POPE ST. PIUS X AND MODERNISM
Sean Mac Eochaidh
Liberalism of 1789 that had been "blowing' in the wind" swirled into
the tornado of Modernism. Father Vincent Miceli identified this heresy
as such by describing Modernism's "trinity of parents." He wrote:
1. Its religious ancestor is the Protestant Reformation;
2. Its philosophical parent is the Enlightenment;
3. Its political pedigree comes from the French Revolution.
Pope St. Pius X, who ascended the papal chair in 1903, recognized
Modernism as a most deadly plague that must be arrested. He wrote that
the most important obligation of the Pope is to insure the purity and
integrity of Catholic doctrine, and he further stated that if he did
nothing, then he would have failed in his essential duty.
St. Pius X waged a war on Modernism, issued an Encyclical (Pascendi)
and a Syllabus (Lamentabili) against it, instituted the Anti-Modernist
Oath to be sworn by all priests and theology teachers, purged the
seminaries and universities of Modernists and excommunicated the
stubborn and unrepentant.
St. Pius X effectively halted the spread of Modernism in his day. It
is reported, however, that when he was congratulated for having
eradicated this grave error, St. Pius X immediately responded that
despite his best efforts, he had not succeeded in killing the beast,
but had only driven it underground.
He warned that if Church leaders were not vigilant, it would return in
the future more virulent than ever.
Daniel Höhr
<nonsense snipped>
I sort of feel sorry for people who obviously cannot cope with real life
and therefore live in the past -- Pius X was certainly one of them.
Have you consulted a professional?
dh
John Bianco
"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020418...@Medion.fuck.Bill.Gates.and.Microsoft...
Sean Mac Eochaidh wrote:
<nonsense snipped>
St Pius X, and yes he was cannonised a saint, and his actions helped
preserve the catholic church though very difficult times. Many say it would
not have been able to remain strong though two world wars and the initial
onset of communism uf it wasnt for St Pius X purgeing the church of many
harmful elements.
To call what St Pius X did nonsense just shows how you do not understand
how the church needs to stand firm on Dogma.
Daniel Höhr
> St Pius X, and yes he was cannonised a saint, and his actions helped
> preserve the catholic church though very difficult times. Many say it
would
> not have been able to remain strong though two world wars [...]
Oh yes, it may have helped the church through two world wars (I doubt the
one thing has anything to do with the other), especially the second. But
what did the Church do to help those who were persecuted? Did the church
do anything to help the millions of Jews? No, it didn't. Pius XII closed
his eyes and let Hitler do what we wanted to do. People like Cardinal
Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) saved many lives and there were
many priests out here who acted as true Christians who value life more
than (man-made) dogma -- many of them ended up in concentration camps as
well.
> To call what St Pius X did nonsense just shows how you do not
understand
> how the church needs to stand firm on Dogma.
You don't seem to understand that Dogma has nothing to do with
"Modernism". The Church as it is today stands firmly on the same Dogmas
as it did in Pius X's day.
dh
John Bianco
John Bianco <rftech10@.nospamm.attbi.com> wrote:
> St Pius X, and yes he was cannonised a saint, and his actions helped
> preserve the catholic church though very difficult times. Many say it
would
> not have been able to remain strong though two world wars [...]
Oh yes, it may have helped the church through two world wars (I doubt the
one thing has anything to do with the other), especially the second. But
what did the Church do to help those who were persecuted? Did the church
do anything to help the millions of Jews? No, it didn't. Pius XII closed
his eyes and let Hitler do what we wanted to do.
Ot has been proven that Pope Pius XII saved the lives of 800,000 Jews in
Italy. Pope Pius XII did all t hat he could to to save the lives of Jews,
and after WW2, many Orthodox Jewish leaders thanked Pope Pius XII for all
that he did. Pope Pius XI condemmed the Nazis shortly before his death, and
Pope Pius XII said nothing that contradicted Pope Pius XI. You have to
understand the difficult position the Vatican was in WW2. It was in the
middle of one of the Axis nations, Germany and all the territory they
invaded had hundreds of millions of Catholics. Like it or not, Pope Pius XII
had to look out for the welfare of all Catholics during this difficult time,
and even with this, he did all he could reasonable do to save the lives of
Jews.
