| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 566 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 561 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| The Attitude of the Future Paul VI Toward the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-24-2026, 10:02 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
 |
The Attitude of the Future Paul VI Toward the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII
Jean Madiran, in Itinéraires no. 128, December 1968, pp. 154–159.
Source: La Revue Item / Abbé Paul Aulagnier [AI translation] / October 2013
Here is Jean Madiran's article on the intellectual attitude of Msgr. Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, who was substitute of the Secretariat of State at the time of the publication by Pius XII, in 1950, of his encyclical Humani Generis condemning modern errors. And they would also like to canonize Paul VI?
"…Since we are speaking of inattention to texts and errors of fact, I may well say that I had stumbled over page 27 of Jean Guitton's book (Dialogues avec Paul VI, vol. 2) concerning the encyclical Humani Generis of 1950. I was so immediately shaken by it that I reopened the encyclical — which is always a grace, a blessing, a light — and for that I thank Jean Guitton, who was its occasional cause.
On page 27 we are at the date of September 8, 1950. The encyclical is not yet a month old: it is dated August 12. It is entirely fresh in the minds of those who have just read it, who have begun to study it. Yet on that date, on that page, transcribing the 'notes he had written that very evening' of September 8, Jean Guitton reports the following remark:
Quote:'You have no doubt yourselves noticed the nuances inscribed in this pontifical text. For example, the Encyclical never speaks of ERRORS (errores). It speaks only of OPINIONS (opiniones). This indicates that the Holy See aims to condemn not errors properly so called, but modes of thought that could lead to errors but which in themselves remain respectable.'
The error of fact is complete; the inattention to the invoked text is total; and point by point:
1. 'The Encyclical never speaks of errors (errores).'
The word 'errors' appears from the very first line of the French translation to render the Latin term aberratio, which is not error, but which is no less serious — on the contrary. We find aberrationem again at the beginning of the second paragraph.
In §6, there is mention of a novae aberranti philosophiae, a new aberrant philosophy.
In §7, of a historicism that subverts veritatis legisque absolutae fundamenta, that is, that 'undermines at its foundation all truth and all absolute law': would this be a mere 'opinion,' and no error at all?
In §10, we find erroribus and errorem, warning us that among our philosophers and theologians there are those who 'strive to escape the direction of the Magisterium and fall imperceptibly and unwittingly into the danger of abandoning even divinely revealed truth and of leading others into error.'
In §18, it is emphasized that what the encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs explain 'is neglected by some in a habitual and premeditated manner.'
Speaking of the assertions against which the first eighteen paragraphs are directed, §19 declares: 'All these sayings may appear very clever; error, however, is not absent from them' (the Latin does not say error or errores, it says fallacia, which is equivalent, or rather even more serious).
In §22, there is mention of Catholic teachers who 'renew the theory already condemned several times…'
In §37, the encyclical repeats that it is pointing out manifest errors and dangers of error: manifestos errores errorisque pericula — not only, therefore, dangers of error, but indeed MANIFEST ERRORS.
§58 repeats: these errors, 'today spread openly or in secret' (iis erroribus).
Whether one consults the authentic Latin text or the French translation, it is incredible that one could have advanced such a proposition: 'The encyclical never speaks of errors (errores).' It speaks of them constantly. When it does not say errores, it says aberrationes and it says fallacia.
2. 'The Encyclical speaks only of opinions (opiniones).'
The term 'opinions' does indeed appear in the title: 'de Nonnullis falsis opinionibus quae catholicae doctrinae fundamenta subruere minantur': 'On certain false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.' It is not a question, therefore, of mere 'opinions'; the encyclical does not speak 'only of opinions' — it speaks of false opinions. It is difficult to see what difference one could perceive between 'a false opinion' and an error, when the opinions in question are false opinions that threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.
It is not true, as we have seen, that the encyclical never uses the term errores: it uses it frequently. It is true that it also uses the terms opiniones and opinationes, but in the same sense as errores: beyond the title, this is clear from §58, where 'these new opinions' (novas eiusdem opinationes) and 'these errors' (iis erroribus) are used alternately not to designate two different kinds of things, but as two expressions having in context the same extension and the same comprehension.
3. 'The Holy See aims to condemn not errors properly so called, but modes of thought that could lead to errors.'
A) Here, in order, are the 'modes of thought' explicitly designated in the encyclical:- monist and pantheist theory (§5)
- the dialectical materialism of the communists (ibid.)
- immanentism, pragmatism, existentialism (§6)
- a false historicism (§7); etc., etc.
