Rorate Caeli

Ignorance of Christ

In Advent, time of expectation, it is interesting to read an almost unknown homily of Pope Paul VI, found only in Italian on the Vatican website. It was preached at a Roman parish on Passion Sunday, April 4, 1965. Excerpts follow:

 “. ... It is a heavy and sad page [of the Gospel]. For it recounts the clash between Jesus and the Jewish people. That people predestined to receive the Messiah, awaiting Him for thousands of years and completely absorbed in this hope and this certitude, at the right moment, that is when Christ comes, speaks and manifests Himself, not only does not recognize Him, but combats Him, calumniates and insults Him; and, finally, kills Him. . . . . Why was Jesus fixed to a cross? What wrong had He done? The Gospel, through the very lips of Jesus, repeats the same question: ‘Which of you can convict me of sin?’ It is because you do not listen to the word of truth. . . . . The Church wishes the faithful to meditate on these beginnings of the Passion of the Lord: she wants them know the causes, the roots, the psychological origin, interior to souls. From there begins the aversion to Christ and the movement which goes so far as to crucify the Lord. This thinking it over is salutary, for it disposes us to better understand the drama of Calvary. And thus, today, what shall we say? We shall observe that this fact . . . repeats itself, prolongs itself: it is an historical reality which continues: even down to us. . . . . Among the many excuses, we will indicate only one: we hear it from the lips of Jesus in the hours of the agony on the cross. . . . Does he perhaps condemn those who have nailed him to the gibbet? Does he desire their ruin? Jesus speaks with the heavenly Father and prays thus: Lord, pardon them, for they do not know what they do! They do not know . . . The same thing repeats itself. We glimpse in the drama of Christianity, in the very same drama of Christ who found enmity, opposition and hostility in the world, a phenomenon of ignorance, of not knowing. Those who do not wish to accept Christ or who rebel against him do not know what they are doing. My dear sons, as a remembrance of our meeting, of this visit of mine to your parish, I wish to leave you a recommendation: seek to know the Lord better; seek to have honest and precise information about the Message of Christ; about this our Religion, in the face of which are so often found such contrary and downright horrendous attitudes. For what reason? Because deep down there is rooted a sin of ignorance, there is lack of awareness, forgetfulness, superficiality, a blinded state of souls. Let us beware of these evils. . . . Would that all of you take note of the great responsibility to listen to the word of the Lord. . . . . My dear sons, do not despise this humble voice which speaks to you, and accept it truly as the echo not of my thought and my soul, but rather as the very voice of Christ, because I am his Vicar, because I have been sent by him, because I am the messenger of his words. It is necessary to believe in Christ, to have faith in Christ. ...”

A sermon more timeless than many a passage in and about Vatican II. In 1965, Paul VI was apparently aware that even Italy was beginning to lose the true knowledge of Christ. Without necessarily meaning to, this homily sums up the whole history of the Church: the rejection of Christ by his people, his acceptance by many Gentiles, and final rejection by the world, including nations which had once accepted him.

46 comments:

Fred said...

Pope Paul VI personally destroyed the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite and I will mourn the day that he is beatified.

xavier rynne said...

I'm struck by the clarity of that letter in stark contrast to some more recent prose coming from the popes. It grabs your attention and holds it tight.

Gratias said...

Pope Paul VI not only implemented the disastrous Vatican II council, but also appeased the Soviet Union prolonging the tragedy of Communism.

Mike H said...

My mother was told to abort me, and I'm fine without any help from Pope Paul VI...

David S. said...

"Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not." Rom 12:14

Regardless of what His Holiness Paul VI did, he was a soul loved by God, and we should rejoice if we find that he has attained the beatitude of Heaven.

While I don't agree with everything that His Holiness did as pope, I would rejoice if the Church declared he was in heaven.

wretchedwithhope said...

