The ecclesiastical state “the ballast of Catholicism”?
Robert Winnicki v. Blessed Pius IX
The Church State was to be a “ballast of Catholicism” and a attachment to conventional social order with something “lost” for the Church. specified shocking claims were formulated by Mr Robert Winnicki in an article late published on the platform X (Some of his controversial besides Robert Winnicki then repeated in a broadcast aired by 1 of the Catholic YouTube channels, where they met no objection from the interviewer). At the same time, he admitted that his words were “objective” from the position of integral Catholicism. In fact, they go even further, striking the authoritative statements of the Church's Teacher's Office.
Such shocking thesis, presented by the erstwhile MP of the National Movement, requires a strong response. We will begin with a brief reminder of the origin of the Church State itself. Its origins date back to 756, erstwhile Pepin Short handed over part of the lands of the Apeninski Peninsula to Pope Stefan II. The created state adopted the name Patrimonium Sancti PetriThe Father of St. Peter. As Blessed Pius IX states, this has happened “in favour of the peculiar arrangement of God's Providence”, since the real secular sovereignty provides the pope with genuine political independence. This, in turn, is “almost essential to execute all over the world, without any obstacle, its spiritual power, authority and jurisdiction”, as the Pope expressed in the bull Cum Catholica (1860).
The ecclesiastical state, having a circumstantial territory, population, army, and administrative and economical structures, aimed to supply the Vicar of Christ, with freedom from the influence of individual governments. Thus, the pope's autonomy, which he gained through the Church State, allowed him to talk from a completely different position, building the papal authority besides with the authority of a secular monarch. It was a real sovereignty, not just a symbolic one, and included a crucial fragment of the Apeninian Peninsula. It served so that the Papacy could warrant the anticipation of unfettered preaching the teachings of the Savior, without fear of political pressure, blackmail or threats. Many times he emphasized this in his teaching Blessed Pius IX, among others in encyclicals Qui Nuper (1859), Nullis Certe Verbis (1860), or in addition Novos et Ante (1860), describing the “holy-loathing assassination” of depriving the pope of even any of the provinces of the Church State. It is not surprising, however, that the pope is agitated in the face of the Church’s interests. His reaction would be equally correct, both if Catholic temples were plundered and the territory of the Church, although there would be apparent differences. For both constitute its inviolable property.
No wonder, then, that specified a strong safeguard of the independency of the Holy See became a salt in the eye of the top enemies of the Church. Since the late 18th century, revolutionaries have done everything possible to deprive the pope of power over Patrimonium Sancti Petri. In the end, they managed to do so as part of the alleged Italian unification process (Risorgimento), completed in 1870 with the forceful business of Rome by the ungodly armies of Piedmont, whom the papal army attempted to resist. In response, the Blessed One. Pius IX declared himself “the prisoner of the Vatican” and fundamentally prohibited Catholics from participating in the political life of the usurpatory state. His successors, Leon XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV, were besides considered to be the prisoners of the Vatican. The Pope is Blessed. Pius IX was so not isolated as regards his position, which was fundamentally unchanged during respective successive pontificates.
As mentioned at the outset, the Magisterium of the Church emphasizes the peculiar importance of the Church State in securing the independency of the Holy See. These encyclicals rise the necessity of its existence from the purely political layer to the doctrinal sphere, indicating, among others, the function of Divine Providence in the emergence of the Church State. Furthermore, Pius IX imposed excommunication not only on those who straight participated in any, even partially, the depleting of the pope's secular power, but even supporters of this solution. The Vicar of Christ rejected the anticipation of any compromise on this matter, including the "only" simplification of the existing laws of the Holy See. He regarded them not as simple political rights of the Pope, but as rights of the Lord God himself, as he expressed powerfully in the encyclical Respicientes (1870).
Pius IX had no uncertainty who was behind this wicked effort on the planet power of the pope. As guilty, he identified Masonic sects under the influence of which the ungodly Piemontic government operated (Respicientes). As the Pope points out in the encyclical Etsi Multa
(1873), "The holy larceny of Our State aimed primarily at breaking the strength and effectiveness of the Papal Primate, and yet complete, if possible, the demolition of the Catholic religion itself." The conclusion is so simple, the dismantling of the Church State was only the first step towards the complete demolition of the Catholic faith. In the same document, the pope points out that “the present misfortune must be mostly attributed to the enslavement and denunciation of these [Masonic] sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan is built, which against the Church of Christ forms its ranks, raises banners and goes into battle." This encyclical besides includes the diagnosis of the eventual intent of the masonry, which was then repeated by Leon XIII. The sect’s main intention is “the complete reversal of the ecclesiastical and state order created by the Christian religion, and the establishment of a fresh order according to its spirit...” – Humane gene (1884). Of course, the demolition of the ecclesiastical state was an component of these pursuits of freemasonry. Thus, defending the Masonic aspirations, we set ourselves up on the same side.
