J
JReducation
Guest
Opinions that violate charity and justice are best kept to oneself. If is of little use to defend the liturgy and violate charity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
bkovacs
Guest
I think it was more than his age as to why he ask for an exemption. If all it was was a language change.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to add to what Brother David has said. Obviously whoever said these things about Padre Pio and the OF of the mass knows nothing about exempt religious orders. I do, because Padre Pio and I belong to the same order.
When that experimentum mass was introduced, it was for us in parishes. It did not bind religious in friaries or monasteries. Padre Pio was not stationed in a parish. He was at one of our monasteries. The law of the order applies there. If the major superior does not require that the members of the housej celebrate the mass in the new form, those friars who are ordained are exempt from it. They take their marching orders from their major superior, not the bishops or commissions, unless it is a law for the universal Church.
Even today, the EF cannot be mandated within a monastery, priory, or friary. Those houses are subject to the jurisdiction of the major superior. Summorum Pontificum clearly mentions that regular priests celebrating mass in their chapels, must be guided by the major superior and the statutes of their institute. Anyd religious superior can exempt or prohibit within hin house, until somethign becomes universal law, such as the OF. The OF cannot be prohibitted, even among religious communities that are traditionalists. The EF is their choice. That’s different from prohibition of the OF. In other words, you can prohibit what is extraordinary and you can exempt from it.
This was the case with Padre Pio. He was too old. Therefore, he was exempt. He lived in a monastery. Therefore, his superior could exempt him And just for the record, he was often asked to use the experimental mass to celebrate for the student friars and he did. That’s how we get some of those wonderful pictures of him at the alar with hands extended saying the Eucharistic prayer. They were taken by novices, while he was facing them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
bkovacs
Guest
So what your saying is that everything in this article.I’m going to add to what Brother David has said. Obviously whoever said these things about Padre Pio and the OF of the mass knows nothing about exempt religious orders. I do, because Padre Pio and I belong to the same order.
When that experimentum mass was introduced, it was for us in parishes. It did not bind religious in friaries or monasteries. Padre Pio was not stationed in a parish. He was at one of our monasteries. The law of the order applies there. If the major superior does not require that the members of the housej celebrate the mass in the new form, those friars who are ordained are exempt from it. They take their marching orders from their major superior, not the bishops or commissions, unless it is a law for the universal Church.
Even today, the EF cannot be mandated within a monastery, priory, or friary. Those houses are subject to the jurisdiction of the major superior. Summorum Pontificum clearly mentions that regular priests celebrating mass in their chapels, must be guided by the major superior and the statutes of their institute. Anyd religious superior can exempt or prohibit within hin house, until somethign becomes universal law, such as the OF. The OF cannot be prohibitted, even among religious communities that are traditionalists. The EF is their choice. That’s different from prohibition of the OF. In other words, you can prohibit what is extraordinary and you can exempt from it.
This was the case with Padre Pio. He was too old. Therefore, he was exempt. He lived in a monastery. Therefore, his superior could exempt him And just for the record, he was often asked to use the experimental mass to celebrate for the student friars and he did. That’s how we get some of those wonderful pictures of him at the alar with hands extended saying the Eucharistic prayer. They were taken by novices, while he was facing them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
catholictradition.org/Saints/padre-pio7b.htm
In regards to EF Mass and Padre Pio is a lie!. You swear by it right!.
B
bkovacs
Guest
What about the part where Padre Pio says to “end the council quickly”. All lies right JR
J
JReducation
Guest
First, the words here are not Padre Pio’s. They are those of the writer.
**This is my favorite chapter, for it was the holiness with which Padre Pio approached the altar of God and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the awesome Immemorial Mass, the height of Catholicism, that I associated with the Saint more than anything else, including Confession and the Stigmata. We were then at the lowest ebb after Vatican II, which had officially closed but remained wide open in full agenda to let all Hell let loose to prey on that which is the heart of the Church, the Mass, Hell with its diabolical disorientation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Padre Pio, it was said, by those who knew, had never said that Mass. **
Second, we have already established, Br. David and I, that Padre Pio never celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae. The only form of the mass that he celebrated, on occasions, was the experimental form, which was a hybrid. He did not celebrate that for long, because he died in the 1960s.
**And then I knew what I was undergoing at the Mass of Paul VI, which violated Tradition and had incurred the anathemas of the Council of Trent, in reality, if not officially. **
Padre Pio never said this either.
the New Mass was an experiment and not a holy thing at all
Padre Pio never said this either. However, Summorum Pontificum says that it is holy. Even if P. Pio had said this, Summorum Pontificum overrules him. A saint is not above the reigning Pontiff.
The rest of the article continues that way. It manipulates what people say to push their point. If you want to know what Padre Pio thought on these issues and where he was right and wherre he was wrong, go to the archives of the Capuchin Franciscans. You can write them and they will answer your questions.
Please do not use an article that manipulates one of my brothers to drive home their point. I rescent that. And I’m going to report it to the administration of CAF with a letter from our major superior. This is wrong.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
Are you saying the article you posted yourself is all lies, or are you calling JR a liar?
J
JReducation
Guest
Now you have a problem. You have Padre Pio saying that he wanted the council to end quickly. Which was said by many older priests. And you have Bl. Mother Teresa and B. John XXIII supporting the council.
