THE ENIGMA POPE: POPE PAUL VI

 

THE BOOK THAT STOPPED THE BEATIFICATION PROCESS OF PAUL VI

sac. Luigi Villa

PAUL VI beatified?

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success

by Father Luigi Villa(Doctor in Theology)

 

PREFACE

{Abysum}

Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII him- self observed. But today, after his death, I believe that can no longer be said, in light of the fact that in his numerous writings, speeches and actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any ambiguity. Even if proving this point is not so easy or simple, since he was a very com- plex character, both when speaking of his “preferences”, by way of suggestions and insinuations, and also for his jumping abruptly from one idea to another, and when he opted for Tradition, but then im- mediately preferred “novelty”; the whole thing in a language that was often very inaccurate. Simply read, for example, his Addresses of the “General Audiences”, to see a Paul VI made up of an irre- ducible duality of thought, a permanent conflict, almost, between his thought and that of the Church, which he was nonetheless to represent.

Since his time at Milan, many already called him “the man of the utopias”, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous dreams, yes, yet unreal!”… Which brings to mind what Pius X used to say of the “Leaders” of the Sillon: “… (The exaltation of

Sillon was a social Movement, originated in France in 1893 by Marc Sangnier.)  At first, the movement adhered to the Pontifical directives. Leo XIII and Pius X honored Sangnier with praises. The organ of the Movement was the newspaper “Le Sillon” (The Furrow). Toward 1903, however, the Movement began to involve itself with political-social concepts that brought it to become a “Center of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticisms, mixed, with a measure of Illu- minism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they thought was the true Gospel of our Savior…”

 

Now, this our first “study” of research upon the historical-reli- gious figure of Paul VI has brought us to a sad conclusion, and that is, that the “religion” preached by Paul VI did not always coincide with that authentic Religion, constantly taught for 2,000 years, by the perennial Magisterium, by all of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. Although it is far from my intention to judge Paul VI, for “only God probes kidneys and hearts”, we nonetheless wish to report, here, the painful findings of our study on him, convinced as we are that he has drawn the faithful toward a “new religion”, while this continues to carry the label of “Catholic”.

For the drafting of this “Dossier” – given the seriousness of the “stakes”, especially when it comes to honestly taking one’s courage in both hands to tell the whole “truth”, despite the risk of becoming unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit” – “Truth begets hatred”), the author of this work, for more than a decade, has been going through no less than 30,000 pages of encyclicals, speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, commentaries and magazines of all kinds, in order to gather an overview adequate enough to weigh up the Pontificate of a Pope who has already been consigned to History. Therefore, making it open for discussion and possible “judgments” as to his actions.

It is evident that, with this work of mine, I do not claim to have done an exhaustive analysis of the entire oeuvre of Paul VI. Yet his quotations that I am presenting here cannot certainly have a different meaning from what they contain; and therefore, the presentation of other diverse texts of his, cannot but validate the “mens” of this “Hamlet”, that is, of the “double face” of Paul VI!

However, the honest reader will find that our writings reproduce his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisterium, his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisterium.

 

“Moral Unit” independent of the doctrine of the Church. Hence the condemnation inflicted upon it by Pius X in 1910.
(S. Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, 25 August 25, 1910, n. 41. 3 Psalm 7, 10.)

 

We are presenting this work, therefore, not to rejoice in it, but with sadness. It is but the execution of a painful duty. As Faith is by now publicly attacked, we can no longer feel bound to the duty of silence, but rather to that of unmasking an anti-Christian mentality, so many years in the making, and one that sunk its root in the Pontificate of Paul VI, too.

Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI was a Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical shipwreck that perhaps was, and still is, the most dreadful the Church has ever witnessed throughout Her history.

In writing about him, therefore, one cannot be beating about bush, quibble in search of sensational episodes in order to hide the reality, that is, the real responsibilities of his unsettling Pontificate, in the complex framework of Vatican II.

