read it. It is unequivocally Catholic and loaded with Catholic theology. The modern world hates all things Catholic, so the modern world secretly despises Dante. They will praise him but go out of their way to ensure that few ever read him. I can think of few better ways to introduce intelligent young people to the Faith than to sit them down with Dante and go through it, canto by canto. The awe and wonder of what is being explained, and the vision of Dante are powerful things. Reading the poem is a personal journey…. Art has always existed as a manifestation of the human spirit. As Catholics, however, we also know that art has also served as an extension of the glories of the Faith. I insist on reminding you that those beautiful creations that we know as the glories of Western art grow out of the Mass. This is as true of the architecture of the great cathedrals as it is of the great paintings. When western art dawns after the classical age, it dawns with magnificent paintings. Music takes on a life of its own after it begins to grow out of the Gregorian chant. Even drama itself, after the Greeks, grows largely out of the liturgy…. Dante comes from a specific and well-constituted worldview. It is important to understand that modern man, educated in modern schools, goes out at night, looks at the night sky, and defines his world differently than the medievals. They are looking at the same stars, but not the same “thing.” Modern man first sees a scientific universe; he sees named stars at such-and-such light-years away in specific galaxies or solar systems. There is a feeling of understanding due to modern science. And I think it’s fair to say that, for many moderns, there is a feeling of insignificance; what are we compared to the universe? It is all big, dark, and empty; there’s nothing out there but matter, gasses, rocks, planets. All seems accidental. So the average modern man goes inside to drink, watch TV, and eat junk food to escape the harsh reality. Medieval man, looking at the same night sky, would first see complete order. This is not from the viewpoint of science, but that of God. There were the nine spheres which made music as they moved, but they were all created by a Creator with a specific order. It was full and rich, not empty. Medieval man knew his place; he did not consider himself insignificant since he was a son of God, created for a specific purpose, playing an integral part in the created order. As a result, he would go to Mass and raise his family, and concern himself with whether there would be enough potatoes or whether the plague would come around that year. He had real fears, but not the empty angst of modern man. As Dante wrote: “The glory of the One Who moves all things penetrates the entire universe, reflecting in one part more and in another less.” As we soar upwards, we eventually reach the Empyrean where the Trinity dwells. First, we move through the nine spheres. At the top, the ninth sphere, or ninth heaven, we find the Primum Mobile, that which moves all things, that perfect sphere which causes the other inferior spheres to move. Notice that Dante, in devising the entire Divine Comedy, took that which was known in his own time. There is a sense in the Inferno that we are delving into the bowels of the Earth. Think of the fire, the stone, and the dangerous sense of climbing downwards into the Earth until we reach the core of ice. Then we climb Mount Purgatory, on an island in the Southern Hemisphere. When we get to the Paradiso, we soar upwards through the heavens as they were known to the medieval mind. What Dante used as his model of the heavens was the known astronomical model of his day. We begin with the Earth and soar outward from there. What is moving all these heavens is [God]… If you are going to study cosmology, not modern astronomy but the medieval idea of order of the spheres, this study of cosmic order will move you to God, Who is perfection. The vision will be complete and perfect if you can grasp it. But if you are going to look at Earth, where we live, you are going to see inadequacy, the failures of fallen man, and hence, earthly disorder….Dante lived in an age of Faith. He still felt he had trouble expressing it. The best the modern Catholic artist can do is to give a little hint of the Purgatorio vision; that is how far gone we are. For most of us even to attempt to grasp the notion of Paradise seems impossible; it lies outside our age that we are forced to feel frustration.’ --- Professor David Allen White: Dante, The Angelus, June 2010 – January 2011
-
Yes, as long as you recognize that the Crisis in the Church didn't start until Vatican II. Not a day sooner.
Matthew, are you serious?
-
From the article and accurate.
“liberal” in the 19th century meant Catholics who wanted to compromise with the Liberal world created by the Masonic French revolution. This terminology and its meaning is similar but also different from the term “Liberal” as used in English to refer to churchmen alive today.
No, I don't think he was Liberal in the way you are implying.
I do think he made a big mistake by thinking that the Masonic Republics could be reconciled with the Church and maintain some semblance of unity of Church and State.
