St. Padre Pio and the Novus Ordo Mass

[Dave]

It's erroneous that Padre Pio rejected the new form of Mass.

Padre Pio indeed never celebrated the revised Mass, and for a very good reason:

He died in 1968, a year before Pope Paul VI instituted it.

From 1965 to 1968, priests were free to say Mass according to the classic form; alternatively, they could use the "interim" version (i.e., the same thing, translated into the vernacular).

When Paul VI did institute the new 1970 Missal, he offered indults for elderly priests to say the old Mass privately. If Padre Pio had lived to see that day, he might well have sought and obtained that permission.

However, I am confident that he would have obediently said his public Masses in the revised form. St. Padre Pio taught his spiritual children many times, both in word and by example, that obedience is an indispensable virtue.

Side note: This was why Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated from the Church: for a lack of obedience.

[ironmonk]

And from the wisdom of St. Escriva...


[b]614 [/b] In apostolic work there is no such thing as a trifling disobedience.

[b]615 [/b] Temper your will, strengthen your will: with God's grace, let it be like a sword of steel.

Only by being strong-willed can you know how not to be so in order to obey.

[b]616 [/b] With that slowness, with that passivity, with that reluctance to obey, what damage you cause to the apostolate and what satisfaction you give to the enemy!

[b]617 [/b] Obey, as an instrument obeys in the hands of an artist, not stopping to consider the reasons for what it is doing, being sure that you will never be directed to do anything that is not good and for the glory of God.'

[b]618 [/b] The enemy: Will you obey... even in this 'ridiculous' little detail? You, with God's grace: I will obey... even in this 'heroic' little detail.

[b]619 [/b] Initiative. You must have it in your apostolate, within the terms of your instructions.

If it exceeds those limits or if you are in doubt, consult whoever is in charge, without telling anyone else of what you are thinking.

Never forget that you are only an agent.

[b]620 [u]If obedience does not give you peace, it is because you are proud[/u].[/b]

[b]621 [/b] What a pity that whoever is in charge doesn't give you good example! But, is it for his personal qualities that you obey him? Or do you conveniently interpret Saint Paul's 'obey your leaders' with a qualification of your own..., 'always provided they have virtues to my taste'?

[b]622 [/b] How well you understand obedience, when you write: 'To obey always is to be a martyr without dying'!

[b]623[/b] You've been told to do something which seems useless and difficult. Do it. And you will see that it is easy and fruitful.

[b]624 [/b] Priority, order. Everything in its place. — What would be left of a Velasquez painting if each colour were to mingle with the next, if each thread of the canvas were to break apart, if each piece of the wooden frame were to separate itself from the others?

[b]625 [/b] Your obedience is not worthy of the name unless you are ready to abandon your most flourishing personal work, whenever someone with authority so commands.

[b]626 [/b] Isn't it true, Lord, that you were greatly consoled by the childlike remark of that man who, when he felt the disconcerting effect of obedience in something unpleasant, whispered to you: 'Jesus, keep me smiling!'?

[b]627 [/b] Yours should be a silent obedience. That tongue!

[b]628 [/b] Now, when you find it hard to obey, remember your Lord: 'obedient even to accepting death, death on a cross!'

[b]629 [/b] The power of obedience! The lake of Genesareth had denied its fishes to Peter's nets. A whole night in vain.

Then, obedient, he lowered his net again to the water and they caught 'a huge number of fish'.

Believe me: the miracle is repeated each day.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

You obviously do not understand the concept of Obedience.

[quote]"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." -- St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica II-IIQ. 104

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." -- Galatians 1:8

We ought to obey God...rather than men. -- Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. -- Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud.

"Error by excess"--False Obedience

Excessive zeal even for obedience, if indiscreet, will surely lead to a great fall.

Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobience to all Tradition through obedience (i.e. false obedience). -- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

So It Was In St. Peter's Day---

Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. --St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14

So It Was In St. Bellarmine's Day---

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See. --St. Robert Bellarmine

So It Must Still Be Today---

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances. --Professor Dietrich von Hildenbrand, The Devastated Vineyard (Chicago, 1973), pp.3-5
[/quote]

If my supeior tells me to do something evil should I obey him still?
[quote]

If obedience does not give you peace, it is because you are proud.[/quote]

that is asuuming that i am being obedient to something of God, and not being Fasely obedient.

[Dave]

For any person to claim that a given command by a bishop or pope is sinful or evil, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And ANY benefit of the doubt is to be given to the bishop or pope in question. That is what all the saints and spiritual masters of Catholicism teach.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Dave

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Dave' post='997664' date='Jun 5 2006, 04:43 PM']
For any person to claim that a given command by a bishop or pope is sinful or evil, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And ANY benefit of the doubt is to be given to the bishop or pope in question. That is what all the saints and spiritual masters of Catholicism teach.
[/quote]


i don't disagree. let me share this with you:

[quote]Novus Ordinarians are always playing their games, challenging me to defend my traditional Roman Catholic Faith, challenging me to provide "sources," and when I do, they are never satisfactory. Well, this is how I put Novus Ordinarians on the defensive -- which is where they should be. We traditional Catholics don't have to defend ourselves. We are believing and practicing what the Church has for 2000 years. It is they who have to defend their unCatholic New Order.

