Pade Pio Celebrating Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrikhank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t know. I don’t understand his popularity. I’m missing something and have been for a long time.

His “stigmata” were found to be healed, when his body was examined after death. Yet, as you see, he still kept his hands mostly covered during Mass.

I am skeptical about there being so many Italian saints. There seems to be a lot of politics that goes on in declaring people to be saints. A lot of money is spent on that process. There’s also a disproportionate number of consecrated religious and ordained priests that saints. Maybe it’s the reverse that bothers me, that there aren’t enough lay people who have been recognized as saints.

It wouldn’t surprise me that Mother Angelica (EWTN) will be nominated for sainthood. Here, too, I fail to see her holiness – I don’t see anything unusual. She wore heavy leg braces for years, then one day decided to try to walk without them, and she could. What’s miraculous about that? (Maybe there is, I don’t know. Maybe she didn’t get the right treatment earlier in her life.)

I think living people should probably try to discourage others from idolizing them. All the glory should be to God. Why not just let God take care of somebody’s reward? And, how can we top that anyway?

On EWTN, I saw a show with Fr. “Bing” about Pio. He said that Pio used to invite children up to his monk’s cell to give them candy. Hmmmm. I have questions about that. Why did the monk have candy up there, in the first place? Why did the kids have to go up there to get it? Today, we’d think this was pretty wierd conduct. THAT is certainly not saintly, as I can tell. but, I’m just asking.
 
Padre Pio did say mass once or twice versus populum as that was how the altar was arranged. The only rite he used was the traditional one in the form of 1962. He asked and received from Paul VI the assurance that he would never be required to celebrate according to any of the reformed usages, such as the 1965 and 67 changes. He died before the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced.
 
you would be very blessed to witness st. padre pio celebrating the eucharist.
 
Thanks Wesley7 - I am a fan of Padre Pio and don’t get the big deal. It seems to me he “paid his dues” and was completely scrutinized before he even died. I do agree that people can be idolized and that is unhealthy and improper, but not just when they are alive. Saints are our brothers and sisters in heaven who are pulling for us, nuturing the growth of the kingdom of God through prayer. They aren’t mini-gods and shouldn’t be thought of that way. Can God chose to work supernaturally through them? Of course, and He does through people alive as well. But HE is the source of grace and power, and saints know that, whether they are alive (a saint to be) or in heaven. Other people may get goofy about it, but that’s not their fault. And real honest-to-goodness miracles do happen, even in this day and age, whether we are skeptical or not. God is bigger than our understanding, and He owes us no explanation - tho He frequently is gracious enough to give it. Let’s be less critical and judgemental and more kindhearted and believing.
 
Crumpy said:
Don’t know. I don’t understand his popularity. I’m missing something and have been for a long time.

His “stigmata” were found to be healed, when his body was examined after death. Yet, as you see, he still kept his hands mostly covered during Mass.

I am skeptical about there being so many Italian saints. There seems to be a lot of politics that goes on in declaring people to be saints. A lot of money is spent on that process. There’s also a disproportionate number of consecrated religious and ordained priests that saints. Maybe it’s the reverse that bothers me, that there aren’t enough lay people who have been recognized as saints.

It wouldn’t surprise me that Mother Angelica (EWTN) will be nominated for sainthood. Here, too, I fail to see her holiness – I don’t see anything unusual. She wore heavy leg braces for years, then one day decided to try to walk without them, and she could. What’s miraculous about that? (Maybe there is, I don’t know. Maybe she didn’t get the right treatment earlier in her life.)

I think living people should probably try to discourage others from idolizing them. All the glory should be to God. Why not just let God take care of somebody’s reward? And, how can we top that anyway?

On EWTN, I saw a show with Fr. “Bing” about Pio. He said that Pio used to invite children up to his monk’s cell to give them candy. Hmmmm. I have questions about that. Why did the monk have candy up there, in the first place? Why did the kids have to go up there to get it? Today, we’d think this was pretty wierd conduct. THAT is certainly not saintly, as I can tell. but, I’m just asking.
Click to expand...
I see you are a skeptic, which is fine, but I have to remind you that in many cases one does not really know the extent of a person’s holiness until their cause is opened for Sainthood and their lives are examined. In any case, a healing is not what one would look at for Sainthood–many people have documented medical healings. And one does not even have to be a Christian or even holy to be healed.–that is from the mercy of God.