"Regardless of what His Holiness Paul VI did,"

 "Paul VI’s “antithetical parallelism”to the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers”against Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate decision, one after the other. Here they are:–Pius X,with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum” (September 1910) had imposed the “anti-Modernist oath”;but Paul VI abolished it.–Pius X,against the ecclesiastics that contested “Decreto Lamentabili”and the encyclical “Pascendi”,with the Motu Proprio of November 18, 1907 inflicted the excommunication “Latae Sententiae”, reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed it,ruling that he would not hear of excommunications anymore (And why, then, the excommunication of Monsignor Lefebvre?).– In order to confront the “synthesis of all heresies”, Modernism, Pius Xhad reorganized the Holy Officethrough the Constitution “Sapienti Consilio”of June 29, 1908; but Paul VI, with grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it,stating that of “heresies”and widespread disorders,“thank God there are no more within the Church”(“Ecclesiam Suam”) and that“the defense of Faith, now (?!) is better served by the promotion of Doctrine than by condemnation”(1965).

Prof. Basto said...

David S.,

It is not only a question about wether Pope Paul VI is in heaven or not. It is also a question about wether Paul VI is an example of holiness.

In order for the beatification process to succeed, the Church must be satisfyed by evidence that the candidate lived an exemplary life, displaying to an heroic degree the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

Back in the good old days of tradition, any more serious misstep would disqualify one from being considered as a candidate.

For instance, the cause of beatification of Louis XVI was initially not considered as a cause of beatification of a martyr because it was understood that the primary motive for the King's killing was not hatred of the Faith, although the revoutionaries indeed hated the Faith. Then, when his cause was presented as the beatification of a confessor, if failed too, on the grounds that, although alraedy reigning under duress, Louis agreed to promulgate the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. It was tought that he should have refused his sanction at all costs, and that, by the said mistake, he was an unsuitable candidate to be declared a model of virtue.

Of course, back in the days when candidates for beatification were seriously vetted, the process was more complex, and it involved an official whose task it was to question the worthiness of the candidate and to present contrary evidence. Sadly, that important function was not retained in the ecclesiastical legislation adopted by John Paul II.

As beatification is not an infallible act, the banalization of the process may well have led to a series of erroneous beatifications.

It is only within the context of a general lowering of standards that a figure such as Pope Paul VI can be considered as a candidate for beatification.

Of course I hope and pray that the late Supreme Pontiff is in Heaven; or at least in Purgatory; and I hope that souls in Purgatory may soon reach their eternal reward. But that does not make Pope Paul VI a heroic example of holiness.

His Pontificate, his direct actions that led to the destruction of the Sacred, to the abandonment of Tradition, make it impossible for him to be an example of holiness.

Steve Calovich said...

One of the last things that Padre Pio did was to write a letter to Paul VI in which he stated: "I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small, but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons, I pray that God may lead you with His Grace to follow the straight and painful way in defense of eternal truth, which does not change with the passing of years." Padre Pio died 10 days later.

Paul VI said at his general audience July 2, 1969: "If the world changes, should not religion also change? It is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the 2nd Vatican Council, undertaken so many reforms."

Pope Paul VI didn't have an obvious devotion to Our Lady. As the first Pope to travel to Fatima, the television cameras did not catch the Pope praying even one Hail Mary. And it was Monsignor Montini who established secret negotiations with Moscow from the Vatican, which resulted in Communism not being denounced at Vatican II.

Francis said...

Paul VI was a man of the world, as was the Council he helped direct and promote. I don't know why anybody would be surprised that the conciliar church would canonize him?! These are the same people who think traditional Catholics are heretics, and that Vatican II delivered a new "pentecost" and "springtime" for the Catholic Church. As far as great and "saintly" Popes go for the neocons (Catholic or not) Paul VI and JPII are to them what Pope Pius IX and X are to we trads.

Bill Phelan said...

I was a senior in a truly Catholic university in 1960, the year by which the Third Secret of Fatima was to be released. Our priest teachers and we students awaited the release of the complete document which, to this date, has never been issued. The answer, of course, was the apparitions which Sr. Lucia of Fatima received through her lifetime from the Mother of God,especially the warning of "Diabolical Disorientation".The central issue then and now was the reality of Hell. I have never trusted any person in the Church for the last fifty years. My recourse is the F.S.S.P. (thank God!) and the daily Rosary.

langobard said...

