Saturday, March 9, 2013

The Warning of Eugenio Pacelli 1933 to the Future Church

In my opinion, Pope Pius XII is one of the most underrated Popes of the modern age. Little is mentioned of him in Catholic circles unless it is to ignorantly criticize his efforts during the Second World War. Yet, he displayed heroic virtue in the face of the most inhumane circumstances. As we know, as Pope he did all that he could to stem the tide of the modernist theologians. Under his pontificate, loose canons like Yves Congar were kept in check, and he penned some of the most prophetic encyclicals such as Humani Generis. Pius XII was a very Marian Pope, and as we know he picked a most crucial time to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption. He took seriously the warnings of Fatima, which seem to also have been long forgotten in our time. Before he was ever Pope, it is reported that he made his concerns for the future of the Church known to a close friend of his, Count Enrico Galeazzi. Below are his reported prophetic words concerning Fatima, and the future of the Church. People in todays Church have been too long led astray by modern theologies, false liturgical renewal, and the desire to update the Church, forgetting about her glorious past. We live in a Church where the majority of people have no idea that the Church existed before the 1960s. Perhaps the newly elected Pope will focus more on what his forgotten predecessors such as Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII warned, concerning the future of the Church? We can only hope that this is the case, because the below prophetic comment made by Pacelli in 1933, is looking to be a grim reality.

I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the modification of the Faith, liturgy, theology, and soul of the Church would represent.
I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.
(Georges Roche & Philippe Saint Germain, Pie XII devant l'Histoire, Paris: Robert Lafont, 1972)


Alan Aversa said...

"…affirm her past…"

The Maestro said...

I thought it was Pius X who wrote Pascendi... Pius XII wrote Humani Generis, which is similar to Pascendi. :)

Matthew Bellisario said...

You would be correct. I got my encyclicals messed up! I'll correct it! Thanks.

Nick said...

It could be said that Humani Generis opened the door too much for allowing of "theistic evolution," which is arguably one of the leading problems plaguing the Church today. The notion of evolution has the effect of downplaying God's Providence and dehumanizing the human person. I don't think the Church fought evolution strongly enough during the last 150 years or so, and as a result it's negatively impacted all aspects of the Catholic faith.

The more philosophically Thomist one is, the more they'll see the philosophical problems with evolution. For example, Dr Lawrence Feingold is a Thomistic professor and has said evolution does not match up with who we are as humans.

And another thing, whatever the Third Secret of Fatima contained, it was scary enough that Pius XI and Pius XII were not able to consecrate Russia properly, which in turn led to the "Errors of Russia" gaining full steam over the world.

I'm not here to knock these great men of God though.

Matthew Bellisario said...

When reading Pius XII's thoughts on evolution, it seems to me that it is quite clear that he did not support a Darwinian theory of evolution. He was clear that Adam and Eve were created by God immediately, and that they were real human beings who brought about original sin. I think many have taken him out of context in regard to many things such as evolution and liturgical "renewal."

He wrote,
If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.


When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, ...

Nick said...

I'm not saying that Pius XII supported evolution, especially not darwinian, but in paragraph 36 of HG he says:

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

He permits under controlled/limited parameters theologians to look into the plausibility of Adam's body being evolved from a pre-human form. So I don't think he really shut the door like he should have, especially considering JPII and B16 have both made random public opinions to the effect of taking evolution as a given.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Well as we know the last official statement on evolution by the Church was the encyclical by Pius XII in which he says that evolution was not fully proven in the sciences, "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences..." As we know that has not changed.

I am not really worried as to the theory of evolution so much as I am about modernism is general, which is a philosophical/theological problem. Until we can restore the Thomistic/scholastic foundation as a whole it is of little use to try and cherry pick leaves off of the weed here and there. Modernism must be pulled out at the root, not by pulling leaves off one at a time.

croixmom said...

Wow. His prophesies are chilling.

I'm still hanging to trust in our Lord. I certainly think the storm is going to get a whole lot worse before the seas calm.

Jamey said...

Some perspective is needed regarding Pius XII and evolution - scientists at the time were pushing various "finds" as proof of evolution being true - such as Piltdown Man. If I remember correctly Pius XII said the communists would be happy about these discoveries that were later proven false but which gave evolution so much momentum. Pius in his encyclical declared that the soul didn't evolve.