Since the relation between the process (as Mr Winnicki defines in 1 of the online interviews) of the "awakening" of the Italian people and the masonry, is apparent and well described in literature, we will not give them much space. It is adequate to remind that – as St.Jozef Sebastian Pelczar describes – the key figures of this movement, specified as Mazzini and Garibaldi, were high-placed Masons, and this is what freemulation aimed at unifying Italy on the ruins of the Church State.. Pius IX, speaking among others of the Carbonaires and the alleged “Young Italy” organization, clearly states – “they have all yet poured their cloudy and muddy streams into a vast swamp of masonry”. Depriving the pope of real power over a large part of the Apennine Peninsula was part of the game of this devilic sect against the Church of Christ. This failure weakened the global position and the importance of the Holy See in the world.
At the same time, it should be stressed that there is no contradiction between the teaching and the activities of Pius IX and the politics of his successor, Pius XI. Let us besides remind that this Pope yet decided to negociate with Italy, which resulted in the creation of the Vatican State. In no way does this contradict the teaching of the Magisterium that we have described in the earlier part of this article. Nor does he object to the fact that Pius IX did not let any compromise in the matter. It is absolutely apparent that the ecclesiastical state, in its earlier shape, was far better suited to the papal office than the tiny city-state of the Vatican. Pius XI, however, was faced with the fact that during the erstwhile 4 pontificates (Pius IX, Leon XIII, St.Pius X and Benedict XV) it was not possible to reconstruct the full rights of the Holy Capital in the temporal dimension. While Pius IX was hypothetically able to anticipate a change in the global situation during his reign or 1 of his successors, Pius XI was no longer possible. This does not mean that the situation created by the signature of the Lateran Treaties (lat. Pacta Lateranensia) was optimal or fair. This was not something desired by the Holy See, but only an acceptable option. It was the best of the worst. After a long period since 1870, Rome faced an alternate to getting what Pius XI had been able to negociate or stay with nothing. In this situation, although the absolute minimum of what belongs to the Holy See had to be safeguarded, although in the light of the rightfulness, much more must be done and objectively harmed. A full correct solution, or the restoration of power to the Pope in the area of the erstwhile Church State, was then unrealistic. Let it illustrate the fact that Pietro Card. Gasparri, who as papal State Secretary conducted negotiations with Italy, cried erstwhile the draft Lateran Treaties were approved. This happened, despite being a partial author and even a signatory (acting on behalf of the Pope), representing the church side.
This relates to another thesis of Mr Winnicki, namely that the attachment of Papacy to conventional social order was to be "lost" for Catholicism. In this context, erstwhile politicians regret the fact that the Church did not realize that "it is no longer a civilization and a political framework of the social order". He must be right, however, that in modern realities we must think of our religion as a group that first needs freedom to preach and convert people to rebuild Christian civilization. It should be stressed that Rome could not simply accept the fall of the Catholic social order. The position of the Church here is consistent and understandable.
There is no consequence, however, of Mr Winnick in standing up for the Church, who alternatively tried to argue the position of subsequent popes, who advocated the necessity of the ecclesiastical state, suggesting plainly that Blessed Pius IX did not follow the tendencies of the modern planet and remained far behind, and already his successor Leon XIII, unlike his predecessor, was able to sense the inevitability of the changes taking place and was ready to go into distant concessions. 1 was to be ossified, short-sighted and offended by reality, the another was to be flexible, enlightened and pragmatic. So the erstwhile was to be wrong, and the second was to give the Church the right direction, which allowed him to come out of the darkness.
By ceasing the conflict to keep the order which was born on the basis of Christ's social rule, the Church would deny her own teaching. Surely, the popes saw the progressive apostasy in the states of ancient Christian civilization, as evidenced by their many statements. However, this does not change the fact that as Pius XI wrote in Quas primas (1925): "Not only do private individuals, but rulers and governments have a work to publically worship Christ and obey him...because the dignity of His royal dignity demands that all relations in the state should be governed by God's commandments and Christian principles." The Vicars of Christ were forbidden to stay silent. specified silence, let alone affirming modern liberalism, would be a kind of betrayal. The principles of liberal order, as Leon XIII stated in the encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) "We deserve, as we have said, a universal rejection".