Frankly I'm not sure what to do if this canonization occurs. When I converted I thought I was getting one thing, but it looks like I was getting quite another.

J. C. Tzos said...


http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_24.htm

THE COMMUNISTS
OF
ROME AND OF ITS PROVINCE
Express their sorrow and condolences
For the death of
PAUL VI
Bishop of Rome
And remembering him
Not only for his passionate involvement
and the great humanity
With which he worked for peace
and the progress of peoples,
to improve dialogue,
comprehension and possible accords
between men of different beliefs and ideals
but also for the constant attention
which he revealed for the moral and
material improvement of Rome.
Roman Federation of the
Italian Communist Party

In addition, a priest friend of mine who is the Pastor of a Catholic Church in Italy, told me that the tombstone of Pope Paul VI's parents contains the Masonic symbol.

East Horizon said...

I believe that to canonize Paul VI would be scandalous...especially given the post conciliar mantra of every action having a "pastoral" function.

James I. McAuley said...

To Francis;

Do not forget that it was Bl. John Paul II who beatified Pius IX on September 3, 2000. This is the collect for Bl. Pius IX in English:

O God, who gave your servant, Blessed Pius IX, Pope, the spirit of fortitude in adversity, and enabled him to enter more deeply into the pure faith of the Church, grant through his intercession, that we may be filled with the same spirit and live with the same devotion. Through our Lord.

Jon said...

Make no mistake. Beatification is the German and French price for Recognition, just as girl altar boys in March of '94 was their price for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in May of '94.

Jean-Francois said...



Are you serious? He's the "first Pope to visit Fatima" and you denounce him because television cameras don't catch him praying a Hail Mary? Let me repeat, Are you serious?

Pope Paul VI had a great devotion to Our Blessed Mother. He gave her the title Mother of the Church, he wrote some 315 documents concerning Mary.

Francis said...

@James
Yes, I knew that. Yet It's a shame that Pope John Paul II (and Paul XI) didn't believe what Blessed Pius IX, and every other pre-conciliar Pope upheld and believed when it came to the affirmation of the traditional liturgy, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and other Catholic dogma. If he/they did, there would've been no Assisi I&II, no altar girls, no heretical dual covenant theory, no false ecumenism which is just another name for religious relativism, syncretism and indifferentism no "Communion in the hand", along with other modernist novelties of the last forty-five years.

Kathleen said...

Just because a sermon is not heterodox does not make it a good sermon.

I listened to an endless stream of orthodox but useless sermons in N.O. churches.

It seems to me there might be a reason this sermon is virtually unknown.

It offers nothing but a litany of the usual platitudes. Nothing concrete that will help the flock save their souls.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

Many things have been said about Papa Montini, but as far as Ignorance of Christ goes, he certainly gpot this right :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249263/Nearly-40-Britons-believe-baby-Jesus-visitor-SANTA-slept-basket.html

LeonG said...

I invite anyone here and throughout the church to read Padre Luigi Villa's three books on this pope and his letter to the cardinals before he died. It is very significantt they waited until he passed away: very significant. How can there be heroic virtue in pandering to liberal modernism and 50 years of auto-demolition with the smoke of Satan in the sanctuary?
This is politico-ecumenical. Of course, we can undestand why he and not Pope Pius XII is chosen.

Francis said...

Just a correction on my second post. I obviously meant to write Paul VI not Paul XI. Mea Culpa.

Tom said...

wretchedwithhope said..."...but Paul VI, with grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it,stating that of “heresies”and widespread disorders,“thank God there are no more within the Church”(“Ecclesiam Suam”)..."

From Eccleisam Suam:

"But let our determination to bring about such a reform be once again made manifest.

"How many times in centuries past has this resolve been associated with the history of the councils, and so let it be, once more.

"But this time it is not to remove from the Church any specific heresies or general disorders, which, by the grace of God, do not exist within her today..."

I believe that your quotation from Ecclesiam Suam failed to note the context of Pope Paul VI's statement in question.