People like Cardinal
Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) saved many lives and there were
many priests out here who acted as true Christians who value life more
than (man-made) dogma -- many of them ended up in concentration camps as
well.
The Dogma of the Catholic church has apostolic authority. And yes, part of
the Dogma is to prevent the loss of innocemnt lives.
> To call what St Pius X did nonsense just shows how you do not
understand
> how the church needs to stand firm on Dogma.
You don't seem to understand that Dogma has nothing to do with
"Modernism". The Church as it is today stands firmly on the same Dogmas
as it did in Pius X's day.
dh
Yes it does. Modernism rots the core of the church. Just look at the
aftermath of not Vatican 2 itself, but the so called "Spirit of Vatican 2"
Weekly attendance of mass in the US dropped from above 85% to 40% at best,
in Europe it went from above 75% to maybe 15% at best. Something is a miss
here. People may went to say that the Roman Catholic church has not "kept up
with the times", but look at how much attendance at Mainstream Protestant
Denominations has fallen, and most of these denominations are far more
progressive than the Catholic church is other doctrines and dogmas.
For the last 40 years, the progressive wing, or Modernists as some people
call them, have had a large degree of influence within the Catholic church,
like it or not, that influence has not bore any fruit. I am not someone who
opposes much less denies Vatican 2, it was a council of the church, and all
Catholics must accept Vatican 2, but as I said in a previous post, I accept
Vatican 2 for what it was. A genuine attempt at the renewal of faith, not
the gutting of tradition, not the gutting of the faith, not a real change in
doctrines nor a cheapening of Dogmas.
Vatican II want much father than Pope John XXIII intended it to go.
Mark Johnson
>Oh yes, it may have helped the church through two world wars (I doubt the
>one thing has anything to do with the other), especially the second. But
>what did the Church do to help those who were persecuted? Did the church
>do anything to help the millions of Jews? No, it didn't. Pius XII closed
>his eyes and let Hitler do what we wanted to do. People like Cardinal
>Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) saved many lives and there were
>many priests out here who acted as true Christians who value life more
>than (man-made) dogma -- many of them ended up in concentration camps as
>well.
Many others did, as well. Pius XII opposed Nazism, even before Nazism
more openly opposed Catholicism, or any Protestantism, even - or
anything other than their screwy Nazi neo-paganism. Whatever your
bitter screed against Pius XII, it's becoming clear that you don't
much like the facts, the evidence, and prefer to hide in ignorance
when others suggest you come to understand the issues.
>You don't seem to understand that Dogma has nothing to do with
>"Modernism". The Church as it is today stands firmly on the same Dogmas
>as it did in Pius X's day.
No, the institutional church does not. And mixed messages come from
the Vatican. This is topic of any number of books over the years.
You won't like my pointing out these 'interesting times', because you
obviously prefer 'reform' and think people are so dense that they
can't see something's wrong, for themselves.
See books at: http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/Books.htm
And you are very welcome.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited downloads - 19 servers ==-----
Cunneen
>do anything to help the millions of Jews? No, it didn't. Pius XII closed
>his eyes and let Hitler do what we wanted to do. People like Cardinal
>Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) saved many lives and there were
>many priests out here who acted as true Christians >>
Who do you think the Church is??? And how well do you know the history of the
period? What did the U.S. and Britain do for the Jews?
Mark Johnson
The US and Britain invaded Germany.
The Church opposed Nazism even as Rome was in occupied Axis territory.
You do remember the Axis powers, right - particularly with Pres.
Bush's rhetoric of the 'axis of evil' calling it to mind, again?
Catholic helped Jews to escape. It's well known and recognized, if
intentionally forgotten, today - which shames the memory of those who
were saved, even who converted to The Church.
You forget Naziism, as well. It was thuggery - that is, rules, but no
rules other than the gun, the coup, and the bodyguards. Very similar
to PC, today, or any petty tyranny. So even Nazis could fall out of
favor, and be treated to a shot in the back of the head, in the yard
out back. That was the excuse used, in fact, by the bureacrats when
asked why so many didn't act. Fear for their lives. Yet Nuremberg did
lay down the old rule. Just following orders is no excuse. It's a
lesson that has been lost to current generations. But it wasn't lost
to those who put themselves out, at the risk of summary execution if
caught, to help those targeted for murder - Jews, the infirmed, all
those sought by a killer state at war with the world.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Daniel Höhr
> <<Did the church
> >do anything to help the millions of Jews? No, it didn't. Pius XII closed
> >his eyes and let Hitler do what we wanted to do. People like Cardinal
> >Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) saved many lives and there were
> >many priests out here who acted as true Christians >>
> Who do you think the Church is???