And to answer your questions about the braces–if someone has been wearing them to get enough support to walk, that means their leg muscles are very weak and can’t support their body weight. They would also be atrophied. If you take off the braces they cannot walk. Nobody can spend years in braces and then just take them off and walk–the muscles are too weak. So if that happened, it would be considered highly unusual , if not miraculous. But the Church is the only one who can declare officially that this is a miracle.
 
the object of my faith is Jesus Christ as revealed in the Catholic Church.

I don’t need a miracle here or there to make me believe, as a result of a sudden deep religious experience of that sort. People can be so easily mislead by tricks that look like sideshow acts.

My faith is the biggest miracle in my life, the only one I need.

Jesus cured 10 lepers by his own power, when he was on earth. We can cure ten lepers,each of us, if we want to, you know? Certainly not by our own power but by paying for the drugs (American Leprosy Mission) for ten lepers. Have you cured your ten lepers? To God be the glory.
 
Padre Pio was given true gifts from Jesus the Lord Our God.

I firmly believe that he was a good, and holy servant of God, and have no doubts about his
stigmata either.
 
It is true that the object of our faith is Jesus Christ as revealed by the Church, and that our faith is a miracle - truly the best, for without it we have none of the other blessings that are ours in Christ. Because I believe other miracles occur doesn’t mean I would disagree with you about these two things.

We should be helping those who suffer with illness or poverty - medicine and food can also be miracles from God, which He uses us to distribute, on His behalf. Also something I could not disagree with.

May the Lord bless you much and have a good week.
 
OK, let’s take this from the top.

First, Padre Pio was a Capuchin Franciscan Brother.

Second, Padre like every ordained Franciscan Brother, the mass that Padre Pio celebrated was not the same as that which was celebrated by the priests in most parishes. He celebrated the Seraphic Mass which has its own collects, calendar, readings, and certain details that are not in the Roman Missal and deletes some details in the Roman Missal, such as the Lavabo. In the Franciscan Form, the lavabo is not over a dish or bowl, but over the chalice itself. In the Franciscan Form, traditional Gregorian chant does not form part of the mass. There was a very simple chant that is still in use today. The hymns were usually very classic, many of them of German origin. The mass was always vocal, because St. Francis commanded that the laity, not the server, respond to the prayers. In modern times, microphones were added so that the friar did not have to turn to the people to get them to hear him.

Third, the so called promise that Padre Pio would never have to celebrate the New Order of the mass is out of context. The rule was that no priest above age 60 would be required to use it. Padre Pio was above age 60.

Fourth, this rule did not apply to priests who are brothers. Only the superior could make this decision. This rule was for those priests who were members of orders of priests or who were diocesan priests. Benedictines and Franciscans are brothers first. The abbot (Benedictines) or the Minister (Franciscan) makes the final call.

Fifth, it was the decision of the General Chapter of the Capuchin Franciscans that all of the ordained brothers celebrate mass versus populum. This included Padre Pio. This took place before the rest of the Church began to face the people. The Capuchins and other Franciscan obediences introduced this into the liturgy, because of the desire of St. Francis that the entire religious community be part of the mass. Vatican II had called for religious to return to their roots.

Sixth, Padre Pio obeyed the command of the General Chapter and celebrated the mass facing the people when the Guardian required it. He celebrated the mass from the Seraphic Missal until it was abrogated in 1963. At that time, the Franciscans were given two choices, to use the Roman Missal of 1962 or the new Roman-Franciscan Missal that was being prepared. Padre Pio did not live to see the new Roman-Franciscan Missal, which Franciscans use today.

Seventh, SP and UE have not lifted the ban on the Seraphic Missal. They only allow the Latin Rite mass of 1962, which was different from the Seraphic Missal. We don’t know if the Seraphic Missal is ever going to be re-introduced or if we will have a revised form of the Extraordinary Form to fit the Franciscans. It seems to be going in that direction. Only time will tell.

Eighth, to the person who asked the question about the stigmata on Padre Pio . . . the stigmata never healed during his lifetime. They disappeared at the moment of death. The physician who attended to Padre Pio as he was dying gave testimony to this, as well as the Guardian of the friary and the brother who was assigned to care for him. Why they healed at the moment of death is still under investigation by the Capuchin Franciscans. In any case, the stigmata never entered into the discussion concerning his sanctity. No one is ever canonized because God works a miracle. You are canonized because you live a life of heroic virtue and faith.