Pope Paul VI made it clear that Ecumenical Councils were convoked to deal with specific heresies, which, as he noted correctly, was not the case in regard to the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.

His Holiness was correct. What specific heresy had rocked the Church at the time of Vatican II?

Traditionalists have for decades attacked Vatican II along the following line:

Vatican II was unnecessary as the Church at that time enjoyed great peace and tranquilty.

Everything was fine and dandy within the Church.

The Church of the late 1950s and early 1960s was a liturgical and spiritual Garden of Eden.

Therefore, Pope Paul VI's quotation in question is in line with that which Traditionalists have, for decades, claimed.

Tom

Tom said...

Steve Calovich said..."Pope Paul VI didn't have an obvious devotion to Our Lady. As the first Pope to travel to Fatima, the television cameras did not catch the Pope praying even one Hail Mary."
-----------------------------

Jean-Francois said..."Are you serious? He's the "first Pope to visit Fatima" and you denounce him because television cameras don't catch him praying a Hail Mary? Let me repeat, Are you serious?

"Pope Paul VI had a great devotion to Our Blessed Mother. He gave her the title Mother of the Church, he wrote some 315 documents concerning Mary.
----------------------

Thank you, Jean-Francois, for having responded to the nonsense that Steve Calovich had posted.

As Catholics, we should not promote utter nonsense against Pope Paul VI.

To attack Pope Paul VI's devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is sad...very unfortunate.

Tom

Steve Calovich said...

"He gave her the title Mother of the Church" -Jean-Francois

No, the Council of Ephesus did that in 431.

The great lesson of Lepanto was the victory over Islam which was won principally by Pope St Pius V encouraging all of Christendom in the praying of the rosary. What if Pius V had decided to write articles about Our Lady instead? So going to Fatima, in the context of Our Lady of the Rosary's pleas that the rosary be prayed daily to save millions of souls from falling into hell, Pope Paul VI should have led the crowd in at least one rosary. So yes, I am serious about that accusation.



wretchedwithhope said...

This review appeared in Catholic Family News in March 2011

Paul VI Beatified?
By Father Luigi Villa Th. D.

Reviewed by Randy Engel

Introduction

Some books are difficult to review because of the sheer density of facts and documentation contained therein. Others, because the subject matter evokes deep, visceral distress on the part of the reviewer. Paul VI Beatified? is both fact-filled and disturbing.

More than 30,000 pages of encyclicals, Conciliar documents, General Audience talks, and news stories taken from the pontificate of Paul VI were distilled by Father Villa, editor of the traditional magazine Chiesa viva, including hundreds of photos which, by themselves, visually tell a story of a pope whose 15-year reign was marked by grave deviations from the Depositum Fidei. Little wonder that Father Villa’s book is credited with bringing the early steps leading up to the beatification, and ultimately to the canonization of Paul VI as a saint, to a sudden halt. For every Catholic who has ever asked himself, “How did the Revolution in the Catholic Church come about?” it is essential reading.

Blueprint for NewChurch

In the second year of his pontificate, on August 6, 1964, just six weeks prior to the opening of the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI presented his “blueprint” for NewChurch in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam. Unlike his pre-Conciliar predecessors, the pope was dissatisfied with the Catholic Church established by Christ and decided to create one more to his image and likeness. Thus he invited Holy Mother Church to set a new ecclesiastic course in a Progressive ship quite unlike the traditional Barque of Saint Peter, and to venture into Modernist waters more deadly than the Church has ever known. In hindsight, the reader can only gasp at how blithely and with what utopian fervor the new pope embraced the challenge of the auto-destruction of the Church in the name of “renovation,” “renewal,” “reform,” “the dialogue of salvation,” an “openness to the world,” — an auto-destruction which Father Villa carefully documents by chapter and verse. (contin..)

wretchedwithhope said...

The Cult of Man — A Form of Idolatry

In Chapters I and II of Paul VI Beatified? Father Villa examines the pope’s obsession with the Cult of Man and his habituated taste for the naturalistic and the novel at the expense of the supernatural and tradition, thereby turning Christianity into a horizontal, earth-bound rather than a vertical, heaven-bound religion.

