Padre Pio...and the Novus Ordo

[DavidJoseph]

The so called old liturgy is the true liturgy. Part of the third secret of fatima contains elements critical of changes in the liturgy and “an evil Council.” Padre Pio was psychically attune to this. He objected to the Protestant version of the changed Mass, as did many priests. Quite many of them were NOT old. You make it sound like only old and irrelevant Catholics objected to the Novus Ordo Protestant Mass. Padre Pio exclaimed, “STOP this COUNCIL!” And Pope John XXIII, on his deathbed, regretted calling the Council. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council. Many YOUNG priests today object to the Protestant Novus Ordo Mass–it is not a question of old or young, but dangerous changes in the liturgy that were forced on the Council by a group of Dutch and German bishops–the Rhine group–who conned Pope Paul VI. Also, American bishops took drastic liberties after the Council, over the objections of the Pope, and allowed for communion in hand and altar girls–all forbidden by the Pope. You need to study this.

Calling a valid form of Mass promulgated by the Church “Protestant” is blasphemous and heretical. No approved form of liturgy can ever be intrinsically evil or invalid. The 7th Canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent states the following:

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema." Thus, no approved Liturgy of the Catholic Church can be intrinsically evil, as it would become an incentive to impiety. If the Novus Ordo Mass were invalid in and of itself, that would make it an incentive to impiety. But no, it’s an approved Liturgy of the Church, so according to Church Tradition DOGMATICALLY DEFINED at the Council of Trent, the Novus Ordo Mass CANNOT be invalid, evil, sacrilegious, etc. To believe otherwise is to place yourself under the canon’s anathema and thus outside the Church.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

quote=ByzCath;6674311]Not the Third Secret put out by the Church and attested to by Sr Lucia.

Also if Padre Pio did say “Stop the Council” I would like to see some proof of this. So far all I have seen is users who are against Vatican II make this claim with no supporting evidence.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is not protestant, it is one of the two forms of the one rite of Mass for the Latin Catholic Church, so says the Pope.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Calling a valid form of Mass promulgated by the Church “Protestant” is blasphemous and heretical. No approved form of liturgy can ever be intrinsically evil or invalid. The 7th Canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent states the following:

 

[Angel_Bradford]

The so called old liturgy is the true liturgy. Part of the third secret of fatima contains elements critical of changes in the liturgy and “an evil Council.” Padre Pio was
psychically attune to this. He objected to the Protestant version of the changed Mass, as did many priests. Quite many of them were NOT old. You make it sound like only old and irrelevant Catholics objected to the Novus Ordo Protestant Mass. Padre Pio exclaimed, “STOP this COUNCIL!” And Pope John XXIII, on his deathbed, regretted calling the Council. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council. Many YOUNG priests today object to the Protestant Novus Ordo Mass–it is not a question of old or young, but dangerous changes in the liturgy that were forced on the Council by a group of Dutch and German bishops–the Rhine group–who conned Pope Paul VI. Also, American bishops took drastic liberties after the Council, over the objections of the Pope, and allowed for communion in hand and altar girls–all forbidden by the Pope. You need to study this.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Oops, I made a mistake, and it’s too late to edit the post.

What my previous post in this thread should have said, in part, was this:

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema.

Thus, no approved Liturgy of the Catholic Church can be intrinsically evil, as it would become an incentive to impiety. If the Novus Ordo Mass were Protestant or evil in and of itself, that would make it an incentive to impiety. But no, it’s an approved Liturgy of the Church, so according to Church Tradition DOGMATICALLY DEFINED at the Council of Trent, the Novus Ordo Mass CANNOT be evil, Protestant, sacrilegious, invalid, etc. To believe otherwise is to place yourself under the canon’s anathema and thus outside the Church.

As you can see, I originally placed the in the wrong place – it should have come at the end of the quote from Trent, not at the end of my commentary about it. Also, I mistakenly used the word “invalid,” when the issue here is not about the Ordinary Form’s validity but rather whether or not it’s Protestant, evil, or what have you.

