Thursday, September 3, 2015

Feast of Pope Saint Pius X: Bane of Modernists

Have raised up a chosen man from My people; with My holy oil I have anointed him, that My hand may help him and My arm strengthen him. Ps. 88:2. The mercies of the Lord I will sing forever; through all generations my tongue shall proclaim Your faithfulness. [Latin Mass Propers]

Image: wikicommons


  1. The last Pope who was canonized a Traditional Saint.

    1. According to your boutique idea of what is of the "Tradition."

    2. The authority of the Church changed the definition of a saint.

      They changed the canonization process: less miracles are required, changed the definition of heroic virtue, they got rid of the “Devil’s Advocate” office which scrutinized the candidate.

      The result? Less holy people being canonized, and less checking into questionable things to make sure they are worthy of imitation.

      The proof? The sheer amount of canonizations after the 1983 changes.

      Hence, what it means to be a Saint, in the context of imitation, has changed.

      Now, as for neo-Saint John Paul II (to compare to St. Pius X), please explain to me how a traditional Saint would ask St. John the Baptist to protect Islam like JPII did?

      Please explain how a traditional Saint would accommodate pagans to worship demons in sacred Church ground, breaking the first commandment (Assisi meetings)?

      Traditional Saints don’t do things that are directly contrary to the faith, no matter the intention.

      Now, if the definition of a Saint was changed AND someone got canonized who did things contrary to the Holy Catholic faith (regardless of intention), they are by definition and through their actions not a “Traditional Saint.”

      Note well: I am not talking about if someone is in heaven or not. All people in heaven are Saints and thus JPII is a saint in heaven (the Church has declared this so), but by the standard of the previous definition, a person who is worthy of imitation (i.e. did not do things contrary to the faith) JPII fails the test.

      And it’s not my test, e.g. if the infallible authority of the Church says to not worship other gods and we have a Pope who, through personal fallible actions, accommodated people to worship false gods at Assisi, should I sit back and say “I can’t decide if that’s bad because I’m not Pope”? No, I can decide because the authority of Popes has already taught me this (their infallible authority as opposed to a fallible personal decision by JPII).

    3. Please instruct us, O Gaybriel. Tell us what your idea of a "traditional saint" is. And don't start with homsexuals, get an original idea for a change.

  2. Nothing against Pius X (though his canonisation does seem rather hasty...reminscent of the recent unseemly beatifications and canonisations of more recent popes). But the over-zealous witch-hunt against 'modernism' (whatever that was) really didn't do us traditionalists any favours. It illustrated Ultramontanism at its worst. Pray with Pius X, but shed a tear for poor George Tyrrell.

    1. How about no?

      I’m pretty sure you aren’t a so-called “traditionalist” if you don’t know what Modernism is. Do I detect the old strawman “phantom heresy” in your sentence there? If you need help, try the “Catechism of Modernism” as it breaks it down nicely.

      But anyway, I’ve read up on this issue, including from sympathetic authors who try to twist and spin the things Modernists taught, e.g. using clever ambiguities to make it seems like their version of immanence was acceptable and found in Augustine. Sound familiar? Oh and they also use phrases like “Ultramontanism.” I see you are perhaps familiar, unless you are one of these authors yourself?

      Tyrell was poisonous and needed to be taken down. Heresies and evil philosophies will permeate throughout the decades and centuries unless you stop them – Modernism was only half defeated as it went underground and subsequent Popes got soft, the rest of the 20th century demonstrates.

      Excessive so-called “witch hunts” and mistakes are common throughout the history of the Church even under Pius X, but to sympathize with old Tyrell the heretic?? No. His false doctrines, along with the other Modernists and neo-Modernists, have saturated Catholic schools leading souls to hell and spitting on the Glory of God.

      Oh yes, now look at everything.

      And St. Pius’ cause took 50 years unlike the neo-Saint John Paul II. And yes, I’ve read up on the people who opposed Pius X’s canonization.

    2. Correction to the the above: Pius X took 40 years, not 50 (of course).

    3. Don't see how you could say it was "hasty" - it took forty years, which is not exactly an unseemly rush to the blocks. There were, at any rate, three quite convincing miracles, back in the days when three were required. The fact that none of his immediate predecessors OR successors were canonized should also be telling.

      Certainly it is well to pray for George Tyrell, on the chance that he repented of his errors before he died - he would have a long while in purgatory. As for Pius X's Anti-Modernist's true that it had the effect of driving the modernists underground (to resurface later, especially among the liturgists and biblicists), but it's difficult to say what alternative he had.

  3. When I was a Trappist the abbot refused to celebrate St. Pius X memorial, which is not optional. Leftists hate St. Pius X because he could detect the stench of heresy under all guises.

  4. Atos, to me a traditionalist is someone who honestly critiques Vatican I and Vatican II, and has no truck with the so-called 'spirit' of those councils, which were used to implement all sorts of unhistorical ideas and policies. Pius X may have very well be a saintly man (I never met him), people become saints for the goodliness of their lives, not because they never make mistakes. Pius X, like Pius IX (who forced through the definition of papal infallibility), was a creature of his times and circumstances, as are you and I, and as such was subject to influences and prejudices that must surely have influenced his actions as pope.

    I don't really know what 'Modernism' is because Pius didn't seem able to define it himself. Calling it the 'synthesis of all heresies' seems an act of desperate frustration. 'I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.'

    It's the same today. So-called traditionalists (who, despite this moniker, have no trouble accepting the most extravagant of papal claims) seem to label as 'modernism' anything they don't particularly like. Some of those things undoubtedly are outside the pale. But Arianism we can define. Pelagianism likewise. What exactly is 'modernism'?

    Calling Tyrrell a heretic is a bit rich. Where exactly was he heretical? It's all a will o' the wisp.

    Now the shoe's on the other foot. We have popes who have presumed to meddle with the liturgy (I'm sorry but Pius X set that ball rolling), persecute the FMI, and want the SSPX to practically sign a loyalty oath (sound familiar?) to Vatican II.