When I refer to the "Church" in this context, I refer to it as an
institutional body, although I know that the church is all of us.
> And how well do you know the history of the
> period?
Well enough to give my opinion. As a German I have to know what happened
over here sixty years ago and I've done my homework.
> What did the U.S. and Britain do for the Jews?
Liberated the concentration camps -- when it was too late. Yet
especially the U.S. gave shelter to Jews who had the money and
opportunity to get out of Germany and those countries that were under
German control.
dh
Daniel Höhr
> cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote:
> > What did the U.S. and Britain do for the Jews?
> The US and Britain invaded Germany.
When it was too late. If anybody (and that includes most of the Germans
at that time) had actually read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", and if he had been
taken seriously and acted accordingly, the Holocaust would probably not
have happened.
> The Church opposed Nazism even as Rome was in occupied Axis territory.
> You do remember the Axis powers, right - particularly with Pres.
> Bush's rhetoric of the 'axis of evil' calling it to mind, again?
Good point...
> Catholic helped Jews to escape. It's well known and recognized, if
> intentionally forgotten, today - which shames the memory of those who
> were saved, even who converted to The Church.
> You forget Naziism, as well. It was thuggery - that is, rules, but no
> rules other than the gun, the coup, and the bodyguards. Very similar
> to PC, today, or any petty tyranny.
I'm going to embarrass myself, but what is "PC"?
dh
John Bianco
I'm going to embarrass myself, but what is "PC"?
PC means Politically Correct. Political Correctness is the basically the
imposition of secular humanism on the worlds of academia, the media and
politics that accuses most anyone who does not agee with with that world
view as being insensitive, racist or sexist.
Daniel Höhr
> I'm going to embarrass myself, but what is "PC"?
> PC means Politically Correct... <snipped>
So, following Mark's logic, the Nazis were the forerunners of politically
correctness?
dh
Stephanie Rendino
"Political Correctness" is not this. Political Correctness is a
manifestation of liberal guilt, protecting itself from being offended.
Those of us who are truly radical don't have any such PC-ness.
Mark Johnson
>"John Bianco" <rftech10@.nospamm.attbi.com> wrote:
Just practitioners of the same practiced in Russia, later in China.
And it was China that apparently gave rise to the first use of the
term. It's tyranny. It's cheap. It's petty. It's the way of any mob.
England was tyrannical when it came to Catholicism. Histories were
rewritten. Freedom of religion was not tolerated (to be fair, of other
Protestants, as well - thus in part . . America).
Political correctness is the enforcement, around the world, of similar
poorly considered Communist notions. Some of the Nazi Eugenics
remains, in the promotion of abortion and 'survivals of the fittest',
culling the herds and 'designer babies', and such. But most of it is
the invitation to vice in exchange for the rejection, specifically,
not of just heretical Protestantism, but of Catholicism. You'll find
even Islam, following Sept. 11, excused, explained, and tolerated on
college campuses, where Catholicism has been forced out, where
certainly any claim it makes to being the one, true Faith is derided,
while Islam can claim what it wants.
Why are the major networks so uniform, and so increasingly irrelevant?
Why the herd mentality, also in grant institutions, the
arts/entertainment, academia, and large corporations? Because it's
planned. Because it's a conspiracy, a careful tailoring of hires and
promotions based on political tests. It's nothing new, historically.
But these particular tests are loathesome to the generally diverse,
and often zealous, religions of the founders, because the stem from
the socialism of both Communism and Nazism. Political correctness
isn't just atheistic, if there is such a thing. It's positively
anti-Catholic.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Daniel Höhr
> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So, following Mark's logic, the Nazis were the forerunners of
politically
> >correctness?
> Just practitioners of the same practiced in Russia, later in China.
> And it was China that apparently gave rise to the first use of the
> term. It's tyranny. It's cheap. It's petty. It's the way of any mob.
