In 1933, Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, acknowledged Infiltration o
#1
In 1933, Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, acknowledged the Infiltration of Communists into the Catholic Church!


Pope Pius XI, Achille Ratti [Monday, February 6, 1922 - Friday, February 10, 1939] had for his Cardinal Secretary of State Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli who later became Pope Pius XII on Thursday, March 2, 1939.

Count Enrico Pietro Galeazzi [b. at or near Ancona, Italy on December 12, 1884 - d. ?   ] was both a close confidant and a personal friend to Eugenio Pacelli, both when he was Cardinal Pacelli, and later when he became Pius XII.

This was especially true during WWII when Count Galeazzi was not only the American Knights of Columbus representative in Rome, he was also the acting Governor of Vatican City.  In this way, this very close confidant of Pope Pius XII became the “de facto” political liaison between the Vatican and other countries, most especially the U.S.A.

Hence, Count Enrico Pietro Galeazzi had numerous personal, official, and confidential contacts with both Cardinal Pacelli and Pope Pius XII.  Therefore, because of these reasons, Count Galeazzi is a credible source for his conversations with him.

This is an important point because it was in 1933, during a meeting of Cardinal Pacelli with Count Galeazzi, when plans were discussed for the Count’s next trip to the U.S.A., that Cardinal Pacelli spoke out against both the Progressivist (which he later called “a New Theology” - Pope Pius XII, “L’Osservatore Romano”, Thursday, December 19, 1946), and the Communist, Infiltration into the Roman Catholic Church of which he spoke within the context of the Fatima message.

Quote:“Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the agents of subversion against the Church and the Tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: the philosophy, the science, the law, the teaching, the arts, the media, the literature, the theater, and the religion.”

“I am concerned about these messages of the Virgin to the little Lucie of Fatima. The fortitude of the Good Lady concerning the danger which menaces the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of the alteration of the Faith: in her liturgy, her theology, and her soul.”

Pius XII paused for one moment.

“I hear around me the innovators who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments, and make her remorseful of her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I have the conviction that the Church of Peter must maintain her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.”

“I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside the Church and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil, one day, take advantage of my person, of my actions, of my writings, as they try nowadays to deform the History of the Church.  All the heresies of humanism which want to change the Word of God for what appears to be a greater light.”

At this point, adds the Count Galeazzi, his gaze, seen through the lenses of his eye glasses,  became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall, thin body, an irresistible mystical force.

Then, in response to an objection from a Cardinal in the Curia, [who was also present at this meeting], he said:

“A day will come
when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask: ‘Where have they taken Him?’”  (“Pie XII Devant L’Histoire” - Pius XII before History, by Msgr. Georges Roche et Philippe Saint Germain, editions by Robert Laffont, published at Paris, France on Saturday, January 1, 1972, 533 pages, ISBN - 2221036573, 9782221036570; pp. 52-53; emphasis added.)

Have not our contemporaries also witnessed the fulfillment of this Prophecy as the rotten fruits of Council Vatican 2 continue to destroy the little that is left of anything really “Catholic” in the Catholic Church - with the exception, according to many rumors, of those places where it is kept safe from these human agents of Satan - by the Catholic Prelates and Priests who are in the catacombs of many countries around the world?

The bottom line is that in 1933 Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII
:

1)  Knew about the Infiltration of Communists into the Catholic Church at that time - 1933.

2) Was concerned about “messages” of Our Lady of Fatima that “the danger which menaces the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of the alteration of the Faith: in her liturgy, her theology, and her soul.”

Church History tells all Catholics that the “soul” of the Catholic Church was almost destroyed by the changes to the Faith, the Mass, the Sacraments, and even to theology.

3) Had heard “around me the innovators” - those human agents of Satan - wanting, in effect, to destroy the Church.

4) Knew that “A day will come... when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask: ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

Today, Catholics weep before the empty Tabernacles wondering: “Where have they taken Him?”

Catholics must continue to pray for the return of the unchangeable Catholic Faith, Mass, Sacraments, and everything else that is truly “Catholic”!

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this.  :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic: Father Jim
Reply
#2
Pope Pius XII when he was Cardinal Pacelli in '33 could not have read the secret as it was not written down until '43, so these remarks could have not come except by the Holy Ghost concerning the Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima. Pope Pius XII was prophetic.