It is singularly strange to see in these doctrines 'not errors properly so called, but modes of thought that could lead to errors'…
B) Moreover, the encyclical explicitly declares that it is targeting not thoughts that could lead to errors, but novelties that have already produced, in almost all parts of theology, poisoned fruits (§25: ac mirum non est hujusmodi novitates, ad omnes fere theologiae partes quod attinet, jam venenosos peperisse fructus). Poisoned fruits! Already produced! In almost all parts of theology!
In §16 it was said: 'These attempts not only lead to what is called dogmatic relativism, but already really contain it' (non tantum ducere…sed illum iam reapse continere).
Thus at least twice, the text of the encyclical, in the most explicit and precise manner, takes care to prevent and rule out the interpretation which would claim that it targets 'not errors properly so called, but modes of thought that COULD LEAD TO errors.' Nevertheless, this interpretation was put forward less than a month after its publication.
It is thus indeed, as we have just seen, point by point and word by word, that the remarks of September 8, 1950, reported on page 27 of Jean Guitton, contradict explicit affirmations of the encyclical Humani Generis.
On the preceding page, Jean Guitton had reported his own opinion: 'The encyclical needs an interpretation.' That is possible — at least in the sense that all reading is interpretive. To interpret means, for example, to seek what meaning to give to the terms errores, aberrationes, fallacia contained in the text. But to begin by saying, and apparently by believing, that these terms are not in the text, and that their absence is a characteristic of the highest importance, which must govern the entire reading of the document and which indicates its general intention — that is no longer an interpretation. It is not even a false interpretation. It is, short of any interpretation, the negation of the object, the refusal of the text to be interpreted, replaced by a gratuitous reverie upon which one constructs considerations of a decisive and imperative appearance, but which hang in the air.
Thus reflection, instead of scrutinizing what is, becomes purely 'poetic,' in the Greek sense understood by Marcel de Corte, and begins to hover in an arbitrariness which, discouraging the intellectual communications effected by means of articulate language, leaves in the end, necessarily, nothing subsisting between men but relations of force.
You know the story of the cauldron:- 'Have you not yet returned my new cauldron?'
- 'You never lent me one. And it was not new. And I have already returned it to you.'
Catholic thought, among a growing number of its most highly eminent representatives (N.B. Jean Madiran has in view here Msgr. Montini, substitute of the Secretariat of State), has thus arrived at the hour of the cauldron.
I do not know whether in 1967, when the proofs of page 27 were being re-read, anyone had the simple curiosity to reopen the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII; I do not know whether the arbitrary contradiction made against it by private whisper in 1950, and publicly renewed in 1967, was deliberately and knowingly intended. I note the facts.
Compared to the present state of the world and of the Church, the encyclical of Pius XII is as timely as the answer of Jesus to Saint Jude. But we are led to believe that Jesus did not answer; and that 'the manifest errors' noted in 1950 were not truly errors.
And so this generation of men sinks into anguish and into night.
|
|
|
| Catholic bishop of Fresno appears to ‘co-consecrate’ Episcopalian ‘bishop’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-24-2026, 09:45 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Catholic bishop of Fresno appears to ‘co-consecrate’ Episcopalian ‘bishop’ in violation of canon law
The 1983 Code of Canon Law makes clear that an attempt to administer an invalid ‘sacrament’ of a heretical church is illicit.
![[Image: shutterstock_1343328677.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/shutterstock_1343328677.jpg)
Signage of the Episcopal Church
Cineberg/Shutterstock
Apr 23, 2026
FRESNO, California (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Fresno recently participated in the “ordination” of an Episcopalian “bishop” in California in violation of canon law.
Bishop Joseph Vincent Brennan of Fresno was seen extending his hands and joining in an Anglican consecration prayer along with Anglican-Episcopal “clerics,” including women, in a ceremony intended to ordain a bishop at St. James Episcopal Cathedral in Fresno, California, on April 18.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law makes clear that such an attempt to administer a “sacrament,” which in the case of Episcopal Holy Orders is recognized as invalid by the Catholic Church, is illicit.
“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone,” the newer code states (Canon 844 §1).
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, founded on perennial Catholic teaching as expressed in the Councils of the Church, states that “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred (rites) of non-Catholics” (Canon 1258 §1).
Such an action is seen by the Church as an endorsement of heresy, itself a grave danger to souls, which is why the Council of Laodicea declared that “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics,” and the Council of Carthage stated that one who prays or sings psalms with heretics will be excommunicated.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law further explains that whoever “willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy … is suspected of heresy” (Canon 2316).
