Sixty years since the death of Pius XII


Pope Pius XII (1939-1958)

On October 9th, we marked sixty years since the death of Pope Pius XII. It means that we have labored under Modernism for these sixty years, and have watched with horror the  disintegration of everything that made our Faith beautiful: Catholic doctrine, good and holy priests, an abundance of devout and zealous religious brothers and nuns, Catholic schools, Catholic universities, Catholic seminaries teeming with holy seminarians aspiring to the priesthood, the traditional Latin Mass, traditional sacraments, the Legion of Decency, religious habits, priests in cassocks and Roman collars, magnificent churches, elaborate ceremonies, Gregorian chant and other beautiful church music, discipline,  orthodoxy, modest dress, good morals. I could go on. What I describe is the world of my childhood which, at the time, I took for granted, but which I loved and cherished.

This was the Catholic world as Pope Pius XII left it. It was a splendid and magnificent edifice in all respects.

I was too young to notice the changes which John XXIII was implementing. I do remember attending the Holy Week ceremonies, which had been revised in 1955 under the direction of the author of the New Mass, the Modernist and freemason Annibale Bugnini. I had never seen the traditional ceremonies, which, according to Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), are very ancient. Nonetheless I was always a little troubled by the Holy Week ceremonies, as they seemed to be out of character with the rest of the sacred liturgy. It was only years later that I discovered that these ceremonies, designed by the freemason, were “a bridge” (his words) to the ultimate reform of the liturgy which took place in the 1960’s and culminated with the horrid New Mass in 1969.

It is for this reason, seeing now these reforms in hindsight, that we take the traditional  rites of Holy Week. As Fr. Cekada says, “If you don’t want to cross to the other side (i.e., the New Mass), then why get on the bridge?”

I do remember, however, the first Sunday of Advent of 1964, in which the first changes of Vatican II appeared in the Mass. While these were tame by today’s standards, nonetheless I smelled the odor of Modernism in them. I remember walking home from Mass that day, thinking to myself, “There is something Protestant about the Mass.” It was about this time that I declared a personal war upon the reforms of Vatican II.

During the years that followed I strove, as nearly everyone did at the time, to see Vatican II in a positive light, and to try to make sense of it. There are still many who do the same now. When I was in the Modernist seminary, however, I saw what Vatican II was all about. I saw its deeply radical and corrupt nature. I saw that it was not merely a question of changing accidental forms in the Church, but a true revolution, doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and liturgical. I fought it as much as I could.

Even upon entering Ecône in 1971, however, I still entertained the fantasy that somehow Paul VI did not assent to all of the evils in the Church, and that it was the “bad bishops” who were doing all the harm.

What opened my eyes to Paul VI’s true nature was my reading of an essay by the Abbé  de Nantes, a French priest, known as the Liber Accusationis in Paulum Sextum (The Book of Accusation against Paul VI). This priest, in a carefully documented work, analyzed the background and teaching of Paul VI, and demonstrated without doubt that the man was a Modernist of the first rank. At this point I became a sedevacantist. It was 1973.

The Church since October 9th, 1958. The Modernists dynamited the idyllic world of Roman Catholicism which I described above. With consummate pride they decided that Catholicism could not survive the modern world unless it changed itself to fit the modern world. This is the fundamental principle of modernism, and all of its heresies flow therefrom.

The “operating system” — to borrow a word from computers — of the modern world is subjectivism, that is, the denial of even the possibility of objective truth. Something is not true unless it is true for you, that is, it conforms to your personal experiences.

When applied to dogma and morals, the effect is absolutely lethal. To conform the Catholic Church to subjectivist thinking is to inject a deadly serum into its veins. Hence what we have seen since 1958 is the gradual death of Catholicism. Orthodoxy, which is the assent of faith given to Catholic doctrine, is dead. To be Catholic today simply means that you are registered at the local Catholic Church. You can believe whatever you want, and be public about your heresy, and no one will reprimand you. Just think of an institution like Georgetown University, which is supposedly Catholic, or Loyola in Chicago. These are but two examples of a condition which exists in the entire once Catholic world.

