The Disastrous Legacy of the Pre-Conciliar Popes
Modernism was revealed in the Church when Pius IX (+1878) said “La Tradition, c’est moi!” [The Tradition – that’s me!] – writes Eck (Caminante-Wanderer.Blogspot.com, August 10). • From then on, the …More
Modernism was revealed in the Church when Pius IX (+1878) said “La Tradition, c’est moi!” [The Tradition – that’s me!] – writes Eck (Caminante-Wanderer.Blogspot.com, August 10).
• From then on, the outward appearance was traditional, but the content was revolutionary.
• Worship of the person replaced respect for the office.
• Roman centralism, which the Curia had avoided for millennia, set in.
• A juridical conception of the Church and the sacraments replaced a theological one.
• Pius IX turned the papacy into an autocracy in traditional garb.
• Leo XIII entered into politics - like a bull in a china shop.
• For purely political reasons with no benefit to the Church, he tried to make a deal with the corrupt, colonialist, and Masonic French Third Republic. • Eck, “The most anti-Masonic and traditionalist Pope wanted to join the most Masonic and revolutionary regime there was.” • Leo XIII meddled in the conscience and internal politics of French Catholics where the Pope had no say …More
• From then on, the outward appearance was traditional, but the content was revolutionary.
• Worship of the person replaced respect for the office.
• Roman centralism, which the Curia had avoided for millennia, set in.
• A juridical conception of the Church and the sacraments replaced a theological one.
• Pius IX turned the papacy into an autocracy in traditional garb.
• Leo XIII entered into politics - like a bull in a china shop.
• For purely political reasons with no benefit to the Church, he tried to make a deal with the corrupt, colonialist, and Masonic French Third Republic. • Eck, “The most anti-Masonic and traditionalist Pope wanted to join the most Masonic and revolutionary regime there was.” • Leo XIII meddled in the conscience and internal politics of French Catholics where the Pope had no say …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
However, I do consider it a great mistake in the government of the Church to turn its back on the Cristeros, to sanction Action Française, to sell the Papal States to Mussolini, and a few others.
3 more comments from foward
"He subverted the liturgy by changing the Breviary, sacred music, sacramental practice, and Latinising the Orientals." On the contrary, he did a great deal for the liturgy, protected Gregorian chant, facilitated communion for children in the face of the Jansenists, and so on.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This nut job sounds like the Captain of the Titanic if he had said, about an hour after the iceberg collision, "Thank God the myth of an unsinkable ship has been dispelled."
Malki Tzedek
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
While there are elements of truth in these assessments, they have been unfairly skewed towards a perception which is grossly unfair to each of their legacies. There were errors, no doubt, however, the illnesses diagnosed and 'treated' by Vatican II was of the Munchausen variety of psycho-pathology. To paraphrase, 'The fault is in ourselves, dear Horatio, not our predecessors.'
The big difference - which Wanderer hides - is that the pre-conciliar popes failed (not in all) in the government of the Church, it seems to more than one of us, but not in doctrine as happened with the Second Vatican Council.
This difference is hidden and omitted by Wanderer.
This difference is hidden and omitted by Wanderer.
"Roman centralism, which the Curia had avoided for millennia, set in. A juridical conception of the Church and the sacraments replaced a theological one."
"With Pius X, traditionalism became the monkey of the revolution. We owe the Vatican II revolution almost entirely to Pius X who stuck his spoon into plates his predecessors had carefully avoided. He established the belief that a pope can do …More
"Roman centralism, which the Curia had avoided for millennia, set in. A juridical conception of the Church and the sacraments replaced a theological one."
"With Pius X, traditionalism became the monkey of the revolution. We owe the Vatican II revolution almost entirely to Pius X who stuck his spoon into plates his predecessors had carefully avoided. He established the belief that a pope can do whatever he wanted, which is now being exploited fully by Francis."
etc.
----
What the h/eck is this?
Musings of the democrat or the gallican?
Why not go back to 1550's with "arch-Modernist" (according to Mr. h/eck criteria) Pope Carafa (Paul IV)? He was not fond of one Sodalitium but created a much wider system of denunciation and his will or whims put him into the open war against many prelates and the Catholic king of Spain. Or Boniface VIII who contributed to the disaster of the Avignon exile and the great schism after it?
Or Urban VIII that "backstabbed" Catholics not far-far away in Mexico but in Europe not opposing actively the French support for the Protestant side during the 30 Year War?
BTW, he had also changed the Breviary and liturgy, changing even ancient hymns.