While the Anglican Church of its origin is already heretical, the U.S. Episcopal Church has become wildly heretical even in comparison to its English roots. The church supports a so-called “right” to legal abortion; it accepts homosexuality, and, in 2015, its bishops gave the green light for clergy to conduct homosexual “weddings”; and, in 2022, the church issued a blanket endorsement of so-called “gender-affirming care” at any age.
The apparent endorsement of a false, heretical religion such as the Episcopal or Anglican Church is not an isolated incident confined to the Diocese of Fresno but a phenomenon demonstrated even at the highest level of the Catholic Church.
For example, last month, Pope Leo XIV issued a congratulatory letter to Sarah Mullally – the first woman ever appointed “archbishop of Canterbury” and a vocal supporter of abortion and the LGBT agenda. In the letter, Leo praises Mullally’s “weighty” responsibilities and explicitly invokes the Blessed Virgin Mary as a source of “inspiration” for her new role.
The March 20 message, published on the Vatican website, made no reference whatsoever to the Catholic Church’s perennial teaching that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” (Apostolicae Curae, 1896), that the ordination of women is impossible and contrary to the will of Christ, or to Mullally’s own public record of promoting grave moral evils of abortion and homosexual acts.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Leo XIV celebrates Francis’ ‘birth into heaven.’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-23-2026, 11:04 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- Replies (1)
|
|
They themselves always cite Vatican II upon which they stand, as the foundation of their words and actions...
Pope Leo XIV celebrates Francis’ ‘birth into heaven.’ Will he canonize him?
Marking the first anniversary of Pope Francis' death, Leo XIV praised his predecessor as a ‘devoted shepherd’ who upheld the ‘legacy of the Second Vatican Council.’
![[Image: pf-canada-e1745486788544.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pf-canada-e1745486788544.jpg)
Pope Francis arrives at Commonwealth Stadium to give an open-air mass on July 26, 2022 in Edmonton, Canada.
Cole Burston/Getty Images
Apr 22, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [emphasis mine]) — While celebrating Pope Francis’ “birth into heaven” on the first-year anniversary of his death, Pope Leo XIV said his predecessor took up the legacy of the Second Vatican Council.
In a message delivered by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re at the Papal Basilica of St. Mary Major, Leo honored Francis yesterday as a “devoted shepherd,” saying that he, “in continuity with his predecessors, took up the legacy of the Second Vatican Council,” Vatican News reported.
Leo’s remarks were given on the first year anniversary of Francis’ death, a day which Leo called Francis’ “birth into heaven,” in the assumption not only that Francis was headed toward heaven, but that he went straight there as a saint. This assumption contradicts Catholic tradition by which, for the good of the deceased, one prays for their souls in the hope of salvation and for deliverance from purgatory.
The assumption that Pope Francis was immediately welcomed into heaven as a saint is also at odds with his legacy of sowing confusion and error by making statements and issuing documents that contradicted perennial Catholic Church teaching, as has been documented in a recently published book.
In his commemoration of Francis, Leo suggested, remarkably, that his pontificate marked a turning point in the Church.
He said Francis recognized that he acted as pope “at a time that has marked – and continues to mark – a change of era, a change of which he was fully aware, offering all of us a courageous witness that represents a significant patrimony for the Church.”
By all indications, Leo appears to embrace the “change of era” marked by Francis’ pontificate. He has praised one of his most controversial – and heterodox – documents, Amoris Laetitia, which suggested Holy Communion may be given to divorced and “remarried” Catholics who are living in grave sin, itself a grave offense that violates Catholic teaching.
Leo has also endorsed Francis’ idea that there is an “infinite human dignity,” when he authorized a study by the International Theological Commission published in February.
Various clerics, and Leo’s own brother, have affirmed that he desires to continue that path of Francis. Vatican Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said that “Pope Leo has expressed in various ways the need to continue to receive the magisterium of Francis.”
Leo himself has explicitly and repeatedly positioned himself as the inheritor of Francis’s program, stressing continuity on synodality, women’s roles in the Church, ecumenism, curial reform, and liturgical disputes. He stated in a September interview, “I hope to continue in the footsteps of Francis, including in appointing women to some leadership roles at different levels in the Church’s life.”
Leo has also actively championed the Second Vatican Council, sharing his affinity for it with Francis, who said his spirituality comes directly from Vatican II. Leo announced in January that he would be beginning a catechesis series to “closely” study Vatican II, which many priests and scholars have affirmed to be in need of correction.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidprince.com%2Fw...401b9b53d6]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidprince.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fpreach-christ.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c3b22a67c481a0e349e8902d4e2b374e21e38d2c07bb834aacb8e5401b9b53d6)