Three saintly people, three perspectives. Who’s right?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Layman
Guest
Given that there’s only about half-a-dozen places on the planet where the N.O./O.F. is said as Paul VI envisaged I think their perspectives are now moot.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Great stuff! It is indeed telling that the two canonized Saints who lived during the changes in the Mass both requested and received a celebret to continue saying the TLM and to not have to say the new. St. Pio and St. Escriva.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And how do you know this little fact?
I can count more than half a dozen OF Masses that I have been to that a faithful to the rubrics and without abuses.
This calls to mind Proverbs 17:28.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
My opinion violated neither charity or justice. In fact the comment was spoken out of justice.Opinions that violate charity and justice are best kept to oneself. If is of little use to defend the liturgy and violate charity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I indeed think it is a sad sign of how deep the crisis is when any religious would defend liturgical dance at a Papal Mass. I stand by that opinion. I think it is a sacrilege.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Padre Pio, obviously.Now you have a problem. You have Padre Pio saying that he wanted the council to end quickly. Which was said by many older priests. And you have Bl. Mother Teresa and B. John XXIII supporting the council.
Three saintly people, three perspectives. Who’s right?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
There is reason to believe that Mother Theresa participated with Hindus in false worship. This does not take away the good that she did, but it must be remembered she is not a Saint.
Neither for that matter is John XXIII. He may have been personally pious but his actions as Pope, including inviting previously condemned theologians to act as experts at the Council were dreadfully imprudent and lead to the auto-demolition of the Church (words of Paul VI).
L
Layman
Guest
To: ByzCath.
Really? There are a good few places where the O.F. is said with Latin, Gregorian Chant and the priest facing ad-orientem?
I know of only one in the UK, the Brompton Oratory. I understood they were quite rare.
Really? There are a good few places where the O.F. is said with Latin, Gregorian Chant and the priest facing ad-orientem?
I know of only one in the UK, the Brompton Oratory. I understood they were quite rare.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/what_is_the_latin_mass.html
It is my understanding that at the time of the changes priests needed to specifically request permission to say the TLM, but needed none for the NO Mass. Therefore both Saints Josemaria and Pio would have had to voluntarily requested pernmission to continue saying the TLM and to NOT say the NO Mass.
I’d like the brothers who proposed the idea that priests above a certain age were automatically expected to keep saying the TLM to back that up with citations and documentation.
It is my understanding that at the time of the changes priests needed to specifically request permission to say the TLM, but needed none for the NO Mass. Therefore both Saints Josemaria and Pio would have had to voluntarily requested pernmission to continue saying the TLM and to NOT say the NO Mass.
J
JReducation
Guest
I realize that this is ot part of the OP, but how do you explain the two miracles, one attributed to the intercession of Bl. Mother Teresa and the other to the intercession of B. John XXIII?
It sounds like they are legitimate Blesseds to the Church. The Church does not have to make a decree of canonization for someone to be a saint. The Church does not make saints.
On the other hand, to use a saint, Padre Pio or Jose Maria Escriva, and pit him or her against the Church and against the popes themselves is a sin against the Holy Spirit and against the sain himself. No saint would accept that dubioius honor.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So your of the opinion that the only good OF Mass is done with the options you state.
Well too bad that the Church disagrees with you.
When I have a choice between what the Church actually teaches and what some ultra-traditionalist anonymous posters says, I will stand with the Church every time.
But thank you for your opinion, I now know how to take what you say, with a grain of salt.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
I simply pointed out the obvious fact that Padre Pio is a canonized Saint and your other two examples are not yet Canonized Saints. “Blessed” is not the same as Canonized Sainthood. This goes to the level of certainty the Church has regarding the person’s personal holiness and doctrine.
We are comparing the opinion of a Canonized Saint, St. Pio, with the purported opinion that Mother Theresa supported the Council (no citations have been supplied to support this or to distinguish what “support” means) and that John XXII “supported” the Council.
John XXIII is sort of an odd example, as he called the Council and never lived to see the end of it or its fruits.
I never “pitted” these Saints against the Church or Pope. I merely pointed out the fact that St. Pio wanted the Council to end and both he and St. Josemaria voluntarily elected to say the TLM over the New. No doubt St. Pius X would become apoplectic if he saw a typical suburban Novus Ordo Mass. So what? Catholics do not have to agree with every prudential decision and introduced experimental novelty that Churchmen introduce.
It is remarkable that you have personally accused me of a sin against the Holy Spirit (unforgivable) because I agree that a Canonized Saint is correct in his statement from the 60’s against the Council? Is it also a sin to claim that every novel liturgical practice “approved” of today is “good” in contradiction with previous Popes who warned against, forbade, and condemned such practices? Is that not pitting Pope against Pope?
I would be very careful, out of prudence and charity, of accusing fellow Catholics of sins against the Holy Spirit.
J
JReducation
Guest
The community that you’re citing was dismissed from the Capuchin Franciscan order. You know that? For two reasons:
- Their support of Archbishop Lefebvre.
- Observe the titles that they use: Capuchin Fathers. The real Capuchins are not called by that name anywhere in the Church. They are the Capuchin Friars. The Capuchin Fathers is a group of friars that were expelled from the order because they refused to obey the superior general, the constitutions and the Holy See.
Their opinion is not very credible when they have separated themselves from their order by disobeying and violating a solemn vow of obedience.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status