> England was tyrannical when it came to Catholicism. Histories were
> rewritten. Freedom of religion was not tolerated (to be fair, of other
> Protestants, as well - thus in part . . America).
Well, that rings a bell, doesn't it? The Eternal Rome or whatever you may
call it used to be very good at not tolerating freedom of religion and
even today there are "Catholics" who want to see it abolished. Here's a
quote from Msr Fellay General Superior of the SSPX taken from an
interview with the Swiss newspaper "Tagesanzeiger" in January:
Daniel Höhr
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just practitioners of the same practiced in Russia, later in China.
> And it was China that apparently gave rise to the first use of the
> term. It's tyranny. It's cheap. It's petty. It's the way of any mob.
> England was tyrannical when it came to Catholicism. Histories were
> rewritten. Freedom of religion was not tolerated (to be fair, of other
> Protestants, as well - thus in part . . America).
Well, that rings a bell, doesn't it? The Eternal Rome or whatever you may
call it used to be very good at not tolerating freedom of religion and
even today there are "Catholics" who want to see it abolished. Here's a
quote from Msr Fellay, General Superior of the SSPX, taken from an
interview with the Swiss newspaper "Tagesanzeiger" in January:
"We as well are fighting against the freedom of religion in as much as it
separates the state from God. In contrast to the Islam, which mixes
religion and politics and uses religion as a means of politics, we prefer
a differenciation between the church and the state according to their
different tasks. That does not mean a separation. What we have in mind is
a state on a christian basis."
So much about freedom of religion.
> Political correctness is the enforcement, around the world, of similar
> poorly considered Communist notions. Some of the Nazi Eugenics
> remains, in the promotion of abortion and 'survivals of the fittest',
> culling the herds and 'designer babies', and such. But most of it is
> the invitation to vice in exchange for the rejection, specifically,
> not of just heretical Protestantism, but of Catholicism. You'll find
> even Islam, following Sept. 11, excused, explained, and tolerated on
> college campuses, where Catholicism has been forced out, where
> certainly any claim it makes to being the one, true Faith is derided,
> while Islam can claim what it wants.
I always thought PC is about saying "intellectually challanged" instead
of "stupid"...
Anyway, thanks for clarifying this. My advise would be, see a
psychiatrist specialised in religious and political paranoia. He will
help you to enjoy life again.
Daniel
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>> Daniel Höhr <dho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just practitioners of the same practiced in Russia, later in China.
>> And it was China that apparently gave rise to the first use of the
>> term. It's tyranny. It's cheap. It's petty. It's the way of any mob.
>> England was tyrannical when it came to Catholicism. Histories were
>> rewritten. Freedom of religion was not tolerated (to be fair, of other
>> Protestants, as well - thus in part . . America).
>Well, that rings a bell, doesn't it? The Eternal Rome or whatever you may
>call it used to be very good at not tolerating freedom of religion and
>even today there are "Catholics" who want to see it abolished. Here's a
>quote from Msr Fellay General Superior of the SSPX taken from an
>interview with the Swiss newspaper "Tagesanzeiger" in January:
What followed is what _I_ wrote. And freedom of religion is based on
free will. It cannot mean, however, the state's insistence that
Catholicism has no right to proclaim itself the one, true religion,
founded personally by God, Himself, passing on the very Revelation of
God, Himself.
But that war against Catholicism, and The Church's central mission, is
just what 'freedom of religion' so often means, and what 'ecumenism'
is designed for, as well.
>> Political correctness is the enforcement, around the world, of similar
>> poorly considered Communist notions. Some of the Nazi Eugenics
>> remains, in the promotion of abortion and 'survivals of the fittest',
>> culling the herds and 'designer babies', and such. But most of it is
>> the invitation to vice in exchange for the rejection, specifically,
>> not of just heretical Protestantism, but of Catholicism. You'll find
>> even Islam, following Sept. 11, excused, explained, and tolerated on
>> college campuses, where Catholicism has been forced out, where
>> certainly any claim it makes to being the one, true Faith is derided,
>> while Islam can claim what it wants.
>
>> Why are the major networks so uniform, and so increasingly irrelevant?
>> Why the herd mentality, also in grant institutions, the
>> arts/entertainment, academia, and large corporations? Because it's
>> planned. Because it's a conspiracy, a careful tailoring of hires and
>> promotions based on political tests. It's nothing new, historically.