Every canonization is an infallible statement to which every Catholic must assent. And every Catholic must venerate the saint. You need not have a devotion to the saint. Devotion is different from veneration. Veneration is required; devotion is voluntary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
bevsue said:
Thanks JReducation for that thorough explanation. I learned a lot!
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. If only Traddom understood how it drives Franciscans crazy every time it pulls St. Pio out of his Franciscan context. The moment you do this, you run the risk of misunderstanding which then leads to people filling in the blanks.

The same thing happens all the time when people say that Padre Pio was suspended. This never happened. He was ordered not to celebrate mass for the laity, because of the notariety around his stigmata until the whole thing was understood. He was free to celebrate mass for the friars. While this made him sad, because he loved serving the laity, he was not unhappy to obey. When he was a novice he was taught the Rule. The Rule is very clear that if a brother is a priest, he celebrates mass when the Guardian says so and under the conditions that the Guardian sets for him, even if the Guardian himself is not a priest.

What happened was that many people were very devoted to Padre Pio for obvious reasons. The man was a saint. Unfortunately, these kind folks did not understand the Rule, the rights of a Guardian and the obligations of a friar. They took Padre Pio out of context. To them, he was a priest. He was their priest. To the Church, he was a friar. If you separate the priest and the friar, of course you’re not going to understand why he cannot say mass for you and it looks like some kind of punishment.

If you leave the priest and friar in one person, as it should be, then you understand that he is a consecrated religious and that he has duties to his community first and then to the rest of the world. The friars were founded to obey the Gospel, to by living perfect poverty in a chaste communion with their brothers and the world.

Let’s be careful not to take these saints out of context. If we do so, we will misunderstand them and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hadrianus said:
Padre Pio did say mass once or twice versus populum as that was how the altar was arranged. The only rite he used was the traditional one in the form of 1962. He asked and received from Paul VI the assurance that he would never be required to celebrate according to any of the reformed usages, such as the 1965 and 67 changes. He died before the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. As you may see in this video, he is celebrating the modified form of the old rite, the so-called transitional rite, in his last public Mass in 1968. These are not the prayers at the foot of the altar. youtube.com/watch?v=qn1y1-nTouM&playnext=1&list=PL154CE4DE5E2E3118
 
Chatter163 said:
Incorrect. As you may see in this video, he is celebrating the modified form of the old rite, the so-called transitional rite, in his last public Mass in 1968. These are not the prayers at the foot of the altar. youtube.com/watch?v=qn1y1-nTouM&playnext=1&list=PL154CE4DE5E2E3118
Click to expand...
By this time, because the Seraphic Missal had been suppressed, the friars were celebrating the form that came in the interim between 1962 and 1970. Padre Pio did celebrate it facing both ways. It was up to the Guardian to determine. We have pictures and videos of him doing both. That was not unusual for the friars during those years. He never celebrated the currrent Roman-Franciscan Form, which is what we use today. It’s the form that you see on EWTN. He did not live long enough. It was not promulgated until 1968, but the friars had several years to introduce it. Here, in the USA, we did not start to use it until 1970. Again, the general chapters decreed that it had to be used, but left it up to the Guardians to introduce it gradually, just as they had done in 1963.

These things were never up to Padre Pio or any friar. When it comes to the celebration of the Mass and the LOTH, Guardians are absolute rulers. The friars in the local house can vote, only if the Guardian allows them to do so. He has the authority to impose whatever he wants and ban whatever he wants without the consent of the friars. At the international level, it’s a different story. The General Minister cannot impose the form of the mass or the LOTH. The chapter votes on the form and the rules that govern its implementation.

This where people get confused. The ruling was that priests who were seniors did not have to change, but that rule did not apply to Franciscans and Benedictines. It was only for dioceses and for religious communities of priests. The Franciscans and Benedictines, but they are not religious communities of priests. Therefore, you cannot allow the priests in the order to make choices that impact the entire community. They don’t have those rights as other priests do. The chapter did impose the changes on everyone; however, it did allow the Guardians into manage the implementation. Most Guardians tried to be very gentle with the seniors by having them do it gradually. Padre was part of that gradual transition, but died before it was completed.

People also say that he made some profound statements against the change. This was not exactly the case. Like many older men, he did not like change and he was known to have a temper. Once he was told that he could not express any opinion on the matter, he no longer said anything and like every other senior, he did what he was told to do. Again, this is one of those situations where we take this poor man out of context, just to hold up our Traditionalist point of view. This is not fair. This was an older man, who like many other older men, did not like change and did not understand why he had to it this way when he had done it that way for years.

