Sunday, September 13, 2009

Antipope Pius XII, the Judeo Freemason

Antipope Pius XII, in addition to never having publicly abjured from his schismatic communion with the heretical antipopes Benedict XV, Pius X and Leo XIII, also taught errors and heresies of his own in addition to 'teaching' which were also tinted with much Freemasonic colouring.

Antipope Pius XII using the infamous 'devil horns' Freemasonic hand signal


On heretics and schismatics being united to the Church

Antipope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 1939, #16: “Nor can We pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on Us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to Us in love for the Person of Christ or in belief in God. We wish to express Our gratitude to them all. We entrust them one and all to the protection and to the guidance of the Lord and We assure them solemnly that one thought only fills Our mind: to imitate the example of the Good Shepherd in order to bring true happiness to all men: "that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly" (Saint John x. 10)…”

Rather than telling heretics and schismatics, who are outside the Church, that they need to convert and be saved, he describes them as outside of the VISIBLE body of the Church and even says they are united to the Church, no doubt because he wants Catholics to believe that these heretics and schismatics can be united to the soul of the Church. This is blatant disobedience to the following decrees of Holy Church:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics..."

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, Canon 11, AD 553, ex cathedra: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.”

Antipope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 1939, #42: “In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times.”

All mankind is not united, but only those who have been brought into the Catholic Church by baptism.

Antipope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 1939, #45: “The Church hails with joy and follows with her maternal blessing every method of guidance and care which aims at a wise and orderly evolution of particular forces and tendencies having their origin in the individual character of each race, provided that they are not opposed to the duties incumbent on men from their unity of origin and common destiny.”

Not only is this quote vague, but particularly disturbing, since it seems to be a shout out to the Modernists who were pushing for 'church' reform, and retrospectively seems to have foretold of the current amalgamation we are seeing take place between the Vatican II religion and others.


On moral relativism

Antipope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, #87: “The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.”

One is not free to retain their own personal principles of conduct. The only principles of conduct a person may retain are those of the Holy Catholic Faith, as revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The above statement is heresy in direct opposition to the following dogmatic decrees:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 7 on baptism, ex cathedra: "If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 8 on baptism, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.


On the deliberate avoidance of conception

Antipope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951: “Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called "agenesic" periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept. You are expected to be well informed, from the medical point of view, in regard to this new theory and the progress which may still be made on this subject ... It is your function, not the priest's, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda. But in this field also your apostolate demands of you, as women and as Christians, that you know and defend the moral law, to which the application of the theory is subordinated. ... If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. ... If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely. ... the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. ... Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty [procreation] without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life. Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called 'indications,' may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.

Pius XII just taught that couples may deliberately avoid conception by engaging in intercourse during only the infertile periods, and he stated that they may even do so for the whole period of their matrimonial life, even leaving it in the couples' hands to determine what may or may not be "serious reasons". Among these reasons are included social and eugenic 'indications'. This was long ago rejected as sin by St. Augustine:

St. Augustine writing against the Manichees: "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit (source; the Blessed Augustine is referring to 1 Timothy 4:1-3).

And look at the last sentence one more time:

"From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint"

So it is only maybe lawful?

"and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned."

What!? Is it lawful or only maybe lawful antipope Pius XII? As for the "conditions metioned":

"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called 'indications,' "

Not rarely arise? These vague and undefined conditions are so broad and open ended that he is basically saying that as long as you can think of a reason that fits into these, you can call it "serious" and copulate to your hearts content with the sinful intention to avoid procreation!

Birth control is sin, and to counsel sin and say it is lawful is to counsel a heresy against a matter of morals. The Church has ever been unanimous in her teaching that birth control is sin.





What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

No comments:

Post a Comment