>> But these particular tests are loathesome to the generally diverse,
>> and often zealous, religions of the founders, because the stem from
>> the socialism of both Communism and Nazism. Political correctness
>> isn't just atheistic, if there is such a thing. It's positively
>> anti-Catholic.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Daniel Höhr
> What followed is what _I_ wrote. And freedom of religion is based on
> free will. It cannot mean, however, the state's insistence that
> Catholicism has no right to proclaim itself the one, true religion,
> founded personally by God, Himself, passing on the very Revelation of
> God, Himself.
It is not the state's duty to proclaim anything in terms of religious
beliefs, unless religion affects the freedom of others. I know you won't
like it, but I'd like to quote Rosa Luxemburg here: "Freedom is always
the freedom of those who think differently".
But things seem to be different over here. In Germany we have two major
churches, the RCC and the Protestant churches and they work together
extremely well. People also pay church tax, unless they are not members
of any church.
As far as the cooperation of the RCC and the Protestant Churches is
concerned (they have some sort of common committee, but most Protis are
either Lutheran or Reformed over here), they issue mutual declarations on
Chrsitmas and Easter. So both churches are supported by the state, which
is certainly down to the history of Germany.
Additionally, it is the spokesman of the German Bishops's Conference and
his Protestant eqivalent who ever so often state the opinion of the
churches on political issues. The voice of Christianity is quite
important in this country, as it is in many other European countries,
like the traditionally Catholic countries (Italy, Spain, France,
Austria...)
> But that war against Catholicism, and The Church's central mission, is
> just what 'freedom of religion' so often means, and what 'ecumenism'
> is designed for, as well.
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't know there was a war
against Catholicism.
Could you please explain what you meran?
pax et salus
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
Before you have a go on me because of the Rosa Luxemburg quote, please
note, I didn't translate it properly in the above posting. It should be
(something like):
"In any case, freedom is *at the same time* the freedom of those who
think differently."
Sorry, had a bit too much Italian red for lunch...
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>> What followed is what _I_ wrote. And freedom of religion is based on
>> free will. It cannot mean, however, the state's insistence that
>> Catholicism has no right to proclaim itself the one, true religion,
>> founded personally by God, Himself, passing on the very Revelation of
>> God, Himself.
>It is not the state's duty to proclaim anything in terms of religious
>beliefs, unless religion affects the freedom of others.
Everything affects the freedom of others. We live in a community. We
impinge on other's preferences. Thus . . . law, and law to reflect how
we generally deal with such conflict. That's how it works.
This is different. This is a different thing. Freedom of religion can
mean the lack of state imposition, as they were fleeing in Prot
England. But that freedom can't extend to insisting that The Church's
mission is necessarily invalid. Catholic must be allowed to extol the
virtues of The Faith, of The Church, of The Sacraments; to insist that
Catholicism, alone, is that founded by God, fulfilling the covenants
to the Jews, the home of the new Temple of God, the one and true
Faith.
>like it, but I'd like to quote Rosa Luxemburg here: "Freedom is always
>the freedom of those who think differently".
That's too vague to be meaningful. PC incorporates - diversity. But
it's where everyone thinks the same, on a certain narrow range of
issues. That range is defined as a 'wide diversity'. Real diversity,
real opinions, are dismissed as not just irrelevant, but sinful and
wrong - not just to be argued against, but to be fought against by
every means, ethical or not. Heresy to be stamped out. It's a
standard, a religious standard, they defend. But it's the polar
opposite of Catholicism. Rome did something of the same, for similar
reasons.
>But things seem to be different over here. In Germany we have two major
>churches, the RCC and the Protestant churches and they work together
>extremely well.
That's certainly not the bloody history of Prot insurrection. But
whether there's a civility, at this point, is beside the point really.
It doesn't go to The Church's mission, which remains regardless, and
which the priest must confess, or confess his own heresy - and it's
quite a common one, too (ecumenism, and all).
>concerned (they have some sort of common committee, but most Protis are
>either Lutheran or Reformed over here), they issue mutual declarations on
>Chrsitmas and Easter. So both churches are supported by the state, which
>is certainly down to the history of Germany.
