Pius XII: Second of the Great Reformers

(The first was Pius X)

AKA Catholic by Louie Verrecchio often has very insightful articles, and is one of the best ways to keep abreast of the doings of the Seat of the Antichrist- er- the Vatican. But even Louie occasionally gets disorientated by the smoke of apostasy and often fails to locate the pre-Vatican II sources of the present demise.

He is not the only one. For many, Pius XII is THE GREAT BLIND SPOT. I know SSPX Priests who practically worship the ground this man trod upon. They look upon Pius XII as a great saint who kept Holy Mother Church afloat while all the world around him was slipping into, and seething with, spiritual morass.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pope Pius XII utterly failed to address the maelstrom that was swirling right beneath a very thin veneer of Catholicity that kept those pious Italian grandmothers who “rattled their beads” every Sunday morning content that Holy Mother Church was essentially immovable even as the world was going to Hell in a handbasket. They came to church week after wee greeted by the bells and smells of the Apostolic Rite restored by the most Holy Council of Trent that had been intact since as far back as they could remember- and many of them could remember quite a ways.

And so long as they stayed in the parishes of their youth, all was well. The priests were orthodox, the congregation was pious and kept a respectful silence in the presence Our Lord Jesus Christ in the tabernacle. Women and men were dressed in a modesty that was enforced from the pulpit, by the ushers, and at the Communion rail. And conversation, when it did occur, had nary a discouraging word. And at school the grandchildren memorized the same venerable catechisms that had nourished their Faith from tenderest years.

But if they would ventured into the seminaries or the halls of higher learning, they would have discovered a very different scene. Here, the talk was of accommodation to the “modern world”. The liturgy was too stuffy for the liberated man of the modern era. And the language of scripture way too archaic. After all, the Holy Bible did not mention an earth whizzing around the sun, nor that it had all begun with a Big Bang, nor that man was capable of transforming Creation into a temple and expression of his magnificent science. No, the Bible merely harangued men about their propensity to sin, need of redemption, and woeful inadequacy bereft of sanctifying grace and the Apostolic doctrines to battle what St Paul called “the Powers and Principalities from on High”. But with the writings of Pius XII, new winds were blowing. While they were worried about a new upsurge in Traditional piety started by some shepherds in Portugal and old crones promoting visions from Heaven, they were soothed by a Pius who, among other things, promoted Biblical exegesis in the light of modern archaeology and did not really see a problem with an earth and heavens billions of years old.

These men also applauded the following words from Pius’ recent encyclical Mediator Dei, which were about to rock grandma’s world to the core, and shatter the relative tranquility of the sanctuary since the day when Quo Primum thundered from the pen of Pius V: “From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right [of defining doctrine] in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow — keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact — to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.” (Paragraph 49)

‘Tis sad that many cannot see the modernist drivel here, and that is because they have been enchanted with the diabolical smoke of Vatican I- that is not a misprint: Vatican I. For the unfortunate definition of “Papal Infallibility” while essentially orthodox, was very poorly couched in good language, and even more poorly explained to the flock. As a result the Roman Pontiff started to take on the appearance of a demigod, and the bishops were timorous to restrain and admonish their superior as St Paul had done when Peter had consented to the Judaizers of apostolic times. Meanwhile the faithful were accustomed to seeing in every utterance of the pope the word of God itself, and every jot and tittle of legislation as being from on high. Perish the thought of any doubt or question!

Pius XII in the aforementioned quote acts as though the most sacred liturgy was solely the work of the “ecclesiastical hierarchy” (read “the pope and his advisors”). To say the least, this statement is disingenuous, if not dishonest. Rather, from time immemorial it has been the Holy Ghost Who has been the Guardian and Inspiration for “new splendor and beauty” in the liturgy. In the days of the Church Fathers, new prayers were added to the Mass and other Sacramental Rites, and customs not opportune to worship slowly withered away, in the same imperceptible manner that the classical Latin and Greek gradually became a “dead languages” as the classical Hebrew had become in Our Lord’s time. Pius II rightfully talked of “archaism”- the desire to restore defunct liturgical practices, such as the “offertory procession” which may or may not (who knows?) have been the universal practice of the early church.

But this talk of the ability of the hierarchy “to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting” is in desperate need of precision and clarification. Alas, examples of this practice are lacking- perhaps, dare I say, because they do not exist. Most certainly, the popes of the past have acted most vigilantly and energetically when heresiarchs have had the audacity to taint the liturgy with pernicious errors, or introduce practices which can tend to heresy, such as the reception of Holy Communion by the Faithful under both Species. But this idea that practices could just creep into the most sublime liturgy, especially the Most Holy and August Sacrifice of the Mass, implies that the Holy Ghost does not always have His watchful Eye upon the doings of that Church founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but rather takes leave from time to time, perhaps for a vacation in the Swiss Alps, or to observe the dynasty of China.

Another troubling phrase is this idea of “add(ing) what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage”. Is it implied here that a time existed when the liturgy LACKED sufficient honor to the Majesty of God, or that generations of Faithful did not have the “greater advantage” of being instructed and edified by the Sacrifice of the Mass? By what metric does the “ecclesiastical hierarchy” determine how the Apostolic liturgy has somehow become deficient as regards the flock? Do they take surveys of the pastors from time to time? Do the bishops have to report a bevy of statistics concerning baptisms versus defections an a semiannual basis? Or are publications gleaned for heterodoxy and mounting examples made a cause for concern?

But seriously, what is of moment here, and seemingly altogether forgotten by Pius, is that the liturgy is ultimately the worship of God, “with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration”, and Our Lord Jesus Christ, “yesterday, and today; and the same for ever”. What can be seen here is a subtle, but perceptible shift, from the focus being on God and the things of Heaven to the world of men. The anthropocentric world of the Renaissance is creeping into the sanctuary, to the exclusion of the timelessness and utter immovability of eternity. Instead, as man changes and “progresses” (And God only knows towards what, because even the progressives have failed to give an adequate road map or description of the final destination, the exclamations of luminaries like Teilhard de Chardin notwithstanding.) the liturgy must “progress” with him, apparently. One should see here the bridge from the timelessness and stability of the reforms of the Council of Trent and the restoration of the pristine liturgy bequeathed to Holy Mother Church by the Apostles to the “aggiornamento” of Good Pope John.

Twas under Pius XII that the “reforms” of the Great Architect Annibale Bugnini began. The first victims were the days of Holy Week, most notably Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. And though these “reforms” have all the hallmarks of the coming work post Vatican II, namely, prayers in the vernacular, “participation” of the laity, and truncation of prayers and ceremonies, nevertheless, they are swallowed as authentic works of the magisterium because, well, after all, it was Pius XII…