Posted on 08/22/2016 8:07:31 AM PDT by ebb tide
Excerpts from:
Notre Charge Apostolique
"Our Apostolic Mandate"
Given by Pope Pius X to the French Bishops August 15, 1910
“We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the ‘Kingdom of God’. We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.
“And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
“We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that -- their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution -- they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
“We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience.
“Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.
“As for you, Venerable Brethren, carry on diligently with the work of the Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength. Minister to every misery; let no sorrow escape your pastoral solicitude; let no lament find you indifferent. But, on the other hand, preach fearlessly their duties to the powerful and to the lowly; it is your function to form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities. The social question will be much nearer a solution when all those concerned, less demanding as regards their respective rights, shall fulfill their duties more exactingly.”
The very forewarning of a possibility like a Pope Francis, his "Year of Mercy" and his heretical Amoris Laetitia.
The seeds of which were planted at Vatican II.
bump to read later
Unfortunately the termites had worked their way into high Vatican circles, elected the liberal (Modernist?) Giacomo Cardinal della Chiesa who did much to undo Pius X's efforts against the Modernists, allowing that heresy to thrive somewhat secretly underground in high Church circles until it burst forth in all of its putrid evil at Vatican II.
Oh I agree, but Vatican II is when things began to be officially promulgated by those in the hierarchy.
The seeds of which were planted at Vatican II.
vatican II used a balpeen hammer to plant those seeds...
excellent post...my compliments...
Thank you. God bless you and yours!
Wait. I just realized that you are calling Pope Benedict XV a liberal and modernist, a man that Pope Pius X consecrated a bishop and named cardinal himself. What proof do you have of this allegation?
How quickly was Pope St. Pius X's Secretary of State, the magnificent and genuinely Catholic Rafael Cardinal Merry Del Val purged from significant authority by della Chiesa who was apparently still smarting from St. Pius X's selection of Del Val over della Chiesa?
Pope St. John Paul II appointed McPhony to Los Angeles and made him a cardinal and that did not make JP II a homosexual abuser of seminarians. He appointed the execrable Joseph Bernardin to Chicago without himself having a "social life" leading to death by AIDS and Kaposi's sarcoma.
That Pope St. Pius X made mistakes in appointing the likes of della Chiesa more likely reflects della Chiesa's sly capabilities for hiding the reality of della Chiesa to ease his climb beyond his (minimal) level of competence. His conclave owed a lot more to the Church and the world than the sorry likes of della Chiesa who frittered away his WWI era papacy (and a lot of papal credibility) delivering whimpering flapdoodle and tears for "peace in our time" (the bait) and for the political UNIFICATION OF EUROPE and the advancement of Modernism against the chains forged by Pope St. Pius X (the switch). della Chiesa made the Church safe (for a time) for the oh, sooooo sensitive and pseudointellectual airheads who regard speculation for its own sake as an adequate substitute for actual Catholicism.
In fact, given the context of his times, della Chiesa was an early Franky I. They are the worst examples of popes in the last 100 years. Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI were heroes but, at their worst, the were NEVER as bad as della Chiesa or Bergoglio. As with della Chiesa, the rule of error of Bergoglio, our current interregnum, will be relatively brief. The smoke of satan again surrounds our altars (Paul VI) and God will not long tolerate that. Somewhere out there is a young, healthy, utterly orthodox, firebrand of a prelate who will be chosen by the next conclave to erase Bergoglio's reign of error. Please Lord, ASAP.
Do YOU have evidence that della Chiesa had ANY credential to claim to be a worthy pontiff or even notably Catholic?
Hardly a Francis I.
Hardly a Francis I.
What did Benedict XVI DO, other than one instance of lip service within two months of the mistake of a conclave in electing him pope, when he was still surrounded by Pope Saint Pius X's curia to stamp out modernism???? In the remaining 7 years and 3 months of his 7 year and 5 months papacy?
Was he not also a protege of the notorious Freemason (much more sinister in Europe than here) Mariano Cardinal Rampolla so that rather than having two Rampollas as Cardinals, Pope Saint Pius X made him wait until Rampolla was safely dead (12/13) before getting his own red hat?
Correction to #13: Benedict XV (della Chiesa) not XVI.
All of the popes after Pius X are guilty of not doing enough or being too soft, but I would not label them Modernists and I certainly wouldn’t equate them with the likes of the flaming Modernist and manifest heretic Bergoglio.
And where is this proof that Benedict XV was a protege of a Freemason? You keep making accusations, but where is the evidence?
Pope (should be Saint) Pius XII say to the silencing of the execrable Modernist Teilhard de Chardin, SJ. That was during a papacy which saved (according to the State of Israel at the time of his death) about 900,000 Jews from the Holocaust.
Benedict XV (della Chiesa) spent World War I blubbering about peace in our time.
It is fair to call Bergoglio a manifest heretic when he does not think himself as pope qualified to judge sexual perverts or when he invents out of whole cloth environmentalist fantasies and expects his blatherings on same to be accepted as Magisterial or tries to facilitate the unworthy receipt of the Eucharist by the unrepentant perverts. While Modernism was called by Pope St. Pius X "the synthesis of all heresies," a number of those heresies are not exemplified by Bergoglio.
May God fire Bergoglio ASAP and replace him with a young, robust, healthy, thoroughly hard line and militantly CATHOLIC successor before he gets to pollute the College of Cardinals with equivalent supporters of his evil to those who conspired in his election.
It would be particularly helpful if a new Congregation for filling toilet paper dispensers be added to the Curia to require Blase Cupich to run without ever getting a red hat. Then Bishop Barron can be appointed to Chicago and get that red hat.
Wikipedia? I’m talking about proven, reliable Catholic sources.
It appears that Benedict XV also condemned Freemasonry:
http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/chapter12.htm
In addition to the above, he codified the official position of the Church regarding membership in Freemasonry in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (the Church imposes the explicit penalty of excommunication on Catholics who become Freemasons).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.