Ecclesia Militans Awake

I know that his feast day on the old calendar is May 5th, but on the new calendar it is today.

 

O God Who didst choose Saint Pius as Supreme Pontiff in order to shatter the enemies of Thy Church and to restore the purity of the Sacred Liturgy; grant us his protection so that cleaving to Thy service we may overcome the snares of all our enemies and enjoy perpetual peace. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

 

 

 

Pope St. Pius V, pray for us, protect the

Roman Liturgy.

 

 

• Hammer of Turks.

• Implementer of the Decrees of Trent.

• Holy Inquisitor.

• Scourge of Elizabeth I.

• Promulgator of the Tridentine Missal.

 

His voice is yet heard today.

Comments

[quiet beginning]

Pope St. Pius V is one of my favorite popes. In the Bull, In Coena Domini, he reiterated traditional Catholic teachings, teachings that were then, as now (and for the last 50 years, especially), under vicious attack by Holy Mother Church's enemies. Not the least among those teachings was the fact that the civil power of the state was subordinate to the power of the Holy See. That particular teaching was continually promulgated by Pontiffs from its original formal issuance in the 14th century until it was quietly put down for a nap by Clement XIV in 1770 (post-Reformation monarchs were none to happy with the teaching). Could it be time for it to reawaken?

[James Rich]

I'm not so sure those who put so much of Catholicism's woes on the Liturgical Reforms (and others) of Vatican II have it right. After all, Europe left the faith long before Vatican II (even before Vatican I), and Africa & Asia are now entering in droves. I'm for improving what needs to be improved as far as the current liturgical confusion is concerned, but I don't think that is our real problem. How can Vatican II precede the explosion of Catholic piety in so many parts of the world and the decline here in the West? If someone is going to blame it for one, shouldn't it be credited for the other?

Maybe some of the more vexing recent troubles we've had has more to do with love of sin/self.

(By the way, I'm not saying anything against the Tridentine Mass or anything else. I'm just trying to offer some perspective as I see it.)

[Loy98]

James,

I concur. If the pre-conciliar Church had been as healthy as thought at the time, or as looks now in hindsight, the excesses of how Vatican II was "interpreted" would not have been possible.

Loy98

[quiet beginning]

Europe's leaving the Faith does not thereby signal a defect in the pre-VII Church. As you say, James, the issue is "sin/self," as it always has been from the beginning of the Church. I cannot speak to the situation in Africa and Asia as I know no more than anyone else (far less, probably) who hears bits and pieces of news from those parts of the world. I can, however, speak to the situation that existed in the pre-VII Church because I had reached the age of reason years before the commencement of that council. Yes, there were problems in the Church of the 1940's and 1950's---after all, the modernist wrecking crew had already firmly and extensively insinuated itself within the hierarchy and was just waiting in the wings for Pius XII to pass on. In spite of this, it was understood by the Faithful that an unbroken (and OBVIOUS) continuity with the Church of centuries past still existed. Furthermore, so many of the things accepted by today's conciliarists would have been immediately recognized as blasphemous and/or heretical in those days. Novus Ordo communicants are, by and large, unaware of this. In fact, their image (I'm speaking of that relatively small number who are even aware that the Church was significantly different then from what it is today) of the pre-VII Church was tends to be that of an uptight, repressive, mean-spirited organization whose days had thankfully ended with the accession of John XXIII.
When you come right down to it, though, the issue seems to be this: What should be the fundamental, EXPLICIT orientation of the Church? Should it be that of the pre-VII Church in which fallen man was seen as infinitely beneath God in holiness and dignity, and was therefore obliged for his salvation and earthly happiness to render unto God the solemn and reverent, God-centered worship which characterized official Church liturgy---a liturgy that expressly embodied the notion that man was impotent and destined for damnation outside the vivifying confines of the Church? Or, should it be that of the VII liturgy---a liturgy which announces man's profound dignity and worthiness, and which says little if ANYTHING about mortal sins such as adultery, stealing, dishonoring one's parents, receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, etc., or, for that matter, about the concept of "mortal sin" itself?
I don't see how anyone who seriously looks into the issue can come away from the effort without recognizing the stark contrast between the two, shall we say, "ways of being Catholic." Most conciliarists don't see what all the fuss is about with those who ardently desire a return of the official Church to Her roots. In my view, the reason they don't is because they don't know what the Church's real roots actually are. After 50 years of a fun-at-summer-camp liturgical experience, who can blame them?