That is why, to come to a humanly equitable judgment of the thought of Paul VI and his responsibilities, I had to go over again the “official texts” of his writings and his words, pronounced during Vatican II and those of his executions. Only thus could I untangle the grave “question” of his responsibilities in the dreadful drama the Church has lived and has been living from the onset of the Council to this day.

I may, therefore, make mine the lesson of Manzoni in his celebrated book: “Observations Upon Catholic Morality”, where in Chapter VII, he wrote:

«… One must demand, of a doctrine, the legitimate consequences drawn from it, not those which passions might deduce from it».

And so, let us open directly the pages of the First Address to the Council, in which Paul VI made his own, manifestly, the principle of “Modernist heresy” that Pope John XXIII has already expressed, in his Opening Address of the Council, on October 11, 1962, (an Address, however, which had been inspired by the then Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini), in which he, Paul VI, said the following:

 

«Neque opus Nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, sed potius ut ea ratione pervestigetur et ex- ponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra».

And here is the substance in the English language:

«…But, above all, this Christian doctrine be studied and exposed through the forms of literary investigation and formulation of contemporary thought».

Now, such “principle” is unheard of in the history of all the centuries of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, as it takes the place of the “dogmatic” principle, alone to offer proof and certainty of the “Catholic truth”, and the teaching Church has always taught that the “reason of believing” does not lean at all upon scientific conquests, achieved through man’s intellect, for the “reason of believing” rests exclusively upon the AUTHORITY of REVEALING GOD and upon that of the SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, which received from Jesus Christ the mandate to teach it officially and in an infallible manner.

The “principle” enunciated by Paul VI, on the contrary, becomes the negation of that of the APOSTOLIC TRADITION, wanted by God, and it reverses the traditional Magisterium of the Church, putting on the teacher’s desk, in place of “REVEALING GOD” and of the “TEACHING CHURCH”, the method of man’s autonomous investigation and the formulation of a purely human and arbitrary doctrine, peculiar to the philosophical-literary style of modern man – therefore, of the man of all ages, mutable with the times – oblivious that only the “truth” revealed by God is the sole immutable and eternal truth.

Therefore, it vanished; that principle of the investigation to know “Revelation” by knowing the original teaching of the Church was done away with, instead it would be that of knowing the teaching of modern thought.

But this smacks of “heresy”!
One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into a convenient cliché, as it has been done in these years of upheaval and arrogance, ignoring that Christ, and only Him, is and shall always be the absolute “truth”.

 

How Paul VI should have shuddered, for inflicting on the Church of Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means of and in the name of an alleged Ecumenical Council!

Furtheremore how prevailing is still that whole 2nd Chapter of Epistle 2.a of St. Paul to the Thessalonians:

«… For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity»

This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel and of the Tradition of the Church that we are asking the reader to proceeed with the following pages.

 

 II Thessalonians II, 7-12.

«… I was not drawn to the clerical state which seemed sometimes stagnant, closed… involving the renunciation of worldly tendencies in proportion to the renunciation of the world… If I should feel this way, it means that I am called to another state, where I would be fulfilled more harmoniously for the common good of the Church».

(Paul VI to Jean Guitton, in: “Dialogues with Paul VI,” p. 285) ***

«I noticed how his thinking was secular. With him, I was not in the presence of a “cleric”, he even promoted an unexpectedly secular Papacy»!  (Jean Guitton, in: “The Secret Paul VI”, Ed. Pauline)

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to THE ENIGMA POPE: POPE PAUL VI

  1. imprimipotest says:

    Mary Ann, I do not think Paul vi’s two statements are inconsistent at all. One is stated in reference to the supposedly three great ‘monotheist’ religions (I leave aside the complex issues of how Islam and the Qur’an ambivalently depict Allah); but his other statement is in reference to the uniqueness of belief in Christ and its Trinitarian theology.