Umm . . .
>Additionally, it is the spokesman of the German Bishops's Conference and
>his Protestant eqivalent who ever so often state the opinion of the
>churches on political issues. The voice of Christianity is quite
>important in this country, as it is in many other European countries,
>like the traditionally Catholic countries (Italy, Spain, France,
>Austria...)
I don't what exactly is so Catholic about Spain, France, Austria, or
even Ireland and Italy, these days.
>> But that war against Catholicism, and The Church's central mission, is
>> just what 'freedom of religion' so often means, and what 'ecumenism'
>> is designed for, as well.
>I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't know there was a war
>against Catholicism.
Study the period following Luther, the armies at war, and that's just
in Germany. Look at the Huegenots. Look at the usurpation by Henry
VIII in England. Look at the battles waged between Prot forces, and
Catholic - even for the nationalist overlay, these were national
religions. Battle of Lepanto, and so on? Think of the English general,
I think it was, going down the line proclaiming the fight was for The
Church of England - at Culloden.
Peace.
-----------------------
"[There] are countless people who pretend not
to hate Christ, but subtly demote him to the
rank of a 'great moral teacher,' or say they
have nothing against Christianity as long as
the 'separation of church and state' is observed,
or, under the guise of scholarship, affect to
winnow out his 'authentic' utterances from those
falsely ascribed to him as if the Apostles would
have dared to put words in his mouth!"
[Joe Sobran, The Words and Deeds of Christ, NOV 2000,
http://www.sobran.com/wordschrist.shtml ]
Daniel Höhr
> I don't what exactly is so Catholic about Spain, France, Austria, or
> even Ireland and Italy, these days.
Yes obviously... You don't know anything.
Spring clean part II:
PLONK
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com > wrote:
>> I don't what exactly is so Catholic about Spain, France, Austria, or
>> even Ireland and Italy, these days.
>Yes obviously... You don't know anything.
Or you have nothing to say to the truth. The condition of Ireland is
tragic. Spain and France once were Catholic countries.
And so on.
Ignorance. Is that all the posters one sees here have to bring with
them?
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Domenico Rosa
> A crisis peaked around the beginning of the 20th century when the
> Liberalism of 1789 that had been "blowing' in the wind" swirled into
> the tornado of Modernism. Father Vincent Miceli identified this heresy
> as such by describing Modernism's "trinity of parents." He wrote:
>
> 1. Its religious ancestor is the Protestant Reformation;
> 2. Its philosophical parent is the Enlightenment;
> 3. Its political pedigree comes from the French Revolution.
>
> Pope St. Pius X, who ascended the papal chair in 1903, recognized
In my opinion, the Catholic church is still suffering from the purges
that occurred during the pontificate of Pius IX. I am resubmitting the
following post.
===================================================
From: DR...@teikyopost.edu (DR...@teikyopost.edu)
Subject: Austrian veto at 1903 conclave
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Date: 2000/07/13
In August or September 1989, a column by the Rev. Richard P. McBrien
in
The Catholic Transcript discussed the pontificates of Pius X and
Benedict XV.
According to the column, at the conclave of 1903, Cardinal Mariano
Rampolla, the secretary of state, was the leading candidate to succeed
Leo XIII. McBrien wrote: "His defeat has been attributed to a veto
exercised by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz-Joseph, conveyed
through
the Cardinal-Archbishop of Cracow." Before reading this column I had
no
idea that the Austrian monarchs, and previously also the Spanish and
French monarchs, had the veto power in papal elections.
The Austrian veto led to the election of Giuseppe Sarto who took the
name Pius X., and: "Cardinal Rampolla was replaced as secretary of
state
by the rigidly conservative Cardinal Merry del Val." In 1907, a
widespread purge was unleashed against scholars and theologians.
After Pius X died in August 1914, Giacomo Della Chiesa, who had served
as Rampolla's secretary and had been named a cardinal only three month
earlier, was elected as Pope Benedict XV. Within two months, the
purges
were ended, and the spy networks were dissolved. However, Catholic
scholarship was stunted for the next 50 years.
Unfortunately, McBrien's sound, informative columns are no longer
carried by The Catholic Transcript. His column was dropped when Daniel
Cronin was appointed archbishop of Hartford.
Domenico Rosa