[Angelopeter]

"After 50 years of a fun-at-summer-camp liturgical experience, who can blame them?"

You mean those enlightening religious "experiences" where biochemical fluids and nonesensical rhetorical group discussions produce "faith" instead of repentance and adherence to catholic doctrine and eternal maxims? I think we have all experienced those. The last one I experienced was at Notre Dame highschool, which was actually a 3 day and night pagan festival; like Bishop Shenn said -" if you want your children to defend the faith send them to a public highschool, if you want themt to loose the faith send them to a catholic one."

Although perhaps the modernism that infected the catholic church, was a door that opened the faith to spread further unto the secular-pagan world. Despite all objections (including my own) perhaps this modernism was a divine chastisement, that was inflicted due to the sins of unbelief, passivism, and sophistry that existed in the church prior the the II council. Similar to the promise of Abraham being spread to the gentiles, due to the unbelief of its rightful owners Israel.

However, despite all scrupulous arguments, we all must now return to our Lord in sackloth and ahes, with tears of repentence and mortification, beacause the Day of the Lord is at hand. The Antichrist of antichrists is hear now, he is spreading his message of peace, and promising a utopian global state, a "Kingdom of God," except "God," has been substituted with scince n technology, enviromentalism, global solidarity, peace with no justice, and kindness with no truth. However this coming tribulation is only a blessed indication of the iminent coming of our Lord!!

Kyrie elesion

[James Rich]

Quiet,

No, Europe's leaving the Church pre-Vatican II demonstrated a defect in European Catholics' faith (bishop, priest, religious, and lay people) taken together, not the Catholic Church. That was my point, and that obviously Vatican-II changes in the liturgy couldn't have been the cause there--as they obviously hadn't happened yet. Entire regions of the world have fallen away from the True Faith and Church -- and had their candlestick taken away -- irrespective of liturgical reform. In fact, if one could deduce a cause for whole regions (the West, Asia Minor, etc.) losing the Faith, it probably would not be liturgical anything, but sin, pride/lack of true repentance, and love of self.

Without being provocative or offending people who hold the Tridentine Liturgy so dear (which I know to be the case here), I'm trying to point out that liturgical reforms -- or Vatican II in general -- may not have been a signifcant cause for the problems we have today, especially when compared to the growth of the Church post Vatican II.

[quiet beginning]

James:
Fair enough. One either sees rotten fruit from VII or one doesn't.

[Sam]

"Hammer of Turks?" The title reminds me of "Hammerin Hank." Those medievals did have a sense of humor.

[James Rich]

Quiet,

Oh I see the rotten fruit! I don't think I have the requisite brain power to precisely see what particular sentences of seemingly innocuous V-II teachings/recommendations have led to the more vexing problems we're having these days. What I think I can see, however, is a curious ability in many folks to twist the plain meaning of words -- of the Bible, Tradition, Encyclicals, the Catechism, and for the same type of miscreants in America the Constitution -- to suit their desires. And this tendency really proliferated around the time of the Council.

This, in my opinion, has been the true problem behind V-II: good folks and authorized folks have not been able to stamp out the noxious abuses and teachings of people with their own selfish ambitions, probably because for a great number of our compatriots, it matches their own desires for having a different, watered-down Church.

Now, perhaps, as you say, V-II was at fault, I haven't finished reading all that the Council put forth. But it seems more plausible that the people behind the errors have perverted a great deal of it for their own purposes. The Church will ultimately get it right: abuses and misconceptions will be corrected and truth will be proclaimed.

But that's no guarrantee that people will heed the call.

[Pablo H.]

Salutations.

God grant your hard work continue to reach many souls, for His greater glory.

With your permission, I would like to add this saint story to my web site.

With the assurance of my Holy Rosary prayers for all your good work in the vineyard of the Divine Master, I remain yours truly in Jesus and Mary Immaculate.

pablo