If, in our desire to respect a man’s freedom and dignity, his conversion to the true faith is not the immediate object of our dialogue with him, we nevertheless try to help him and to dispose him for a fuller sharing of ideas and convictions. Ecclesiam Suam: 79.

But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind;

We have the cult of man. Address of Paul VI, Council’s Last General Meeting,

December 7, 1965, Italian Translation.

A New Spirituality for Modern Man

As Father Villa clearly documents, since Paul VI’s NewChurch represents a new religion, it necessarily requires a new Spirituality along with a number of other accessories like a new Gospel, a new Ecclesiology, a new Theology, a new Mass and a new Priesthood.

Chapter II tackles the issue of Paul VI’s love affair with the world, and his admonishment to the Faithful to “love the world,” a directive which finds little support in either Holy Scripture or the Magisterium of the Church or the writings of the Saints and Church Fathers or any of the pre-Conciliar popes:

Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. John 18:37

Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. I John 2:15

Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. James 4:5.

Father Villa presents Paul VI’s novel interpretation of Man’s new relationship to the world taken from the pope’s NewGospel and delivered at his General Audience of July 3, 1974.

We have certainly intended to talk of the severity of the Saints toward the ills of the world. Many are still familiar with the books of asceticism that contain a globally negative judgment upon earthly corruption. But it is also certain that we do live in a different spiritual climate, having been invited, especially by the recent Council, to bring to the modern world an optimistic look towards its values, its achievements… (contin...)

wretchedwithhope said...

The celebrated Constitution Gaudium at Spes is in its whole an encouragement toward this new spiritual approach.

In this early chapter, Father Villa introduces one of his book’s major themes — the infiltration of Freemasonry, which has been condemned by pre-Conciliar popes from time immemorial — into the Catholic Church, in general, and the papal office under the pontificate of Paul VI. It is in his writings on Paul VI’s affinity for the tenets of Freemasonry, as well as the pope’s attachment to all ideologies flowing from the Left including Socialism and Communism, that one finds the author’s most interesting and original investigative findings and in-depth insights.

The story behind the infamous “Pecorelli’s List,” which this writer has a copy of, albeit yellowed and crackled with age, makes for fascinating reading.

Investigative journalist and a member of the elite Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge, Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli, Director of L’Osservatorio Politico, a press agency specializing in political scandals and crimes, was murdered on March 20, 1979. Prior to his death he published what became known as “Pecorelli’s List.” It contained the names (code names and card names as well) of alleged Freemasons in high level Vatican offices during the reign of Paul VI. Among the prominent prelates identified as Freemasons were Jean Cardinal Villo, whose family is believed to have historic ties to the Rosicrucian Lodge; Agostino Cardinal Casaroli; Ugo Cardinal Poletti; Sebastiano Cardinal Baggio; Joseph Cardinal Suenens; and Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M.; and Archbishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus, to name a few. If the list is correct, and there is much collaborating evidence to indicate that the list was valid, Paul VI had surrounded himself with Freemasons. As Father Villa notes, none of these high ranking Church members ever came forward to challenge the list. For centuries the leaders of Freemasonry had awaited “a pope according to our needs” who would help compromise the Catholic Church and usher in an era of a “Masonic Universal Democracy.” They found him in Paul VI.

Paul VI and the Great Betrayals

Chapter VII, titled “Opening to Communism” details Paul VI’s tragic betrayal of anti-Communist prelates József Cardinal Mindszenty, Josyf Ivanovycè Cardinal Slipyi, and Cardinal Stephen Trochta and the millions upon millions of Hungarians, Ukrainians, and Czechoslovakians and other victims of Soviet Communism they represented. It is absolutely heart-wrenching. However, Father Villa saves his criticism of Paul VI’s greatest betrayal for last — the creation of his NewMass and the banishment of the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This one chapter alone should be enough to squelch any talk of Paul VI’s beatification forever. Speaking of the “fruits” of this particularly grievous betrayal, Father Villa writes:

… the “fruits” derived from Paul VI’s “new Mass” stand as an eloquent proof of that betrayal. I would never come to lay down my pen were I to document the countless lists of scandals and sacrileges, of “black masses,” of obscenities, perpetrated after Vatican II, precisely on account of the “new liturgy.” (contin...)

wretchedwithhope said...