Even if the situation seems seemingly hopeless, we must not quit loudly demanding all designation of the principles of Christian civilization. Mr Winnicki's message that the Pope's active opposition to dismantling conventional Catholic society would paradoxically lead to aggiornamento It's ridiculous. After all, it is the withdrawal from this opposition and acceptance of liberalism that is the essence of the alleged council renewal in the socio-political aspect. Thus, contrary to Mr Winnicki's thesis, the "progressive Catholicism" (which is an apparent oxymoron) has accepted that Christianity "is no longer a civilization". The post-compulsory Rome is arrogant of this, actively engaging in building a planet based on naturalistic “peace” based on “the brotherhood of all religions”. Its essence is indiferentism, in which, in declarations specified as Abu Dhabi (2019): "pluralism and diversity of religion, the colour of skin, gender, race and language are expressions of God's wise will with which God created human beings." Representatives of the “Church of the Council” want to be part of the establishment of a fresh reality, in which orthodox Christianity is only 1 of many equivalent options, which happens on the basis of mistaken spiritual freedom. Integral Catholicism must defy this, for as Pius XI teaches in the encyclical Quas primas "Whether individuals or families or states, due to the fact that people in a united society are no little subject to Christ's authority as individuals."
In his teaching, the Blessed. Pius IX explicitly rejects the hints of those who “encouraged us to hand over the hand of present civilization” due to the fact that “the accomplishments [of this civilization] origin so many unsatisfactionable types of evil that give the authoritative dimension to so many of the most disgusting views, errors and principles, completely other to Catholic religion...”. The Pope states in allocution Iamdudum cernimus (1861), that“With this kind of civilization, the Holy Capital and the Roman Pope surely can never communicate.” In mention to the above, in the celebrated Syllabus (1864) The following mistake was condemned: "The Roman Pope can and should reconcile with progress, liberalism and modern civilization and adapt to it." This condemned “adaptation to modern civilization” is the essence of the Second Vatican Council.
Finally, let us return to the subject of the Church. Pius IX's heroic fight, which should be called the Great, sought to preserve the essential completion of the Pope's spiritual power, which is guaranteeing the independency and global position of the real secular power. The Popes in their encyclicals taught that Catholic rulers are the armed arm of the Church and should stand guard. The Church State had a akin function. Without its support, the pope would be given only the goodwill of worldly rulers who – as shown by the example of Blessed Pius IX, failed. Christ’s politician remained single and, in fact, defenseless. 1 of the fewer actual sons of the Church, in this hard test, was Gabriel Garcia Moreno, an outstanding statesman, president of Ecuador.
In a broader sense, it was part of the Church's fight against ungodly modernity, for the regulation of souls over the erstwhile Christian civilization. Rome fought for a truly Catholic spirit, not a Masonic spirit, to penetrate the social structures of states and nations. From among the successors of Blessed Pius IX in the fullest dimension, this fight was continued by St. Pius X, but by that time the area of conflict had entered deep into the very interior of the Church. Undoubtedly, the fact that the Church lost the strong support that real political power gave it was 1 of the factors that facilitated the triumph of modernists in the long term, which Mr Winnicki seems not to notice. On the 1 hand, it weakened Papacy's position in relations with the world, and on the another hand it made it much harder to defy masonian-modern infiltration of church structures.
However, it is not possible for an integral Catholic to stand indifferent to the claims made by Mr Winnicki that "were not crying after the Church State." Accepting specified a view leads to a clear consensus that the heroic fight of Pius IX did not make sense, due to the fact that it would be better to quit voluntarily under Masonic demands Risorgimento. However, the intent of these demands was to weaken and even, of course, to destruct the Catholic Church. This in turn was to enable the Masonry to be built on the ruins of the Christian civilization "a fresh order according to its spirit," which Leon XIII utilized in Humane gene. This is confirmed by the Magisterium of the Church, to which we owe obedience if we want to stay Catholic. Surely, then, the top enemies of the Church of that time would agree with Mr Winnicki that the Church State was "ballast" or, as Mr Winnicki claims elsewhere, "ball and leg". Masoneria decided to remove this “ballast” from the papacy, which the Holy Capital had a work to stand firm. So, to all the heroic defenders of the Church – honor, glory and eternal memory!
Acts of the Magisterium of the Church from the period of pontificate blessed Pope Pius IX and their quoted passages on the basis of the work “Pius IX. Last Pope-king” published under the editorial board of Jacek Viator-Laskowski, in Prohibita, Warsaw in 2024.
Sergei Mushinski
Michael Murgrabia
Pius IX Last Pope King