This has been addressed MUCHO TIMES IN THE PAST-- pay attention.
It was NOT POSSIBLE to restore the Monarchy because the Bonapartist & Bourbon factions were AT EACH OTHERS THROATS.
The ralleiment(sp?) was meant to rally French Republicans TO THE CHURCH-- & it was somewhat successful.
The Church prefers a Monarchy but is not averse to working w/ other forms of government. Examples would be the Venetian & Florentine Republics. :popcorn:
-
The idea that Newman or Rampolla are 'infiltrators' is trash...
:incense:
-
Yes, as long as you recognize that the Crisis in the Church didn't start until Vatican II. Not a day sooner.
? I guess it depends how you define "crisis". An infiltration, an attack from within, is a crisis, in my book. Even if the effects weren't seen until decades later.
-
The idea that Newman or Rampolla are 'infiltrators' is trash...
The man who attempts to discuss complex topics with 1 sentence responses...:laugh1:
-
The man who attempts to discuss complex topics with 1 sentence responses...:laugh1:
So far, I didn't find a single line refuting roscoe's main point. His interpretation of "I am the Church" is useless. But why believe that Rampolla was a freemason, or Pope Leo XIII liberal?
-
I don't think Leo XIII was liberal. But I do believe there is evidence that Newton and Rampolla were liberal (at least) and possibly infiltrators (at worst).
Roscoe has been defending Rampolla for years, but he's never offered any proof of orthodoxy. He just adds 1 sentence comments here and there.
-
I don't think Leo XIII was liberal. But I do believe there is evidence that Newton and Rampolla were liberal (at least) and possibly infiltrators (at worst).
Roscoe has been defending Rampolla for years, but he's never offered any proof of orthodoxy. He just adds 1 sentence comments here and there.
So far,
you accuse a Cardinal of the Church without any proof, while roscoe rejects your unsubstantiated accusation.
That's how things look to me,
so far.
-
As Leo XIII himself recognized, it was a complete failure. At an audience shortly before his death to Jules Méline, former President of the French Council, he said:
I have sincerely attached myself to the Republic, and that has not prevented the current government from recognizing my feelings and ignoring them. They unleashed a religious war that I lament and which harms France even more than the Church.
-
As Leo XIII himself recognized, it was a complete failure. At an audience shortly before his death to Jules Méline, former President of the French Council,
This is rich.
The above quote makes it clear.
In the Pope’s final days, he became a conservative.
The definition of a conservative is “a liberal mugged by reality”.
The Pope finally admitted he was naive to trust the masons.
:laugh1:
-
In the Pope’s final days, he became a conservative.
The definition of a conservative is “a liberal mugged by reality”.
The Pope finally admitted he was naive to trust the masons.
If you want to define a liberal as a person who is fooled, then ok, maybe Leo was one. But he definitely wasn't a progressive/modernist, which is how I currently define a liberal.
-
If you want to define a liberal as a person who is fooled, then ok, maybe Leo was one. But he definitely wasn't a progressive/modernist, which is how I currently define a liberal.
A person who has delusions not based on reality.
-
So far,
you accuse a Cardinal of the Church without any proof, while roscoe rejects your unsubstantiated accusation.
That's how things look to me,
so far.
Explain why the men under Rampolla (protégés) became leading figures in the Church Crisis of the 20th Century?
Was it just a coincidence?
Roncalli was kicked out of the Lateran college in the 1920s for teaching Rudolf Steiner’s (OTO) theosophy. Then he’s made Pope in 1958 :confused:
Card Newman was a prolific writer who hung himself multiple times by his own letters, way after he converted.
His canonization was surely a time of celebration and laughs in Lodges all over the world.
-
Explain why the men under Rampolla (protégés) became leading figures in the Church Crisis of the 20th Century?
Was it just a coincidence?
Roncalli was kicked out of the Lateran college in the 1920s for teaching Rudolf Steiner’s (OTO) theosophy. Then he’s made Pope in 1958 :confused:
Card Newman was a prolific writer who hung himself multiple times by his own letters, way after he converted.
His canonization was surely a time of celebration and laughs in Lodges all over the world.