 

[Judefrancis]

You need to do research on the unrevealed third secret of Fatima. Yes, the part of the secret kept “secret” by the Vatican does indicate apostasy “high up” in the Church. It speaks of enemies from within. Don’t be so casual in your dismissal of this. Check out the Blue Army website.

The abuses in the Novus Ordo Mass have been notorious. Malachi Martin said it was hard to celebrate a valid Novus Ordo Mass. Vatican II, in some instances, contradicts the Council of Trent. Get your facts straight.

Pope Benedict “Reopens the File”
on the Third Secret of Fatima

by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 24, 2010Within days after the Fatima Challenge conference (someone at the Vatican was indeed watching, as the conference website monitoring data indicate) none other than Pope Benedict XVI clearly, calmly, and deliberately reopened the entire Third Secret controversy. He did so by demolishing the Sodano/Bertone “interpretation” of the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” as involving nothing more than 20th century events, including the 1981 assassination attempt, which “belong to the past.” A few points are in order:

First of all, during the Pope’s flight to Portugal to make his now just completed papal visit to the Fatima Shrine, papal spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi read to His Holiness three questions that represented a “synthesis” of the questions to which the press pool sought answers. It is critical to note that questions for the plane trip are submitted several days in advance, so that the Pope has ample time to consider his remarks, and in fact chooses the questions he will answer. Thus, the Pope went out of his way to bring up the Third Secret of Fatima, ten years after the subject was supposedly laid to rest by Sodano/Bertone. Here is the question and the pertinent portions of the Pope’s explosive answer:

Lombardi: Holiness, what significance do the apparitions of Fatima have for us today? And when you presented the text of the Third Secret, in the Vatican Press Office, in June 2000, it was asked of you whether the Message could be extended, beyond the attack on John Paul II, also to the other sufferings of the Pope. Is it possible, according to you, to frame also in that vision the sufferings of the Church of today for the sins of the sexual abuse of minors?

Pope Benedict: Beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in substance refer to John Paul II, are indicated future realities of the Church which are little by little developing and revealing themselves. Thus it is true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, one speaks, one sees, the necessity of a passion of the Church that naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope; but the Pope is in the Church, and therefore the sufferings of the Church are announced…. As for the novelty that we can discover today in this message, it is that attacks on the Pope and the Church do not come only from outside, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sins that exist in the Church. This has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church.

Secondly, in his homily at the Mass to commemorate the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition on May 13, the Pope declared: “One would be deceived who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.” (“Si illuderebbe chi pensasse che la missione profetica di Fatima sia conclusa.”) I suppose it is typical of Vatican bureaucratic maneuvering that the English translation of the homily neuters the Pope’s words to read: “We would be mistaken to think that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.” No, the Pope said that one who thinks this would be deceived, not merely “mistaken,” and he referred to particular individuals, not “we” in general.
So much for the Sodano/Bertone “interpretation” of the vision as belonging “to the past.” It now joins other pseudo-official pronouncements in the discard bin of the post-Vatican II era in the Church. The Pope has completely repudiated his own adherence to the “party line” dictated by the Secretary of State, which he followed as the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose theological commentary on the vision declared that “we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: '… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima … belong to the past.”
Thirdly, the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” does not in any way depict activities by internal enemies of the Church who are sinners. Quite the contrary, it depicts the execution of a future Pope and members of the hierarchy who are martyrs, not sinners, by clearly external enemies in the form of a band of soldiers. Hence the Pope has to be referring to something that goes beyond the text of the vision standing alone.
Indeed, only one thing could harmonize the vision, with its depiction of external persecution, with an internal subversion/persecution of the Church: a text in which the Virgin explains how a crisis within the Church leads to a chastisement of the Pope and the Church as seen in the vision, accompanied by a chastisement of the whole world, as the half-ruined city filled with bodies would indicate. Here I note that at the Fatima Challenge conference the Vaticanist Giuseppe De Carli, a collaborator with Cardinal Bertone in the now-discredited “official version,” referred to the bodies seen in the vision as carbonizzati — charred!