He did not like the idea that the lay brothers were eliminated either and that the ordained brothers had to scrub floors, cook meals, and do laundry and the non-ordained brothers preached retreats, studied theology, science and technology. He was born in that period of deviation from the rule between 1789 and 1960. The idea of going back to 1209 was foreign to these older friars. We don’t see anyone saying that he griped about not having friars as servants. He did complain about it. This was new to him and he was old. However, he lived to accept that too.

The bottom line is that if we don’t take the whole man and all the things that bothered him in context, we’re going to distort him. There were things that bothered him simply because of his age and personality. Other things he did not really care about. He was a saint, but that does not mean that he had no feelings about things. He often had to be told to be quiet. He obeyed. This is the part of Padre Pio what we admire, his great love and humility, his willingness to do what was difficult out of pure love and his care for souls.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Crumpy said:
Don’t know. I don’t understand his popularity. I’m missing something and have been for a long time.

His “stigmata” were found to be healed, when his body was examined after death. Yet, as you see, he still kept his hands mostly covered during Mass.

I am skeptical about there being so many Italian saints. There seems to be a lot of politics that goes on in declaring people to be saints. A lot of money is spent on that process. There’s also a disproportionate number of consecrated religious and ordained priests that saints. Maybe it’s the reverse that bothers me, that there aren’t enough lay people who have been recognized as saints.

It wouldn’t surprise me that Mother Angelica (EWTN) will be nominated for sainthood. Here, too, I fail to see her holiness – I don’t see anything unusual. She wore heavy leg braces for years, then one day decided to try to walk without them, and she could. What’s miraculous about that? (Maybe there is, I don’t know. Maybe she didn’t get the right treatment earlier in her life.)

I think living people should probably try to discourage others from idolizing them. All the glory should be to God. Why not just let God take care of somebody’s reward? And, how can we top that anyway?

On EWTN, I saw a show with Fr. “Bing” about Pio. He said that Pio used to invite children up to his monk’s cell to give them candy. Hmmmm. I have questions about that. Why did the monk have candy up there, in the first place? Why did the kids have to go up there to get it? Today, we’d think this was pretty wierd conduct. THAT is certainly not saintly, as I can tell. but, I’m just asking.
Click to expand...
As a person who deeply loves Saint Padre Pio and made him my Confirmation Saint, I would first like to apologize if anything I say offends you.

To say that he is not a real Saint and he is a fraud is to deny the Pope’s infallibility. And without that, the Catholic Church itself does not exist as the one, true, apostolic Church. Whatever the Pope says on these matters has been guided by the Holy Spirit itself. To say otherwise is to be a Protestant. That is why in Acts Saint Peter (AKA: The first Pope) says during the matters of circumcision: “WE believe” and not “I believe”. He is saying that we/they, as a Church, believe that it is not necessary any longer. And it says after “And they were all silenced”. In Tim Staples’ version: “And then they all shut up”. Because he was told by the Holy Spirit that it was no longer necessary and had it written in stone. Blessed Pope John Paul the Great is the successor of Saint Peter, therefore he has been given the same infallibility. Whomever he says is a Saint, is indeed a Saint. If you don’t believe that, then you can call yourself a Seta-vacantist and call Blessed Pope John Paul the Great the Anti-Christ with the rest of them.
 
You fail to see Padre Pio’s holiness, yet you beatify JPII?

What kind of contradiction in terms is that?

Padre Pio left behind him souls that were on fire for God.

JpII Left behind a church that is fast losing its Catholic identity.

I am not saying his beatification is invalid.

I am saying: Where is the Devil’s Advocate? I do not think he should be canonized whatsoever.
 
I don’t know much about Padre Pio but I will say one thing, who cares which way he celebrated mass? Are we going to go through the histories of all the saints and go ‘oooo he celebrated the mass wrong way, naughty, naughty’ or ‘oooo he said a mean word here, naughty naughty’. I mean honestly he’s a saint, far holier than I’ll ever be and traditionalist though I am I am not even going to enter into discussions about whether he celebrated mass one way or why he did so because frankly its none of my business. Just my 2 cents… (or pence as we have in the UK)

And as for those questioning his holiness, I don’t even know what to say. It seems that even with his death the persecution and calumny does not stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top