If you accuse a Cardinal of the Church, then it's your job to prove your point, not mine to prove that you're wrong.
-
If you accuse a Cardinal of the Church, then it's your job to prove your point, not mine to prove that you're wrong.
So you defend Newman in an unspecified way... just “He’s a Cardinal”.
Do you believe he’s a saint?
I accuse Card Newman of being a marrano and I can prove from his own writings he acted in a way to undermine both the Papacy and the Church.
This forum’s archives contain reams of evidence on Newman.
Concerning Rampolla, do you not believe St. Pope Pius X later realized he was a mason and had his apartment belongings burned?
Yes or No?
-
Explain why the men under Rampolla (protégés) became leading figures in the Church Crisis of the 20th Century?
Was it just a coincidence?
Roncalli was kicked out of the Lateran college in the 1920s for teaching Rudolf Steiner’s (OTO) theosophy. Then he’s made Pope in 1958 :confused:
Card Newman was a prolific writer who hung himself multiple times by his own letters, way after he converted.
His canonization was surely a time of celebration and laughs in Lodges all over the world.
Roncalli was not a student of Card Rampolla as far as I know. Even if he was it would be a betrayal.
Fr Pacelli on the other hand was. I imagine you will claim Pius XII was a liberal-- there are others here who agree w/ you.
Pope Pius X supported Card Newman-- that is good enough for moi.
Whose canonisation are you referring to? :popcorn:
-
Rampolla & Roncalli were both OTO... certainly they knew each other.
If St. Pope Pius X knew what Rampolla was he never would have put him in charge of the Vatican archives. (If you recall this Pope also thought the anti-Christ was already present).
Rampolla’s breach of Vatican security was analogous to Pollard’s spy career.
Pope Pius XII opened the Vatican doors for the rats to play. My sense is that he was a man very conflicted about his faith and his race.
That he allowed the Jєω homo, traitor Montini to keep his clerical collar is evidence of that.
-
If Card Rampolla 'certainly' knew Roncalli then I would expect Some Kind of evidence other than a post by U. We are waiting.
Whose canonisation are you referring to? :confused:
-
Mary Ball Martinez was a journalist and Vatican observer. Her book Undermining of the Catholic Church discusses the unusual tutelage of Rampolla's protégés, Montini and Pacelli, both were also connected to the Bauer "Rothschild" banking dynasty.
pdf here: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/general/docuмents/UnderminingOfTheCatholicChurch.pdf
-
So you defend Newman in an unspecified way... just “He’s a Cardinal”.
Do you believe he’s a saint?
I accuse Card Newman of being a marrano and I can prove from his own writings he acted in a way to undermine both the Papacy and the Church.
This forum’s archives contain reams of evidence on Newman.
It is a fact that modernism in the Catholioc church began in the mid 1800s.
‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’ (Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019)
This 'heresy of all heresies' began in the Church when Pope Pius VII, by giving an imprimatur to a book claiming heliocentrism as a proven order of the universe in 1820, INFERRED that the literal geocentrism of Scripture, (one held by all the Fathers, the Council of Trent, one defined and declared as formal heresy by Pope Paul V and defended as absolute by Pope Urban VIII as contrary to Scripture) was now the true meaning of Scripture. Pope Gregory XVI in 1835 confirmed this change of Scripture applied to all when he removed all such heliocentric books from the Index.
By 1820, this same heliocentrism had long be proposed by science as having EVOLVED from atoms and dust over millions of years. Now once popes gave the thumbs up to heliocentrism that included these scientific theoriers of the Enlightenment by then, further changes to Genesis in particular were proposed by 'Biblical Scholars.' Having given in to the heliocentric hoax, churchmen were now unable to defend the Bible against such changes out of FEAR that they would be 'proven wrong' by science once again.
Such were the 'evolutionary' changes to Scripture that Pope Leo XIII, in 1893, had to try to stop the rot in Providentissiomus deus. But because his predecessors had been fooled into believing the traditional literal 'moving-sun' of Scripture really meant a fixed-sun, he had to go along with this 'science can correct previous understandings in the Bible.' In other words, not only could Leo XIII not stop the evolution of Scripture, but he actually gave a further licence to science if it could show changes in Scripture were needed. Remember, the heliocentrism inferred by Pope Pius VII to be true science, was an evolved heliocentrism and all that went with it including Darwin's evolution that had not been condemned for fear of anotherr Galileo 'shaming.'