My Pastor was Archbishop Sheil, the founder of the CYO, and a frequent traveler to the Vatican in the years after the war. It was a very large rich parish and because we had six priests and a bunch of teaching sisters the "news" would trickle down to us kids and then back to our parents and the neighborhood. All of this is to tell you this which has always made me wonder since a kid. When Cardinals took a phone call from Pope Pius XII in fear and respect they got to their knees first.

tim
Reply
#3
One wonders, then, why he started to alter the liturgy is profound ways. Maybe he had amnesia.
Reply
#4
I don't know but, his changes; making the second confiteor optional, and the other changes of the Triduum, along with the psalter aren't radical. Even the changes made by Pope Paul VI to the Mass by omitting the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the deletion of the Last Gospel, or the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular, are not that radical, but what Bishop Bugnini did was. While I believe the arguments that Bugnini's Mass is valid and licit, and that we can not judge the priest's intention making it ambiguous, that Mass is not by any stretch of the imagination an organic change. It is a full departure from what was handed down. Bugnini's changes were not in degree but in kind.

tim
Reply
#5
Bugnini was involved with the changes all along. And ultimately it was the Pope's decision, so these were Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI's changes. Yes, the New Mass was full of "inorganic" changes, but so was Pius X's psalter, and certainly Pius XII's Holy Week flirted with the same patterns. This has all been debated before, the point I am making is he apparently said all these things (one wonders about quotes of quotes of quotes, of course), and yet started down the road that would be the New Mass, which is a different reform in degree, not type. He was worried about drastic changes in the liturgy, but didn't mind dipping his feet in the pool. He may never had said those things, or he may have meant something along the lines of the people who have never followed the rules of the Church, even the ones in the New Missal. But he's dead, so this is academic speculation. The hard fact is he started reforming, and the reform was lead by Bugnini, and it was the same type as the one which became the Pauline Missal. Pius XII is a transitional figure. He actually is on both sides of the fence. He was a Pope of the past, he was a Pope of the future. He is a Pope of tradition, and a Pope of reform in continuity.
Reply
#6
(06-15-2013, 08:26 AM)Tim Wrote: Pope Pius XII when he was Cardinal Pacelli in '33 could not have read the secret as it was not written down until '43, so these remarks could have not come except by the Holy Ghost concerning the Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima. Pope Pius XII was prophetic.

My Pastor was Archbishop Sheil, the founder of the CYO, and a frequent traveler to the Vatican in the years after the war. It was a very large rich parish and because we had six priests and a bunch of teaching sisters the "news" would trickle down to us kids and then back to our parents and the neighborhood. All of this is to tell you this which has always made me wonder since a kid. When Cardinals took a phone call from Pope Pius XII in fear and respect they got to their knees first.

tim

Hi Tim -  :tiphat:

I agree that he had not read the Secret (in 3 parts) of Our Lady of Fatima from her July apparition. 

It is also my understanding that he had a box on his desk which contained the "Third" Secret and that he had never read it?

IF I remember correctly, I think Pius XII called himself "the Pope of Fatima"?

God Bless You!

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#7
(06-15-2013, 10:20 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: One wonders, then, why he started to alter the liturgy is profound ways. Maybe he had amnesia.

Hi Scriptorium -  :tiphat:

I had wondered the same thing for years.

In addition, Pius XII's Encyclical, MEDIATOR DEI, On the Sacred Liturgy, Thursday, November 20, 1947, while listing some of the errors of the anti-Catholic Infiltrators, failed to issue any censures - like "anathema".

Somewhat ironically, it was also in 1947 that Gerald Ellard, S.J., Ph.D. wrote his book "The Mass of the Future", published in 1948 by The Bruce Publishing Co.

This book has several photos in it.  For example, he has two photos which were taken on Easter Sunday, 1947.

The photo on the left shows an elderly couple, dressed very respectfully, walking down the center aisle of a church in Corpus Christi Parish, New York.  The Lady carries the wine and water cruets on top of the glass tray, while the Gentleman carries a covered Ciborium on some kind of a tray.

The photo on the right shows them handing them to two "ministers".  One seems to be a Priest wearing a Cope and the one next to him seems to be a Deacon wearing a Dalmatic.

The caption begins with:  "Token Offertory Procession...."

Apparently Pius XII was aware of these "experimental masses", otherwise he would not have been able to list some of the abuses in MEDIATOR DEI.

As is often the case, when I was doing some research on another subject, I happened to stumble upon this bit of information - - -

The claim was made that Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J. [b. at Riedböhringen, Germany on Saturday, May 28, 1881 - d. at Rome, Italy on Saturday, November 16, 1968], (another Jesuit like Gerald Ellard), described by some as the “Super-Ecumenist”, also happened to be the "only" Confessor of Pius XII.

IF this is true, this could at least begin to explain the contradictory and "bizzare" behavior of Pius XII in regard to the changes in the Mass?

