CONTRA HITCHCOCKIUS: Uh, not quite, Doc!

Hitchcock’s well-marinated enmity for the Society is no secret, yet I’m quite sure he’s unfailingly kind to children and small animals.

Nevertheless, as an historian of renown, he ought to have taken more facts, quite damaging to own his own hagiographic excesses in re. Paulo Sesto, into consideration before deciding to beatify one of the most destructive agents in Church history since Julian the Apostate.

I commend to all the works of Fr. Luigi Villa and Franco Bellegrande on the Montini legacy and close with a note from the Society on this sordid affair.

padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf

huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_NIKITARONCALLI_book.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Communique of the SSPX’s General House on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI

On October 19, 2014, at the close of the Extraordinary Synod on the family, Pope Francis will go forward with the beatification of Pope Paul VI. The Society of St. Pius X wishes to express serious reservations concerning beatifications and canonizations of recent popes, whose rushed proceedings dispense with the wisdom of the Church’s centuries-old rules.

It is true that Paul VI was responsible for the encyclical Humanae Vitae[1], which letter instructed and consoled the Catholic family at a time when the most basic principles of marriage were under bitter attack. So they are again, and in a scandalous fashion, by certain members of the present Synod.

But Paul VI is also the Pope who saw Vatican II to its conclusion, thereby introducing in the Church a doctrinal liberalism manifested especially in errors such as religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. The result was an upheaval which he himself admitted on December 7, 1968, in the following words: “The Church is now confronted with uncertainty, self-criticism, one might almost say self-destruction. As if the Church were doing violence to Herself.” The following year he conceded: “In many areas the Council has not yet put us at peace; it has rather stirred up trouble and difficulties which are useless for reinforcing the Kingdom of God in the Church and in souls.” He went so far as to give this dire warning on July 29, 1972: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack: doubt, incertitude, dissension, worry, discontent, and conflict are plain to see…” But he was merely stating a fact, while failing to take those measures capable of stopping the self-destruction.

Paul VI is the pope who imposed a liturgical reform of the rites of Mass and other sacraments for reasons inspired by ecumenism. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci denounced this new Mass because it departed “significantly, on the whole and in its details, from Catholic theology of the holy Mass as formulated during the 22nd session of the Council of Trent.”[2] Along the same lines Archbishop Lefebvre said that the new Mass was “infused with a Protestant spirit” which is a “poison inimical to the Faith.”[3]

Under his pontificate many priests and religious were persecuted, and even condemned, for their fidelity to the Tridentine Mass. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X remembers with great sorrow the condemnation of 1976 whereby Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre found himself suspens a divinis because of his attachment to that Mass and his categorical refusal of the reforms. Only in 2007, with the issuance of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, was it finally admitted that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

Following in the footsteps of its founder, the Society of St. Pius X declares yet again its attachment to the Church’s 2000 year-old Tradition, convinced that such fidelity, far from vain nostalgia, in fact provides an apt remedy to the Church’s self-destruction.

Given at Menzingen October 17, 2014

Footnotes

1 July 25, 1968.

2 In A Brief Critical Study of the New Mass, preface of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, September 3, 1969, sec. 1.

3 Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press September 2010.

Source: DICI 10-17-2014

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2014/10/18/contra-hitchcockius-uh-not-quite-doc/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

2 comments on “CONTRA HITCHCOCKIUS: Uh, not quite, Doc!

  1. Excellent counter, GPM. Ol’ Cockyhitch makes a diversion to cover Francis’ synod woes. Maybe he should tell Francis to beatify Benedict, too, to further placate “conservatives.”

  2. What can I say? I get cheesed every time yet another cockamamie neocat Brahmin rewrites history.

    Like the old story has it, a Soviet-era history professor from Leningrad was shown into the drawing room of a Parisian mansion and introduced to his peers from the West.

    As the conversation proceeded, a Brit historian asked the Russian, “Do you not think it especially difficult to predict the future?”

    Not missing a beat, Gregor Gregorovich replied, “In my country we even find it especially difficult to predict the past, tovarisch!”

Leave a Reply