Now I have put this up before but do so again to show the part Jogn Henry Newton had in the 'evolving' of the Scriptures and Catholic doctrine that Pope Pius X called the greatest threat to Catholicism. This will come in my next post
-
Card Newman was a prolific writer who hung himself multiple times by his own letters, way after he converted.
His canonization was surely a time of celebration and laughs in Lodges all over the world.
Having abandoned and deprived the Catholic Church of its scholastic exegeses and its theologically based metaphysics by embracing heliocentrism and a natural theory of origins, Teilhard de Chardin saw the need to create a new theology inspired by the ‘findings of science.’ This kind of ‘development of doctrine,’ as it is often called, was first championed within Catholicism by the likes of John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a Protestant convert, later made a cardinal of the Catholic Church, a boastful ‘scholar’ who embraced Galileoism and Darwinism in his works as they agreed with his thinking about ‘change and development.’ Notre Dame University’s Church Life Journal called Newman ‘the patron saint of evolution.’ Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), is often referred to as ‘a pioneer and prophet of Vatican Council II,’ a title we could not disagree with.
'Echoing Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, the same Vatican II declared: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” The Constitution owes much of course, to the great work of Catholic scholars since the beginning of the 20th century. If the theologians who advised the Inquisition and who opposed Galileo could have had the benefit of the Vatican II’s teaching, there might never have been a Galileo case. Indeed, if they could have had the benefit of Cardinal Henry Newman’s thinking, there might never have been a Galileo case.- Cardinal Daly, The Minding of Planet Earth, 2000.
If one senior churchman and renowned intellectual were to be singled out as a leading and influential Galilean and Darwinian apologist in the post U-turn era it was this man. Cardinal John Henry Newman, we are told in numerous books and articles on him, had a keen interest in science and the contemporary debates on the relation between faith and reason. At Oxford he read for honours in both classics and mathematics. For his final examination he studied geology geometry, astronomy, mineralogy and Sir Isaac Newton’s incomprehensible Principia. Newman, we see, must have been very familiar with the ‘science’ they claimed falsified the geocentric doctrine of the Church of the seventeenth century, yet with all his education, even he couldn’t see through the ‘proof’ scam. When he stood for the Oriel Fellowship, he confided to his father that; ‘Few have ever attained the facility and comprehension which I arrived at from the regularity and constancy of my reading and the laborious and nerve-bracing and fancy-repressing study of mathematics, which has been my principal subject.’ John Henry Newman, who even pretended he understood Newton’s Principia, here imitates Galileo, who also boasted of his superior talents.
Henry Newman converted to the Catholic faith in 1845 and was ordained a priest in 1847. After that he was made rector of the proposed new Catholic University in Ireland where he gave a series of discourses on faith and science that resulted in his book The Idea of a University (1852). In a composition of May 24 1861, Newman adduced the case of Galileo as one of the critical points towards maturing on the part of Catholic Scripture-scholars, thus confirming this point of our synthesis; that the modernising of Biblical meaning in the light of the false science that began when Churchmen of the 19th century abandoned the geocentric revelation in the Bible. In his lectures in Dublin University, and in subsequent writings, Newman explored the relation between theology and the natural sciences, as he saw it. In another book written by Phyllis Hodgson, Towards a Grammar of Assent (1870), in which he writes; ‘Henry Newman explored the ways we’ve come to believe, and found instructive similarities between theology and science, and indeed everyday beliefs as well. We rarely believe because of a logical demonstration, but much more frequently by the convergence of probabilities. This is the case in our everyday affairs, and also in science and religion.’ Arising from all these ‘probabilities,’ Newman thought he was competent to resolve the Galileo case. In trying to do so this man raised the retreat from Biblical geocentrism to a new level of sophistry.