The controversial and brave 93-year-old Villa, who himself has been the subject of seven assassination attempts because of his anti-Freemasonry expositions, recognizes that while not all post-Concilar abuses can be laid at the feet of Paul VI, nevertheless NewMass was Paul VI’s doing and it was carried out with his authority and approval. But, as Father Villa points out:

It must be said… that the Traditional Mass of St. Pius V was never legally abrogated, and it remains, to this day, a true rite of the Catholic Church through which the faithful can fulfill their holy precept because Pius V had granted a perpetual indult (which was never abrogated), valid “for all time” to celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any scruples and without incurring a punishment, conviction or censure.

Conclusion

When one finally turns the last page of this book, one is left with a dreadful, gnawing feeling that when the Anti-Christ appears on earth, he will be hard pressed to do more damage to the Church and the Faith than did Paul VI. It is with this bone-chilling thought, amid pages stained with tears, that I take the reader’s leave. Paul VI Beatified? Place it in your Catholic library.

Randy Engel is the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life www.uscl.info, and the IFGR/Michael Fund www.michaelfund.org.

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf

Matt said...

David S. said, "While I don't agree with everything that His Holiness did as pope, I would rejoice if the Church declared he was in heaven."

Correct, and that is all we have to concern ourselves with with anyone beatified/canonized! We are not required to like anything about them whatsoever. God does work in mysterious ways. With one who so single-handedly caused the issues we have today, it's quite baffling how he qualified himself for Heaven. As it is, The Lord's ways are not man's ways and our ways are not His ways. Yes, if it is declared Paul VI was able to attain Heaven, then we must rejoice in that.

Matt said...

Kathleen said, "Just because a sermon is not heterodox does not make it a good sermon. I listened to an endless stream of orthodox but useless sermons in N.O. churches. It seems to me there might be a reason this sermon is virtually unknown. It offers nothing but a litany of the usual platitudes. Nothing concrete that will help the flock save their souls."

This is why the homilies are the most cringing part of the Mass. The Mass itself, at my parish, is straightforward, with no real surprises. For that I'm grateful, but, yeah, the homilies... Add to that, the Holy Father wants homilies to relate daily living with the Gospels. I can just imagine where that is going to go.

This may not be the same side of the coin but Fr Z had a post on a gay group who rewrote the King James Bible to be more *gay-friendly* and is calling it the "Queen James Bible." How ludicris. Wow. Talk about the further imperiling of souls.

Tom said...

Steve,

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the title "Mother of God." I was not under the impression that Ephesus declared Mary "Mother of the Church." Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jean-Francois said...

@Steve Calovich

You made the claim that Pope Paul VI didn't have a devotion to our Lady because he wasn't seen praying a Hail Mary. But clearly he did have a devotion and love of our Blessed Mother. And he did a bit more than write a few articles.

ISSUE: Is “Mother of the Church” an official title of the Blessed Virgin Mary? How do we understand this
title?
RESPONSE: “Mother of the Church” is a title of the Blessed Virgin Mary that was solemnly proclaimed
by Pope Paul VI at the closing address of the third session of the Second Vatican Council on November 21,
1964. In this proclamation, the Holy Father made clear reference to Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church (Lumen Gentium), which provided foundational teaching on the intimate relationship between
Mary and the Church.
In his address, Pope Paul VI said:
Therefore, for the glory of the Blessed Virgin and our consolation, we declare most holy Mary
Mother of the Church, that is of the whole Christian people, both faithful and pastors, who call
her a most loving Mother; and we decree that henceforth the whole Christian people should, by
this most sweet name, give still greater honor to the Mother of God and address prayers to her.
Four years later, Pope Paul VI used this title in his profession of faith commonly known as the “Credo
of the People of God”:
We believe that the Most Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, the Mother of the Church, carries
on in heaven her maternal role with regard to the members of Christ, cooperating in the birth and
development of divine life in the souls of the redeemed (no. 15; cf. Catechism, no. 975).