What defines Catholicism is orthodoxy. The institutions of the Catholic Church, its hierarchy, its laws, its buildings, its schools, its universities, rest on a single foundation which is Catholic orthodoxy. If they should lose their orthodoxy they become meaningless institutions, Catholic in name only, and do the work of the devil.

Catholicism continues to exist in those who still profess the Catholic Faith, whether they are still in the Novus Ordo or not. What needs to happen is a schism, that is, the Catholics must separate from the Modernist heretics. They are presently living in the same house, and they must split apart.

The good points of Pope Pius XII’s reign. Pope Pius XII was a man of absolute Catholic orthodoxy, and understood his role as the protector of this sacred and essential characteristic of the Catholic Church.

He was a man who understood the exalted dignity of the papacy, and carried himself accordingly. Never was the papacy so respected as under Pope Pius XII. He was the picture of ecclesiastical dignity.

He issued a number of documents which very clearly expressed the Church’s teaching on many topics.

Among these were: Mystici Corporis, explaining the Mystical Body of Christ (1943); Mediator Dei, which gave the principles of the Church’s sacred liturgy, and warned against some modernist tendencies (1948); Humani Generis, which condemned in general the New Theology, and warned against modern errors and trends at the time (1950).

Also in 1950, he solemnly proclaimed the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In 1954 he proclaimed the Marian Year, in which he established the feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Pope Pius XII was severe against communism, excommunicating those who belonged to the party.

He also edified the faithful in his many radio messages, fully utilizing the media of the  time for the spreading of the holy gospel.

In short, the good of his reign is that he presided over a Church which was overall in good health, and through his piety, learning, and dignity, gained the admiration of many, both Catholics and non-Catholics.

The bad in the reign of Pope Pius XII. In 1930, when Pope Pius XI was searching for a new secretary of state to replace Cardinal Gasparri, a certain Cardinal Cerretti, who was being considered for the post, described the then Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII) as “indecisive and weak-kneed.” I think that this was an accurate observation of his character, and one which became a tragic flaw for him and the whole Catholic Church.


Annibale Bugnini, who was appointed as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. He used this position to insert into the sacred liturgy, even in the reign of Pope Pius XII and with his approval, certain rites which would later be used in the Novus Ordo. Even the Motu Proprio adherents have recognized the imprudence of using these reformed rites  which merely served as a bridge — Bugnini’s own words — to the Novus Ordo.

In other words, although Cardinal Pacelli had excellent intentions and sterling orthodoxy, it was difficult for him to turn these wonderful qualities into action.

In reading about him, I have also noticed that he had an exaggerated respect, even awe, for scholarship and physical science. While these things certainly should be taken seriously, we need to exercise a caution concerning them in modern times, owing to the extreme anti-Catholic prejudices of many scholars and scientists. He probably acquired this excessive admiration for scholarship and science at the Sapienza University in Rome, a once glorious institution under papal Rome that had been confiscated and taken over by the atheist and masonic Italian government after 1870. In any case, the fact that he was easily impressed by scholarship and science left him prey to the Modernist “scholars” and “scientists” who were circulating in the Church.

The last thing that the Church needed in 1939, the year of Cardinal Pacelli’s election to the papacy, was a weak and indecisive pope who was naive regarding the plots of the Modernists. During the reign of Saint Pius X (1903-1914), the Modernists merely submerged, only to appear later during the reign of Benedict XV (1914- 1922) and Pius XI (1922-1939). They used an entirely new instrument to spread their wicked heresy: the sacred liturgy. They hijacked the solidly Catholic liturgical movement started by Dom Guéranger and others in the nineteenth century. They wanted to make it a vehicle of ecumenism, which is the direct product of Modernism. Prominent in this Modernist liturgical movement were Pius Parsch, Dom Beauduin, Gerard Ellard, Annibale Bugnini, and many minor authors of books and pamphlets promoting the same agenda.