The burden of proof is on your side. I am saying that the Church is in chaos and in eclipse. You say no, that the New Order is doing the will of God. Prove it!

In good conscience I cannot participate in something that goes against the traditions and teachings of the Church. Convert me! Go ahead; show me that you are right in your unCatholic actions and beliefs.

I am in good conscience, forced by the near destruction of Christ's visible Church and the introduction of new teachings, philosophy, worship, and Mass after Vatican II that are foreign and offensive to God and to His true Church. According to Vatican II, I must let my formed conscience be my guide, so even you, by your own Vatican II point of reference, cannot judge me!

I don't think that you will get too far because the Church is on my side, and you will have to fight 2000 years of tradition that contradicts you. The burden of proof is on your side. Good luck! [/quote]
-Fr. Moderator

[Socrates]

Sam, I thought you said you were through with this "rad-trad" stuff.

[goldenchild17]

That's what I thought too . Anyways, this thread serves what purpose exactly?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='997746' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:00 PM']
Sam, I thought you said you were through with this "rad-trad" stuff.
[/quote]

that was when i was an apostate. i think im over that now.


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='997753' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:04 PM']
That's what I thought too . Anyways, this thread serves what purpose exactly?
[/quote]

aren't you a trad? why are you smiling about Apostasy?

this thread is a general trad debate thread, it seems.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='997757' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:07 PM']
that was when i was an apostate. i think im over that now.
[/quote]
Good to hear; maybe someday you will be a completely faithful Catholic loyal to the Magisterium.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='997757' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:07 PM']aren't you a trad? why are you smiling about Apostasy? [/quote]
I'm a Catholic nothing more. Call me what you guys will, I'm more concerned about the argument not what I am called by people here. Why on earth would I believe what I did if I truly thought it was apostasy or heresy or schism of any kind? What sense would that make? None, no I believe I am following the fullness of the truth, otherwise I wouldn't be following it at all. Unlike some I don't do things just because it might cause a cool reaction and make me seem "different". I'm doing it because I believe it's the truth. Why am I smiling? Because I try to be upbeat about these things. I don't let people bring me down for what I believe. I simply try to remember that I used to be like the majority of people here. So I know exactly where you guys are coming from, I simply do not agree with that approach anymore.


[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='997757' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:07 PM']this thread is a general trad debate thread, it seems. [/quote]
Okie, not sure why the saintly Pio was brought into this though. Very few people even noticed that anything was happening at the time, much less notice anything bad happening. I, nor anyone else of my belief I would think, would fault him for that. Unless he could put himself into the future and be able to look back on all this for what it really was, there is no way anybody can fault him.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='997764' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:14 PM']
I'm a Catholic nothing more. Call me what you guys will, I'm more concerned about the argument not what I am called by people here.[/quote]
Anyone who rejects the Pope and the Magisterium ceases to be Catholic.
And while you shouldn't worry about what people here call you, perhaps you should worry about what the Successor to Saint Peter teaches.

[quote]Why on earth would I believe what I did if I truly thought it was apostasy or heresy or schism of any kind? What sense would that make? None, no I believe I am following the fullness of the truth, otherwise I wouldn't be following it at all.[/quote]
I'm sure Martin Luther thought the same way.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='997763' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:13 PM']
Good to hear; maybe someday you will be a completely faithful Catholic loyal to the Magisterium.
[/quote]

probably, when the restoration of Tradition takes place.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='997764' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:14 PM']
I'm a Catholic nothing more. Call me what you guys will, I'm more concerned about the argument not what I am called by people here. Why on earth would I believe what I did if I truly thought it was apostasy or heresy or schism of any kind? What sense would that make? None, no I believe I am following the fullness of the truth, otherwise I wouldn't be following it at all. Unlike some I don't do things just because it might cause a cool reaction and make me seem "different". I'm doing it because I believe it's the truth. Why am I smiling? Because I try to be upbeat about these things. I don't let people bring me down for what I believe. I simply try to remember that I used to be like the majority of people here. So I know exactly where you guys are coming from, I simply do not agree with that approach anymore.
[/quote]

funny. Isn't that what everyone does? im not a trad to be controversial (i could do that a bunch of easier ways).
[quote]
Okie, not sure why the saintly Pio was brought into this though. Very few people even noticed that anything was happening at the time, much less notice anything bad happening. I, nor anyone else of my belief I would think, would fault him for that. Unless he could put himself into the future and be able to look back on all this for what it really was, there is no way anybody can fault him.
[/quote]

so despite the fact that He wrote a letter declaring his obedience to Paul VI, you view him as a saint? and he was a phrophet... he obviously knew what he was doing, Mr. Sedevecantist.