‘As the Copernican system first made progress... it was generally received... as a truth of Revelation, that the Earth was stationary, and that the sun, fixed in a solid firmament, whirled round the Earth. After a little time, however, and on full consideration, it was found that the Church had decided next to nothing on questions such as these... it surely is a very remarkable feat, considering how widely and how long one certain interpretation of these physical statements in Scripture had been received by Catholics, that the Church should not have formally acknowledged it... Nor was this escape a mere accident, but rather the result of providential superintendence.’ - Newman: The Idea of a University, 1852, p.468.
Here we see Henry Newman needed no abrogation to dismiss the 1616 papal ruling as deciding ‘next to nothing.’ Nor did it occur to him that if providential superintendence was present at all during the Galileo case, would he as a Catholic convert not think it more prudent of God to side with His Church, with the interpretation of the Fathers and prevent His pope in 1616 when defining and declaring Galileoism formal heresy in the first place? Of course it would, as no doubt every true Catholic since 1820 at least, has wished. Of all the manoeuvres used by the Earthmovers to try to save the Church from its own ‘erroneous’ decrees, as they saw it, this has to be the most reckless; picking and choosing of the most convenient place for God’s divine input. (aal from the Book The Earthmovers)
To be continued'
-
Pope Pius X supported Card Newman-- that is good enough for moi.
Henry Newman’s Galileo, Revelation, and the Educated Man. (1861)
‘One of the characteristics of the day is the renewal of that collision between men of science and believers in Revelation, and of that uneasiness in the public mind as to its results, which are found in the history of the 17th century. Then, Galileo raised the jealousy of Catholics in Italy; but now in England the religious portion of the community, be they Catholic or not, is startled at the discoveries or speculations of geologists, natural historians and linguists. Of course I am speaking, as regards both dates, of the educated classes, of those whose minds have been sufficiently opened to understand the nature of proof, who have a right to ask questions and to weigh the answers given to them. It was of such, we must reasonably suppose, that Father Commissary was tender in 1637 [1633], and to such he allied in his conversation with Galileo, as he took him in his carriage to the Holy Office. “As we went along,” says Galileo, “he put many questions to me, and showed an earnestness that I should repair the scandal, which I had given to the whole of Italy, by maintaining the opinion of the motion of the Earth; and for all the solid and mathematical reasons which I presented to him, he did but reply to me: “Terra autem in aeternum stabit,’ because ‘Terra autem in aeternum stat,’ as Scripture says.” There could not be a greater shock to religious minds of that day than Galileo’s doctrine, whether they at once rejected it as contrary to the faith, or listened to the arguments by which he enforced it. The feeling was strong enough to effect Galileo’s compulsory recantation, though a pope was then on the throne who was personally friendly to him. Two Sacred Congregations represented the popular voice and passed decrees against the philosopher, which were in force down to the years 1822 and 1837 [1820-35]. Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the Earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of purgatory and hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noah. For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the Earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us. And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences…. One great lesson surely, if no other, is taught by the history of theological controversy since the 16th century: moderation to the assailant, equanimity to the assailed, and that as regards geological and ethnological conclusions as well as astronomical. But there is more than this to give us confidence in this matter. Consider then the case before us: Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the Earth moved [no, that the sun did not move around the Earth]; but the course of human thought, of observation, investigation and induction, could not be stayed; it went on and had its way. It penetrated and ran through the Catholic world as well as through the nations external to it. And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn. But of course the investigation has gone further, and done, or is now even doing, some positive service to the cause which it was accused of opposing. It is on the way to restore to the Earth that prerogative and pre-eminence in the creation which it was thought to compromise. Thus investigation which Catholics would have suppressed as dangerous, when, in spite of them, it has had its course, results in conclusions favourable to their cause. How little then need we fear the free exercise of reason! How injurious is the suspicion entertained of it by religious men. How true it is that nature and revelation are but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth. Nor is this all. Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause, others must say who are more qualified than I am to determine; but on one point, that is the point before us, I observe it is acting on the side of Christian belief. In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms, which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator. Thus one order of spiritual researches bears upon another, and that in the interest or service of Christianity; and supposing, as some persons seem to believe in their hearts, that these researches are all in the hands of the enemy of God, we have the observable phenomenon of Satan casting out Satan and restoring the balance of physical arguments in favour of Revelation. Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1637 [1633] had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the Earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated, ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engendering general scepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil; but in this respect Providence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity. I think, then, I must say distinctly that I have no sympathy at all in that policy, which will not look difficulties or apparent difficulties in the face, and puts off the evil day of considering them as long as it can. It is the way of politicians who live from hand to mouth, only careful that the existing state of things should last their time. If I find that scientific inquiries are running counter against certain theological opinions, it is not expedient to refuse to examine whether these opinions are well founded, merely because those inquiries have not yet reached their issue or attained a triumphant success. The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians [and all the Fathers of the Church], instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation? The contrary course was pursued in our own day; but what is not against the faith now, was not against the faith three centuries ago; yet Galileo was forced to pronounce his opinions a heresy. It might not indeed have been prudent to have done in 1637 [1633] what was done in 1822 [1820]; but, though in the former date it might have been unjustifiable to allow the free publication of his treatises with the sanction of the Church, that does not show that it was justifiable to pronounce that they were against the faith and to enforce the abjuration. I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the Earth, as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. The Father Commissary said it was a scandal to the whole of Italy; that is, I suppose, an offence, a shock, a perplexity. This might be, but there was a class, whose claims to consideration are too little regarded now, and were passed over then. I mean the educated class; to them the prohibition would be a real scandal in the true meaning of the word, an occasion of their falling. Men who have sharpened their intellects by exercise and study anticipate the conclusions of the many by some centuries. If the tone of public opinion in 1822 [1820] called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted for, as it is difficult to say why in fact it is so often is not. They are tenderly to be regarded for their own sake; they are to be respected and conciliated for the sake of their influence upon other classes. I cannot help feeling that, in high circles, the Church is sometimes looked upon as made up of the hierarchy and the poor, and that the educated portion, men and women, are viewed as a difficulty, an encuмbrance, as the seat and source of heresy, as almost aliens to the Catholic body, whom it would be a great gain, if possible, to annihilate. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with those who would have us stand by what is probably or possibly erroneous, as if it were dogma, till it is acknowledged on all hands, by the force of demonstrations to be actually such. If she affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. And, as her word is to be believed, so her command is to be obeyed. I am as willing then to be silenced on doctrinal matters which are not of faith as to be taught in matters which are. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin..’ --- John Henry Newman.
Comment:
Now if ever one wanted a brief account of how the Galilean reformation allowed Modernism to enter the womb of the Catholic Church, there it is, the worst of its errors accepted one after the other. If one were to search all the comments on the Galileo case throughout history, one could not find a better example of the damage that 1758-1835 U-turn allowed by popes did to Biblical exegesis and thus Catholic faith and reason. Feeling protected by his belief in heliocentrism and Darwin’s evolution of all ‘creation,’ we see his pride in the ‘science’ they believed had shown Genesis was ‘unscientific’ with its myths. Newman, who was even aware ‘of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement,’ confirms how the Galilean U-turn placed Biblical exegesis under the auspices of ‘scientific probabilities,’ even the existence of monkey to man evolution on Earth, and a similar heretical evolution possible on ‘other worlds’ when he writes about; ‘the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants,’ shows how those other Pythagorean heresies came back into play as Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII anticipated if the Galilean reformation took hold. (TE)
-
Perhaps the most controversial comment of Newman’s was when he said had he been around at the time of Galileo he would have taken the liberty to teach what was defined at the time as formal heresy. He would have stood side by side with Galileo. Here he sets himself up as a superior theologian and philosopher than Cardinal Bellarmine. He also claimed ‘evil’ Protestants opened up the truth of faith and reason by ‘overruling’ the Church’s 1616 condemnation of heliocentrism; again, inferring Providence had a hand in this co-operation ‘for the good.’
The Church of 1616 and 1633 defended the Biblical geocentrism on the basis of the literal and only way of reading such definitive references to an orbiting sun in Scripture, just as all the Fathers did, not by way of any astronomical or ‘popular’ view. As regards that ‘harmless’ rejection of the 1616 decree turning out to be ‘advantageous,’ well that too was Modernism personified. Nothing has done more to eliminate the faith of millions on Earth than the effects of the victory of science-so-called over the immediate supernatural creation of all by God in the beginning. Many a survey of the millions who have rejected faith in God their Creator have given their belief in ‘evolutionary science’ as the main reason why they no longer believe.