The Modernists also resurfaced in the area of Sacred Scripture. Cardinal Bea, who was the confessor of Pius XII, was prominent among these. There were many others. Biblical Modernism soared under the reign of Pius XII.

Finally, there was the New Theology, which was a dogmatic revival of Modernism. Like the old Modernists, they detested Saint Thomas and with him the traditional theology and philosophy, and adapted Catholic theology to modern philosophical systems. The result was serious error and even heresy. Prominent among these neo-Modernists were Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI), Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, Bernard Häring, Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and many others. These theologians were freely circulating and writing under the reign of Pope Pius XII, and although some received official warnings from the Holy Office, they managed to survive the reign unharmed. Under Saint Pius X they would have been excommunicated and defrocked.

What the Church needed in 1939, after three decades of Modernism on the rise, was another Saint Pius X, someone who would repress the heresy with severity.

All these things having been said, let us now look at the bad aspects of Pius XII’s reign:

• The appointment of abominable bishops. The principal Modernist bishops of Vatican II were appointed by Pius XII: König, Döpfner, Suenens, Lercaro, Montini (later Paul VI), Wojtyla (later John Paul II), Cushing, Alfrink, Frings. These were prime the Council. How many more Modernist bishops were appointed whose names escape us? It should also be pointed out that Pius XII raised a known Modernist to the cardinalate, Angelo Roncalli, and made him the Patriarch of Venice, thereby giving him a direct line to the papacy. He also made Montini, also a known Modernist, the archbishop of Milan, and therefore papabile.

• Damage to the Liturgy. In 1948, Pope Pius XII established the Commission for Liturgical Reform, and appointed none other than Annibale Bugnini as its Secretary, the person directly in charge of it. He was a known liturgical Modernist at the time. Before long this freemason produced the reform of the Holy Week rites, promulgated in 1955 by Pope Pius XII. It contained many elements which would be later carried over into the New Mass, which was also authored by the same Bugnini, with the help of six Protestant ministers. Other changes to the Mass, the liturgical calendar, and the breviary were made in 1955, 1957, and 1958. These were in the direction of the ultimate liturgical reform under Paul VI.

• The spread of Modernism into the Roman seminaries. The Roman seminaries were the spawning ground for future bishops, and these seminaries became infected, right under Pius XII’s nose, with Modernism of all types. While no Modernist himself, Pope Pius XII nevertheless was weak and negligent in regard to the repression of Modernism, and thereby contributed much to the present destruction which we are now witnessing.

In summary, Pius XII’s reign was running on the momentum of the orthodoxy and vigor given to it by previous popes. By opening the door to Modernists in the episcopacy, the Curia, and seminaries, he gave them a free pass to destroy Catholicism in the Second Vatican Council.

Under Saint Pius X, the Modernist rats submerged into the bilge water of the Catholic ship.

After his death, they gradually made their way up to the many lower decks of this same ship, until finally they were scurrying all over the main deck under Pope Pius XII. He did little to stop this, but did much, through soft- ness, weakness, and negligence, to foster it. After his death, with the accession of John XXIII, the Modernist rats were now at the rudder and the wheel. The rest is history.


The canonization of Saint Pius X in 1954

Pope Pius XII’s greatest act. Although there is much negative about Pope Pius XII’s reign, he nevertheless under took something very courageous in 1954: the canonization of Saint Pius X. This great pope was known to Modernists as a severe oppressor. Many Modernists were still alive, such as Roncalli, who “suffered” under him. They came in, one after the other, to the Congregation responsible for the canonization, and complained of the “horrors” of Pope Pius X’s reign. But Pope Pius XII ignored them, and dispensed the fifty-year rule for canonizations, and boldly raised the great anti-Modernist to the altar. It was as if he was saying: “I am not strong enough to stop Modernism, but now you have a saint who did.” It gave approval to the entire anti-Modernist campaign of Saint Pius X, for which his pontificate is most remembered.


No wonder that, when questioned by an atheist French journalist about Saint Pius X, John XXIII responded “He’s no saint!”