[quote name='Socrates' post='997774' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:19 PM']
Anyone who rejects the Pope and the Magisterium ceases to be Catholic.
And while you shouldn't worry about what people here call you, perhaps you should worry about what the Successor to Saint Peter teaches.
I'm sure Martin Luther thought the same way.
[/quote]



Yes st. Athanisus really ceased to be Catholic...

Edited June 6, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[ironmonk]

The way the Mass is said was not God's command...

The way the Mass is said is what the Church sets forth as guided by the Holy Spirit.

[b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
[b]19 [/b] I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. [b][u]Whatever [/u] [/b] you [b]bind [/b] on earth shall be bound in heaven; and [b][u]whatever [/u] [/b] you [b]loose [/b] on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


The Church has the power to bind and loose.

A "way" is a discipline.

This quote you have is not that of a well thought man, but of a bitterly proud one.


The Church has the authority and power to change the mass as it has been doing since 33 AD.

This was written in 1908 AD and proves your reasoning in great error.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm[/url]

A few excerpts for those who are pompus enough to ignore the link:


[quote]The prayers, or at least some of them, can be traced back to a very early date from occasional references in letters of Fathers. From this it does not follow that they always stood in the same order as now. Their arrangement in our present Missal presents certain difficulties and has long been a much-disputed point. It is very possible that at some unknown period -- perhaps in the fifth century -- the Canon went through a complete alteration in its order and that its component prayers, without being changed in themselves, were turned round and re-arranged. This theory, as will be seen, would account for many difficulties. In difficulties.

In the first century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ's direction and doing as He had done the night before He died. There were the bread and wine brought up at the Offertory and consecrated by the words of Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Ghost; the bread was broken and Communion was given to the faithful. Undoubtedly, too, before the service lessons were read from the Bible, litanies and prayers were said. It is also known that this Mass was said in Greek. Hellenistic Greek was the common tongue of Christians, at any rate outside Palestine, and it was spoken by them in Rome as well as everywhere else, at the time when it was understood and used as a sort of international language throughout the empire. This is shown by the facts that the inscriptions in the catacombs are in Greek, and that Christian writers at Rome (I Ep. Clem., etc.) use that language (cf. de Rossi, Roma sott., II, 237). Of the liturgical formulas of this first period little is known.
...

The first great turning point in the history of the Roman Canon is the exclusive use of the Latin language. Latin had been used side by side with Greek, apparently for some time. It occurs first as a Christian language, not in Rome, but in Africa.
...

There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. "No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory" says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162).
...

They are all simply the Roman use with slight local variations -- variations, moreover, that hardly ever affect the Canon. The Sarum Rite, for instance, which Anglicans have sometimes tried to set up as a sort of rival to the Roman Rite, does not contain in its Canon a single word that differs from the parent-rite as still used by us. But some changes were made in medieval times, changes that have since been removed by the conservative tendency of Roman legislation.
...

There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the "Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" [b][u]should [/u] [/b] be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "[i]Canon of the Mass contains errors [/i] [b][u]and [/u] [/b] [i]should be abolished[/i]" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a [b]Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it[/b]. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept. [/quote]


[b]Learn what a Papal Bull is[/b]: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm[/url]

A bull can contain matters of faith OR discipline... IF the bull is in regards to discipline, another Pope may reverse it AS IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE Vatican 2. Use a little common sense here. A bull is the format something is written in... the type of paper and the seal.

[b]NOTE:[/b] "condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors [b]and[/b] should be abolished" "
Condemning of the people who say the Canon contains errors AND should be abolished [b]DOES NOT MEAN[/b] the Church cannot change the Mass.

[b]NOTE:[/b] "should be kept pure and unchanged" [b]DOES NOT MEAN [/b] the Church cannot change the Mass.


The Church has the power and authority to change the Mass order when it wants... as has happened many times long before Vatican 2. Bind... AND loose.

Get educated... no you are not or you would be loyal to Pope Benedict... Go to the above link, from the Catholic Encyclopedia written long before Vatican II was thought of and get educated.

You have ignored the very words of Christ. The City on the Mountain is the Church lead by Pope Benedict XVI. You should read more of scripture than focusing on discipline like the pharisees did.

If you are not with Pope Benedict XVI, then you are wrong.

Do not expect a reply because you hare now ignored. I shake the dust from my sandals.

Edited June 6, 2006 by ironmonk

[dUSt]

Catholic vs Catholic debate is not allowed on phatmass. Closed.