‘The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians, instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation?’ --- Philosophical Readings on Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Is this then a legacy worthy of a man thought to be a great Catholic convert scholar, learned in science, professing to understand the nature of proof, a man now considered to be elevated on par with someone like St Robert Bellarmine, a man to look up to and admire as a saint of the Catholic Church?
-
Mary Ball Martinez was a journalist and Vatican observer. Her book Undermining of the Catholic Church discusses the unusual tutelage of Rampolla's protégés, Montini and Pacelli, both were also connected to the Bauer "Rothschild" banking dynasty.
pdf here: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/general/docuмents/UnderminingOfTheCatholicChurch.pdf
Mrs Martinez has no credibility w/ moi...
-
Beautiful rundown on Card Jєωman Cassini.
Viewing a pro-Newman canonization advertisement made by Novus ordo Brits, I learned that he had a large writer’s workshop.
So prolific a writer was he that can’t help but think his marrano mission was to create as much confusion as he could from his high office.
I also wouldn’t doubt if he bought his office. His daddy was a banker and Jєω-religious have a record for doing that (anti-Pope Anacletus II, 1130AD).
-
:laugh1::laugh2:
-
:laugh1::laugh2:
I recall Roscoe trying to sell us on the idea that crypto-Jєω Trump was a Catholic :jester:
Old Roscoe Rampolla...
just another troll with different schtik.
-
:laugh1::laugh2::laugh1::laugh2:
-
The Church of 1616 and 1633 defended the Biblical geocentrism on the basis of the literal and only way of reading such definitive references to an orbiting sun in Scripture, ...
.
"The Church" did not defend the "Biblical geocentrism".
.
Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church. The Fathers were NOT the Church, and NOT infallible, sorry.
.
"Biblical geocentrism" does NOT exist. The Sun also "comes up" in the morning and "goes down" in the evening on MARS, and SATURN and JUPITER also.
.
Pope Pius V never put his signature on a docuмent describing Geocentrism and he never sent a letter to all the bishops of the world, informing them of a new infallible teaching.
.
Sorry, Cassini. Your are giving out incomplete information. For all practical purposes, you are a LIAR.
.
Call me all the names you want. That does not prove me wrong.
.
Heliocentrism is NOT a heresy, because Geocentrism is NOT a "matter of faith" and therefore CANNOT be an infallible teaching.
-
.
"The Church" did not defend the "Biblical geocentrism".
.
Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church. The Fathers were NOT the Church, and NOT infallible, sorry.
.
"Biblical geocentrism" does NOT exist. The Sun also "comes up" in the morning and "goes down" in the evening on MARS, and SATURN and JUPITER also.
.
Pope Pius V never put his signature on a docuмent describing Geocentrism and he never sent a letter to all the bishops of the world, informing them of a new infallible teaching.
.
Sorry, Cassini. Your are giving out incomplete information. For all practical purposes, you are a LIAR.
.
Call me all the names you want. That does not prove me wrong.
.
Heliocentrism is NOT a heresy, because Geocentrism is NOT a "matter of faith" and therefore CANNOT be an infallible teaching.
First of all apollo I do not call people names, I deal with the facts and from whom they come. Let me answer all your points above as quickly as possible in the order you put them.
Apollo V Church history; "The Church" did not defend the "Biblical geocentrism".
On February 24th 1616 the assessments were declared:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Holy Office 1633 dictated by Pope Urban VIII: 'The sentence continued: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.'
Apollo V St Thomas Aquinas: 'Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church.'
‘This doctrine [of geocentrism] was of the highest respectability: it had been developed at a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted well for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name, “Ptolemaic theory,” carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the Earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. They were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.
‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century, he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.” The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo. The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect since Aristotle; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness, he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.
More to come
-
. Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church. The Fathers were NOT the Church, and NOT infallible, sorry.
.
Apollo V The Fathers: The Fathers were NOT the Church, and NOT infallible, sorry.