In the midst of this crisis of Marian devotion (May 1971), Father Patrick Peyton C.S.C., director of the Family Rosary Crusade, and known throughout the Catholic world for his promotion of the Family Rosary, wrote an impassioned letter to Pope Paul VI. In it he asked that the Family Rosary be declared a liturgical prayer. "My heart cries out for a papal document which could take the form of an encyclical," he wrote. "May I beseech Your Holiness to enhance, enrich and raise to a higher level of efficacy the Family Rosary by proclaiming it a liturgical prayer." Father Peyton's letter persuaded Paul VI to address the Church on the subject of the rosary. His secretary of state asked the Congregation for Divine Worship to "prepare a draft of a papal document" that would encourage the "recitation of the rosary by families."
The papal document on the rosary, begun at Fr. Peyton's request in 1971, was published as the apostolic letter Marialis cultus, dated February 2, 1974. Within this letter, which dealt with the "role of the Blessed Virgin in the liturgy," one section outlined the essential features of the rosary:

Barbara said...

@ Jean Francois,

"He gave her the title Mother of the Church" - I suppose that you are familiar with how that came about then, Jean Francois?: in case you missed it by Roberto de Mattei:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/09/our-lady-left-behind-marian-question-in.html

I do not absolutely go along with some of the nastiness I have seen written about Pope Paul VI - but I cannot help thinking, especially after having read Iota Unum by Roman Amerio, that here heroic virtue manifested itself somewhat wobbly. Amerio cites authoritative sources - and the picture he portrays of this Pope is that he was a mass of contradictions one after the other. So,if a beatification is forthcoming - than I am left scratching my head in wonder ...maybe I have lost something ... I am missing something. I can tell you this though, I do not like the "strange" parallel Church that was ushered in under his pontificate...no - no - not for me - I could never go back to direct involvement in the parish at this stage ...mine - as so many, I have read about, - has almost lost it - and is in no real communion with Rome and the authentic magisterium. Pope Paul VI,it would appear, permitted all this to happen...and it has been bad infection ever since...

But not to be forgotten - he did give us Humanae Vitae -

May he rest in peace.

LeonG said...

Pope paul VI ceratinly went to fatima but he avoided any meeting with Sister Lucy. Also, he would not have supported any proclamation of Our Blessed Lady ad Mediatrix of All Graces.

Unknown said...

Let's not lose our peace on these matters. These rumors about a beatification of Paul VI are just that...rumors. And the rumor-mongers involved by no means have 100% accuracy.

Prudence is a cardinal virtue. The liturgical "reform" of the late 1960's was marked by many traits...but prudence seemed to be in very short supply.

We shouldn't pre-critically doubt Paul VI's ultimate good intentions. But as Pastor Richard John Neuhaus once said, "No one knows why Pope Paul let Bugnini do what he did." The advocates of Paul VI don't need to make any plane reservations to Rome quite yet. Some very basic questions still need to be answered.

wretchedwithhope said...

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Paul_VI_Beatified_.html

Traditiodox said...

I am (partially) appalled by these comments against the late pope. It clearly shows how much charity one can get by attending the TLM which, among other things, should teach everyone to be charitable.

wretchedwithhope said...

i've been more than partially appalled by the mocking of Our Lord that too often goes on in PVI parishes. in my more cynical moments I do wonder if I'm supposed to be given a masonic handshake at the sign of 'peace'.

Barona said...

Thank-you for posting this beautiful sermon by Pope Paul.

----

"True" Catholics? PVI Parishes -- what is all this? So, the current Supreme Pontiff et al are not Catholics??

Gratias said...

József Cardinal Mindszenty did suffer under Paul VI. Communism was the problem of his time and Paul VI chose to coddle them and surround himself with our archenemies the Freemasons.

Steve Calovich said...

"You made the claim that Pope Paul VI didn't have a devotion to our Lady..." -Jean-Francois

I said PPVI didn't have an >OBVIOUS< devotion to Our Lady. Sometimes we sheep need the Shepherd to give us an example to emulate.