Pius XII actually admitted responsibility for throwing out the venerable Psalter of Saint Jerome (required by the Council of Trent!) from all of the liturgical books, especially the Missale Romanum, and replacing it with another version:

Quote:“6. You are surely well aware that this Apostolic See has always made careful provision for the schooling of the people committed to its charge in the correct spirit and practice of the liturgy; and that it has been no less careful to insist that the sacred rites should be performed with due external dignity. In this connection We ourselves, in the course of our traditional address to the Lenten preachers of this gracious city of Rome in 1943, urged them warmly to exhort their respective hearers to more faithful participation in the eucharistic sacrifice. Only a short while previously [i.e. before the Lent of 1943], with the design of rendering the prayers of the liturgy more correctly understood and their Truth and unction more easy to perceive, We arranged to have the Book of Psalms, which forms such an important part of these prayers in the Catholic Church, translated again into Latin from their original text.[8]  Footnote # 8.  Cf. Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio) In Cotidianis Precibus, Saturday, March 24, 1945 (AAS 37, 1945; pp. 65-67).”  (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical, "Mediator Dei", On the Sacred Liturgy, Thursday, November 20, 1947, ¶ 6; emphasis added.)

Where he says:

Quote:translated again into Latin from their original text.

This was not necessary because Saint Jerome had already done this very thing many centuries ago, along with the rest of what is called the "Latin Vulgate"!

This was Pius XII's first liturgical change to the Mass, the new liturgical translation of the Psalms. 

It should be noted that Saint Jerome’s Vulgate was extremely disliked by the Protestants because the Vulgate was the official translation of the Holy Scriptures in the Roman Catholic Church, and this translation had been declared to be authentic by the Nineteenth Œcumenical Council, the Infallible Dogmatic Roman Catholic Council of Trent!

Logically, the Vulgate was something also despised by the “Super-Ecumenist”, Cardinal Bea.

This is why the Missale Romanum I personally use was printed in 1943 because the NEW Psalter began to be used beginning with the 1944 edition.

To say that Bea was the "Confessor" of Pius XII might not mean much to most people today?  However, when examined from the perspective of 1940, one's "Confessor" was frequently also synonymous with one's "Spiritual Director".

Historically, a "Spiritual Director" had a tremendous influence, great power, and even a "total" influence in many cases, over the person of which he was the Spiritual Director.  This is very evident when one reads the various Autobiographies and Biographies of some of the Saints.  This is the "normal way" of things in the Spiritual Life for those who are so fortunate to have their own personal "Spiritual Director".

But, when one's Spiritual Director merely "uses" his position for another purpose, such a "Spiritual Director" is evil and not to be trusted and should be fired!

Was this the case, then, with Cardinal Bea, S.J., the alleged "Confessor" - and hence - "Spiritual Director" of Pope Pius XII?

Logically, it seems to me that THE “Super-Ecumenist” would have been working with the other anti-Catholic Infiltrators in the Vatican, and probably also with the NEW Theology Theologians, to "control" Pius XII to some degree?  Hence, the changes to the Missal that came about in the early to middle 1950's under Pius XII.

In addition, how many of you remember how Pius XII was plagued by hiccups?

I have always wondered IF maybe these hiccups were a "side-effect" of some kind of a mind-control drug that was being given to Pius XII without the Pope being aware of it?  Some research seems to indicate that his personal physician was, to say the least, "strange"?

Apparently the full extent of these mysteries will not be revealed until the Day of the General Judgement?  However, where there is "smoke", there must be "fire"! 

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to read this!   :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#8
Mention has been made of the fact that Pope Saint Pius X was, ultimately, the one who first began the changes to the Missale Romanum and to the Roman Breviary.

Since most of you are probably not all that familiar with Latin, here are the important portions of this Document by Pope Saint Pius X, Divino Afflatu, Wednesday, November 1, 1911, translated into English, followed by a few observations.

Quote:“For in the course of time there has been a constant increase among the faithful in the number of those whom the Church, after their mortal life, has been accustomed to count among the denizens of heaven and to set before the Christian people as patrons and models. In their honor the offices of the saints began to be gradually extended until it has come about that the offices of the Sundays and ferias are hardly ever heard, and thus neglect has fallen on not a few Psalms...”

“No wonder, then, that a great many bishops in various parts of the world have sent expressions of their opinions on this matter to the Apostolic See, and especially in the Vatican Council when they asked, among other things, that the ancient custom of reciting the whole psaltery within the week might be restored as far as possible, but in such a way that the burden should not be made any heavier for the clergy, whose labors in the vineyard of the sacred ministry are now increased owing to the diminution in the number of laborers. These petitions and wishes, which were our own, too, before we assumed the pontificate, and also the appeals which have since come from others of our venerable brothers and from pious men, we have decided should be granted – but with care, so that from the reciting of the entire psaltery within the week no diminution in the cultus of saints may follow, on the one hand, and on the other, that the burden of the divine office may become not more oppressive, but actually lighter....”