1616 decree: @and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
‘The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc.
Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)
In the wake of the Council of Trent came The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, issued by order and approval by Pope Pius V. Of interest to this synthesis is the teaching on the Creed that begins so:
‘I Believe in God, Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth. He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power – attributes peculiar to the Divinity – created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made… The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of His fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Psa. 103:5: You fixed the Earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them…. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plants and flowers, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of creatures…. Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes.’
Vatican Council I:
‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutary decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Vatican 1, Denz. 1788)
-
.
Pope Pius V never put his signature on a docuмent describing Geocentrism and he never sent a letter to all the bishops of the world, informing them of a new infallible teaching.
.
Sorry, Cassini. Your are giving out incomplete information. For all practical purposes, you are a LIAR.
.
Pope Pius V never put his signature on a docuмent describing Geocentrism
Fr Roberts in his 1870 book dismissed this 'never put his signature to the decree of 1616.'
' but it is demonstrably indefensible. As I pointed out, the absence of the clause, on which so much stress is laid, is to be accounted for, neither by accident, nor by a special Providence in favour of Ultramontane opinions, but by the simple circuмstance that the practice of affixing such notices to Congregational decrees is, comparatively speaking, a recent one, and was not observed in the case of any decree until many years after Galileo’s time.'
and he never sent a letter to all the bishops of the world, informing them of a new infallible teaching.
‘In the summer of 1633, all papal nuncios in Europe and all local inquisitors in Italy received from the Roman Inquisition copies of the sentence against Galileo and his abjuration, together with orders to publicize them. Such publicity [plus posters and flyers] was unprecedented in the annals of the Inquisition and never repeated.’ ---M. A. Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, p.26.
“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer if they fell into the same [heresy].”’ --- Fr Roberts ends with quote from Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.
In many cases professors of philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial docuмents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Galileoism to be a serious heresy.
-
"Biblical geocentrism" does NOT exist. The Sun also "comes up" in the morning and "goes down" in the evening on MARS, and SATURN and JUPITER also.
.
Sorry, Cassini. Your are giving out incomplete information. For all practical purposes, you are a LIAR.
Bellarmine’s 1615 Letter to Foscarini:
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ ---Letter to Foscarini, published by Prof. Dom. Berti in his work Copernico… Rome, 1876. Translation from Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, New York, Desclee, 1966, pp.60, 63
Now apollo, if you think you know better than St Robert Bellarmine then go tell someone else not readers on Catholic Info.
Finally, I quote you above as writing: 'Pope Pius V never put his signature on a docuмent describing Geocentrism and he never sent a letter to all the bishops of the world, informing them of a new infallible teaching.' Well you were right all along. It was Pope Paul V who ordfered the 1616 decree to be published by the Index.
-
I recall Roscoe trying to sell us on the idea that crypto-Jєω Trump was a Catholic :jester:
Old Roscoe Rampolla...
just another troll with different schtik.
Pls provide source for the above allegation?:popcorn:
-
Pls provide source for the above allegation?:popcorn:
RR,
Please go to Cathinfo’s archives, for your own posts, circa 2015.
Keyword (you used) was “Fordham University”.
Are we starting to recall our exchange back then?
:popcorn:
-
I never said Trump was a Catholic-- all kinds of people have gone to Jesuit Universities over the last 500 yrs. :popcorn:
Actually I remember referring to Trump as a marrano :fryingpan:
-
I never said Trump was a Catholic-- all kinds of people have gone to Jesuit Universities over the last 500 yrs. :popcorn:
Actually I remember referring to Trump as a marrano :fryingpan:
You were promoting Trump’s association with a Catholic University in your 2015 post.
I believe I gave you a rebuttal pointing out how Trump had been surrounded by Jєωs his whole life.
If you want to trace it:
1. Go to Search.
2. Type Roscoe + Trump + 2015.
3. Click Search.
4. Scroll through your own posts until these key words come up in your old post.
-
Is it a bad thing if Trump was 'associated' w/ a Catholic University? :confused:
-
A blessed Feast of the Immaculate Conception to you Roscoe.
Hope you were able to make it to Holy Mass.