Going in such a direction we can go all the way back to Pope St. Peter who was too lenient for the judaizers and certain St. Paul had to intervene and write many letters.
Yes, I know the theory that Pius X was a precursor of the VII revolution but such a claim is spread but revolutionaries themselves.
"He failed in the affair of the Action Française which cost the great Cardinal Billot his cardinalate, brought suffering to the French Catholicism and demonstrated Rome’s falsehood."
----
The root of the problem of the Action Francaise was certain Maurras who was not a Catholic but desperately wanted to guide the Catholic people. It provided a pretext to make Pius IX go against the AF.
"With Pius X, traditionalism became the monkey of the revolution. We owe the Vatican II revolution almost entirely to Pius X who stuck his spoon into plates his predecessors had carefully avoided. He established the belief that a pope can do whatever he wanted, which is now being exploited fully by Francis."
etc.
----
What the h/eck is this?
Musings of the democrat or the gallican?
Why not go back to 1550's with "arch-Modernist" (according to Mr. h/eck criteria) Pope Carafa (Paul IV)? He was not fond of one Sodalitium but created a much wider system of denunciation and his will or whims put him into the open war against many prelates and the Catholic king of Spain. Or Boniface VIII who contributed to the disaster of the Avignon exile and the great schism after it?
Or Urban VIII that "backstabbed" Catholics not far-far away in Mexico but in Europe not opposing actively the French support for the Protestant side during the 30 Year War?
BTW, he had also changed the Breviary and liturgy, changing even ancient hymns.
Going in such a direction we can go all the way back to Pope St. Peter who was too lenient for the judaizers and certain St. Paul had to intervene and write many letters.
Yes, I know the theory that Pius X was a precursor of the VII revolution but such a claim is spread but revolutionaries themselves.
"He failed in the affair of the Action Française which cost the great Cardinal Billot his cardinalate, brought suffering to the French Catholicism and demonstrated Rome’s falsehood."
----
The root of the problem of the Action Francaise was certain Maurras who was not a Catholic but desperately wanted to guide the Catholic people. It provided a pretext to make Pius IX go against the AF.
Bollocks.
Every lie has an element of truth. What this character has published are the half-truths of many damnable lies. One would have thought this article was written by someone from the New York Times or The Washington Post. I wonder if Gloria TV would be so quick to publish some of the distortions that are created by the writers of those publications as well?
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
As a high school teacher, my field is more Western Civ., USA History, and Asian History....not the Papacy
, but even at 28, I can see that despite their supposed faults and errors this author states for each pre-Vatican II Pope, the Church basically was healthy and flourishing under them, not destroyed under them, or dying as it has been since every post-Vatican II Pope especially under Bergoglio. …More
As a high school teacher, my field is more Western Civ., USA History, and Asian History....not the Papacy
, but even at 28, I can see that despite their supposed faults and errors this author states for each pre-Vatican II Pope, the Church basically was healthy and flourishing under them, not destroyed under them, or dying as it has been since every post-Vatican II Pope especially under Bergoglio.
No Pope that I remember has been put on a pedestal more, and practically "worshipped" more and given the title of "the Great", like JPII.....and it is all undeserved, whereas Ven. Pope Pius XII deserved being so respected and loved by Catholics. He was a saint. JPII was not. A good man, yes...a saint, no.
I do know one fault of Pius XI.....he was instrumental in suppressing nearly a dozen religious Orders which dated from the early Medieval period simply because he and his staff thought they were irrelevant because they were small in numbers. They might have eventually gone extinct on their own, or, on the other hand, they might have grown a little. Vatican II probably would have wiped them out though in the end. But they should have been given a chance.
I'm surprised the author of the text skipped over Benedict XV. He's not mentioned. Did he have no faults he could list?![🤪](/emoji/f09fa4aa)
No Pope that I remember has been put on a pedestal more, and practically "worshipped" more and given the title of "the Great", like JPII.....and it is all undeserved, whereas Ven. Pope Pius XII deserved being so respected and loved by Catholics. He was a saint. JPII was not. A good man, yes...a saint, no.
I do know one fault of Pius XI.....he was instrumental in suppressing nearly a dozen religious Orders which dated from the early Medieval period simply because he and his staff thought they were irrelevant because they were small in numbers. They might have eventually gone extinct on their own, or, on the other hand, they might have grown a little. Vatican II probably would have wiped them out though in the end. But they should have been given a chance.
I'm surprised the author of the text skipped over Benedict XV. He's not mentioned. Did he have no faults he could list?