“Meanwhile, now that the occasion presents itself, we have decided to make some changes at present, as is prescribed in the accompanying rubrics; and first among them that in the recitation of the divine office due honor, by their more frequent use, be restored to the appointed lessons of sacred Scripture with the responsories of the season, and, second, that in the sacred liturgy those most ancient Masses of the Sundays during the year and of the ferias, especially those of Lent, recover their rightful place....”

This text speaks for itself.

Here is a brief summary:

A problem arose because what are called "new offices" were added for "new Saints".  This addition had the effect of causing some of the 150 Pslams not to be recited during the 7-day week, which was the original custom.

Therefore, the Pope is trying to balance the original custom with the influx of the offices for the new Saints.

This obviously had the biggest impact on the Breviary - but here again, the changes to the Breviary were primarily rubrical.  In other words, the Psalms have not been re-worded, nor the other texts in the Breviary.

Insofar as the Missale Romanum is concerned, the Pope also changed a few of the rubrics - not prayers or other texts  - of the Mass.

I remember this question came up when I was in the Seminary and our Seminary Professor went to the Missal and read Divino Afflatu.

Hence, per the rubrics of Pope Saint Pius X, the Sunday Mass takes precedent over all other Masses, even if these other Masses are of a higher rank than the Sunday Mass.  This is why, for example, the Sunday Mass is used whenever the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Sunday, even though the rank of the Feast is higher than the rank of the Sunday Mass, with the Feast being transferred to the next day - Monday.

Likewise, that the Lenten ferias be used on their proper week days.

I am not aware of any changes to any Prayers or other texts in the Missal made by Saint Pius X.  He only changed a few of the rubrics.

In the past I have known some people who mistakenly thought that Saint Pius X made lots of major changes to the Mass, changing Prayers, etc.  In my experiences, this has been a common misconception.  However, it seems that no one on FE has this misconception, I am happy to see!

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this!   :tiphat:

God Bless You!  :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#9
a) The "Vulgate Psalter" itself was later retranslated by St Jerome from Hebrew, which says that he was not satisfied with his previous work. The work appearing as the "gallican Psalter" is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. So maybe St Jerome was Protestant too. The point is that the objection to the Pian Psalter is a non-starter. It may have been a bad translation, but the notion of going off the Hebrew is quite traditional. I think we got the better solution with the New Vulgate revision. (And anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew knows that the Gallican Psalter is far from perfect. It has quite a few places which make little sense. Like the "chair of pestilence" in Psalm 1.)

b) The Breviary reform of Pius X was a break in the organic tradition. That's quite clear. If we take Quod a Nobis literally, as people take Quo Primum, then Pius X's in hell. We know he's not in hell, therefore breaking organic development can be okay. While the Mass was a rubrical revision, and a very good one, the Breviary was also a complete restructuring of the traditional psalm order, which many at the time decried and ... wait for it ...did not want to adopt. Think about that.
Reply
#10
(06-16-2013, 09:17 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: a) The "Vulgate Psalter" itself was later retranslated by St Jerome from Hebrew, which says that he was not satisfied with his previous work. The work appearing as the "gallican Psalter" is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. So maybe St Jerome was Protestant too. The point is that the objection to the Pian Psalter is a non-starter. It may have been a bad translation, but the notion of going off the Hebrew is quite traditional. I think we got the better solution with the New Vulgate revision. (And anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew knows that the Gallican Psalter is far from perfect. It has quite a few places which make little sense. Like the "chair of pestilence" in Psalm 1.)

b) The Breviary reform of Pius X was a break in the organic tradition. That's quite clear. If we take Quod a Nobis literally, as people take Quo Primum, then Pius X's in hell. We know he's not in hell, therefore breaking organic development can be okay. While the Mass was a rubrical revision, and a very good one, the Breviary was also a complete restructuring of the traditional psalm order, which many at the time decried and ... wait for it ...did not want to adopt. Think about that.

The changes to the Breviary do not represent a break in organic tradition; they are simply circumstantially-dictated accidental modifications aimed at safeguarding the Breviary's liturgical integrity and purpose.

A break with organic tradition would be, for example, a departure from the  entire Breviary in favor of the creation of a  completely new Breviary pasted together with various liturgical scraps from ecclesiastical antiquity.

There is a difference between the act of pruning a tree and the act of piecing together a new, synthetic tree with the clippings of the pruned tree, the act of cutting up the old tree and then piecing together a new, synthetic tree with the choicest pieces of the cut up tree, or taking a piece of another tree and pasting it onto the original tree. 

One is healthy and good for the organic life, growth, and beauty of the tree; the other destroys it. It may still resemble a tree, but it certainly is not organically grown.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)