Monday, September 7, 2009

Antipope Pius XI

It has been made exceptionally clear by now that Giacomo della Chiesa, Benedict XV, was a heretical antipope, who had worked assiduously for the destruction of dogma, and who was also schismatic for subjecting himself to Antipope Leo XIII, who was never pope. Now it is false to recognize an adherent to a manifestly false religious leader as Catholic; such a person would in fact be objectively schismatic and outside of the Catholic Church. For this reason alone, Ambrogio Ratti was not a Catholic, and his so-called 'elevation' to the pontificate was nothing more than another antipapacy, since he never withdrew, nor publicly abjured, from his communion with antipopes Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV.

But did he follow along with Benedict XV by accident, and simply get pulled along for an unfortunate and schismatic ride? Or is there evidence of foul play from this HIGHLY educated and erudite master of theology and language?

Ratti, Antipope Pius XI (11) denied the dogma that non-Catholics do not have God as their Father, which was defined at the Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX (9).

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9, ex cathedra: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.  Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

Antipope Pius XI, Caritate Christi Compulsi, #19, May 3, 1932: "[...] And it is prayer precisely, that, according to the Apostle, will bring the gift of peace; prayer that is addressed to the Heavenly Father who is the Father of all men; prayer that is the common expression of family feelings, of that great family which extends beyond the boundaries of any country and continent."

Antipope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, #34, Mar. 19, 1937: "[...] Thus authority is reconciled with liberty, the dignity of the individual with that of the State, the human personality of the subject with the divine delegation of the superior; and in this way a balance is struck between the due dependence and well-ordered love of a man for himself, his family and country, and his love of other families and other peoples, founded on the love of God, the Father of all, their first principle and last end."


Additionally to the above heresy, Antipope Pius XI had many other scandalous, subversive or erroneous teachings and public actions:

Antipope Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem (On St. Thomas Aquinas), 1923, #17: “There can be no doubt that Aquinas raised Theology to the highest eminence, for his knowledge of divine things was absolutely perfect…”

Antipope Pius XI taught that St. Thomas Aquinas was perfect in his theology (which can only mean without error, lest we redefine perfect to mean something less than perfect) and that he gave INFALLIBLE rules and precepts, despite that his doctrine contained clear errors against a subsequent definition of Extraordinary Magisterium, specifically the Immaculate Conception. The purpose of mentioning this is not to tear down St. Thomas. On the contrary, St. Thomas was a Catholic genius, but the point is that he was NOT perfect; he was NOT INFALLIBLE. It would seem to be a very careless statement on behalf of a man claiming to be pope to attribute a quality to St. Thomas that belongs only God and those with whom He is pleased to share it (i.e. St. Peter and his legitimate successors).


In 1929 Antipope Pius XI signed a Concordat and the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini and called him "the man sent by Providence," and there is subtle evidence of a Masonic agenda in his announcement of the event.

Antipope Pius XI, Quinquagesimo Ante, 1929, #10: "...And all Catholics, whether Italians or foreigners, realized that a new era and a new order were about to rise."

In 1930, Antipope Pius XI made a statement in favour of eugenics!

Antipope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930, #66: “What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.”

In this frightening and subtle paragraph of Casti Connubii, Pius XI tells us, in rather vague terms, that we must accept eugenics, but does not extend his assertion to define exactly what he considers to be lawful in this regard. This is a dangerous teaching that throws confusion, rather than edification onto an already tenuous issue, one which would be later perverted even further by Antipope Pius XII.

Let us also use St. Thomas, who Pius XI believes was perfect in regard to theology, to present a teaching where he does indeed speak the mind of the Church in opposing any notion of eugenics:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Supplement, Q. 64, Art.1, Reply to Objection 4. "Leprosy voids a betrothal but not a marriage. Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband. But she is not bound to cohabit with him, because she is not so liable to infection from marital intercourse as from continual cohabitation. And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all."

In the "encyclical" Ecclesiam Dei, Pius XI tried to sneak into men's minds the notion that a person can be a saint and at the same time worship with schismatics.

Finally, the political maneuvering effected by Pius XI during the Cristero War was probably the most abominable decision ever made by a person claiming to be pope, hardly seems excusable even if it were an accident. The people in Mexico were fighting for the what they held to be the Catholic Church (most likely unaware of the Modernist heretical takeover) against the persecuting Freemasonic communist government, which was pillaging churches and destroying everything that was called Catholic.

The formal rebellion began on January 1, 1927 with a manifesto sent by Garza on New Year's Day, titled A la Nación (To the Nation). This declared that "the hour of battle has sounded" and "the hour of victory belongs to God". With the declaration, the state of Jalisco, which had seemed to be quiet since the Guadalajara church uprising, exploded. Bands of rebels moving in the "Los Altos" region northeast of Guadalajara began seizing villages, often armed with only ancient muskets and clubs. The Cristeros' battle cry was ¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe! ("Long live Christ the King! Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!").

The rebels were an unusual army in that they had no logistical supplies, and relied heavily on raids to towns, trains and ranches in order to supply themselves with money, horses, ammunition and food. The Calles government did not take the threat very seriously at first. The rebels did well against the agraristas (a rural militia recruited throughout Mexico) and the Social Defense forces (local militia), but were always defeated by the federal troops who guarded the important cities. At this time, the federal army numbered 79,759 men. When Jalisco federal commander General Jesús Ferreira moved on the rebels, he calmly stated that "it will be less a campaign than a hunt."

However, these rebels, who had had no previous military experience for the most part, planned their battles well. The most successful rebel leaders were Jesús Degollado (a pharmacist), Victoriano Ramírez (a ranch hand), and two priests, Aristeo Pedroza and José Reyes Vega. At least five priests took up arms, while many more supported them in various ways. Recent scholarship suggests that for many Cristeros, religious motivations for rebellion were reinforced by other political and material concerns. Participants in the uprising often came from rural communities that had suffered from the government's land reform policies since 1920, or otherwise felt threatened by recent political and economic changes.

To make a long story short, the Cristeros were nearly defeated, but surged back to life and practically toppled the Freemasonic government that controlled Mexico. Finally, the Cristeros had them on the ropes, they had won the war, and they thought they were about to restore Mexico to Christ... And what did Pius XI do? He told them to drop their weapons and they ended up getting slaughtered.  Clearly this man was working for Satan.



What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

No comments:

Post a Comment