Jean-Francois said...

Sorry, Paul Vl was a disaster and he unleashed a revolution in the Church that even Martin Luther could not have imagined.

I do not agree. The revolution was coming whether we liked it or not. In fact one could argue that it is still the effects of Martin Luther's revolution that we are feeling today. In the pristine era of the Church pre-Vatican II with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and numerous devotions, we still had events like the takeover of the Church in England with only a few Bishops and priests and faithful remaining Catholic, the whole Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution. In fact despite all his efforts even Pope St. Pius X was unable to eradicate Modernism.

The Church outside the U.S in the 60's was already in steep decline. Even Archbishop Lefebvre knew that French seminaries were virtually empty in 1966, hardly a direct consequence of Vatican II. In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, an orthodox encyclical and clear explanation of the Church teachings if there ever was one. And yet how was it received by the priests and bishops of the world? It was widely rejected. What should he have done, excommunicated the 90% everyone? Would that have solved things? I doubt it.

As Prof. Basto said, a candidate for canonization must be shown to have lived an exemplary life, living heroically the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. And that is how the Church will ultimately judge whether or not he is worthy to be named a saint.

lhk56 said...

I wrote a comment complaining about all the people complaining. Then I deleted it in order to point out that if we spent all the time we did writing posts making useless complaints that do nothing but puff ourselves up praying for his soul instead...both he and we may enter the gates of Heaven.

Mar said...

Did you just puff yourself up one teensy weensy bit there, lhk56? :)

lhk56 said... I wrote a comment complaining about all the people complaining. Then I deleted it in order to point out that if we spent all the time we did writing posts making useless complaints that do nothing but puff ourselves up praying for his soul instead...both he and we may enter the gates of Heaven.

Mar said...

Another blessed thing that Pope Paul VI did was to protect the Rosary from Annibale Bugnini who had designs on it.

As Christopher Ferrara relates - quote:
Not content with his central role in the disastrous "liturgical renewal" of Pope Paul VI, Annibale Bugnini also proposed a "renewal" of Marian devotional practices. In
September 1972 he drafted a schema in this regard and submitted it to the Congregation for Divine Worship. In this schema, Bugnini proposed to rearrange the Rosary so that the Our Father would be recited only once at the beginning, and the Hail Mary edited to include only "the biblical portion of the prayer." The "Holy Mary, Mother of God" would be said "only at the end of each tenth Hail Mary." There would
also be a new "public" version of the Rosary, consisting of readings, songs, homilies, and "a series of Hail Marys, but limited to one decade."

Paul VI responded to this ridiculous proposal through the Vatican Secretary of State: "[T]he faithful would conclude that ‘the Pope has changed the Rosary,’ and the psychological effect would be disastrous…. Any change in it cannot but lessen the confidence of the simple and the poor."

... Hence even Paul VI made it clear that the Rosary is not some changeable arrangement of prayers that can be altered whenever it seems a good idea, but a triune pattern of prayer, "disposed in an organic fashion," that constitutes an ancient foundation stone of popular Catholic piety, long approved by the Magisterium.
End of quote.

During Advent, when the primary focus is on Mary expecting Jesus, and the significance of this for the whole of mankind, the Rosary is a most suitable prayer.

And what better time to read the article by Ferrara which defends the traditional Rosary.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_may03.html

CH DUPUY said...

Tom said:
"But this time it is not to remove from the Church any specific heresies or general disorders, which, by the grace of God, do not exist within her today..."

"I believe that your quotation from Ecclesiam Suam failed to note the context of Pope Paul VI's statement in question."

Your quote from Ecclesiam Suam is in line with the Discourse of John XXIII at the inauguration of the Council, that from then on the Church would not condemn (excommunicate ?) but try to convince by the truth. This was extreme naïveté on the part of JXXIII but Paul VI followed suit with this proclamation, which of course was unfounded, since modernist heresies were rife inside the Church at the time. Of course, in lieu of summoning a Council to condemn such heresies, he climbed onboard the modernist train that wrecked the Church.