    While Paul vi did many disputable things, when one reads gratuitous allegations presented against him, many based on innuendo often alleged by dubious sources or upon mere passing association with this or that personage who is disparaged with a hastily contrived ‘label’ of condemnation (as one often encounters in ‘Si, Si, No, No’, ‘Tradition in Action,’ and other sites), I think these should be considered with many reservations.

  2. Mary Anne says:

    Hello Imprimipotest … He can say two opposing things I guess … It sounds like Pope Francis. We are in a sad state. Did you know that on Nov. 1, 1954 Pius XII removed Monsignor Montini as the Secretary of State? In the disastrous fall of 1954 in China, Pius XII discovered that his Pro Secretary of State Montini “had kept from him all communicaions relating to the schism of the Chinese Bishops.” (CRC 97, October 1975, p.12 An agent of Pope Pius XII Colonel Arnauld, who had taken an oath for the Pontiff, and who formerly was an agent for the French Deuxieme Bureau, a Brigadier General for the Intelligence Service, a career officer, and a man of strict morals and practicing Catholic. carried a sealed letter to the Pope from the Lutheran Bishop Brilioth which, when he opened it and read it, turned pale.” I’ve seen this in another place. It was in Si Si No No a publication of SSPX. What I have written is gathered from ‘Paul VI Beatified?’

  3. imprimipotest says:

    Mary Ann, I would not accept the Rev. Villa’s selective quotations and inferences without serious qualifications.

    Does he also mention that Pope Paul vi said the following?

    ‘Paul VI, “Message to the World,” Bethlehem, January 6, 1964’:

    “We address this reverent greeting in particular to those who profess monotheism and with us direct their religious workshop to the one true God, most high and living, the God of Abraham, the supreme God whom Melchizedek, a mysterious person about whose genealogy and end Scripture tells us nothing, and by whose regal priesthood Christ himself wishes to be characterized, one day, distinct in the past but recalled in the Bible and in the Missal, celebrated as ‘God Most High, maker of heaven and earth” (cf. Gn 14:19; Heb 7; Ps 76:3; 110:4). …

    We Christians, informed by revelation, understand God as existing in the three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; however, we celebrate the divine nature as one, as the living and true God. May these peoples, worshipers of the one God, also welcome our best wishes for peace in justice.”

    Does it not seem that Villa is making an utterly unfounded allegation in implying that Paul vi would ‘kick’ the Son of God and the Trinity out of consideration?

    And as for what the presumptions of certain Freemasons were and what they freely attributed to Paul vi and thought of him, is that truly a definitive determination of anything?

  4. Mary Anne says:

    On August 9, 1965, in regards to Judaism, Islamism, and Christianity, Paul VI said:
    “They are three expressions (??) professing an identical monotheism, through the three most authentic avenues…
    Would it not be possible that the name of the very same God, instead of irreducible oppositions … generate a possible agreement … without the prejudice of theological discussions.?” Paul VI

    “Sure it would be possible! So long as Christ, Son of God, is kicked out of the picture (for He does not exist in other religions … along with the Holy Trinity.”) Father Luigi Villa

  5. Mary Anne says:

    Paul VI’s funeral oration by the former Grand Master of “Palazzo Giustiniani” (Rome’s Headquarters of the Grand Orient of Italy), Giordano Gamberini, made in La Rivista Massonica Magazine” It reads: “To us, it is the death of him who made the condemnation of Clement XII and of his successors fall. That is, it is the first time … in the history of modern Freemasonry … that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons!

    For the first time in history, The Freemasons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities or contradictions.” Paul VI beatified? Father Luigi Villa, Th. D. p.120-121

  6. imprimipotest says:

    Actually, I wonder if the author of this essay read and pondered the actual words of Pope John xxiii when he opened Vatican ii on October 11, 1962.

    To make the allegations he wishes to present as certain one would have to practice an ‘eisegesis’ of that text that would be difficult to justify.

Comments are closed.