Fatima Center 1996-2010

 

[JohnT58]

I don’t remember where I read this, but I read that he celebrated the new mass at the time as the public mass, but for private mass he celebrated the low-TLM. I am not sure if this is face, and I wish I could find the source for it.

He died before the final reforms of Paul VI (he died in 1968, Missale Romanum was issued in 1969)

As you can see here, he did celebrate Mass facing the people using some of the earlier post-Concillar reformed liturgical texts:

I think the salient point was that he continued to us the TLM privately, while publicly using official Church reforms, (and would presumably have use the NO when it arrived on the scene.

St Escriva I understand had a similar position. TLM privately, NO publicly.

 

[Judefrancis]

quote=ByzCath;6674311]Not the Third Secret put out by the Church and attested to by Sr Lucia.

Also if Padre Pio did say “Stop the Council” I would like to see some proof of this. So far all I have seen is users who are against Vatican II make this claim with no supporting evidence.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is not protestant, it is one of the two forms of the one rite of Mass for the Latin Catholic Church, so says the Pope.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass has been structured or “dumbed down” to appeal to Protestants. That was the intent. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council–Davies was a good friend of Pope Benedict’s. Vatican Ii was not a dogmatic Council but a pastoral Council, meaning that anything instituted by Vatican II can be changed. It is not a question of hersey to not accept the Novus Ordo, since Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic Council. If anything, Vatican II contradicts the Council of Trent, which forbade changes in the Mass. Communion in hand, altar girls, lay ministers, the diminished role of the priest in the Novus Ordo–these are Protestant-influenced. A Novus Ordo Mass can be valid, but the structure easily invites liturgical abuses, and that is just what we have seen since Vatican II.

 

[Judefrancis]

Not the Third Secret put out by the Church and attested to by Sr Lucia.

Also if Padre Pio did say “Stop the Council” I would like to see some proof of this. So far all I have seen is users who are against Vatican II make this claim with no supporting evidence.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is not protestant, it is one of the two forms of the one rite of Mass for the Latin Catholic Church, so says the Pope.

Padre Pio did say, “Stop this Council!” He said this when a group of fellow monks came to him from Rome and began talking about getting rid of the religious habit.

 

[Judefrancis]

Oops, I made a mistake, and it’s too late to edit the post.

What my previous post in this thread should have said, in part, was this:

As you can see, I originally placed the

in the wrong place – it should have come at the end of the quote from Trent, not at the end of my commentary about it. Also, I mistakenly used the word “invalid,” when the issue here is not about the Ordinary Form’s validity but rather whether or not it’s Protestant, evil, or what have you.

Vatican II was not a dogmatic Council but a pastoral Council, meaning that Catholics need not accept the Novus Ordo or even attend it, especially when there are problems with it. When Peter the first pope fell into error–refusing to eat with those not circumsized, he was “corrected” by St. Paul. So, popes can err when not speaking ex cathedra, and pastoral councils can err also. The Council of Trent forbade future changes in the Mass. The German and Dutch bishops at Vatican II–the Modernists–planted seeds of liturgical destruction that slowly did damage in the 40 years since Vatican II. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council. Davies was a friend of Pope Benedict’s. Davies is now deceased. Thank you.

 

[TheDoctor]

Vatican II was not a dogmatic Council but a pastoral Council, meaning that Catholics need not accept the Novus Ordo or even attend it, especially when there are problems with it. When Peter the first pope fell into error–refusing to eat with those not circumsized, he was “corrected” by St. Paul. So, popes can err when not speaking ex cathedra, and pastoral councils can err also. The Council of Trent forbade future changes in the Mass. The German and Dutch bishops at Vatican II–the Modernists–planted seeds of liturgical destruction that slowly did damage in the 40 years since Vatican II. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council. Davies was a friend of Pope Benedict’s. Davies is now deceased. Thank you.

See Jude, here is where I have a problem and your whole “you don’t have to go to the OF because of Vatican II” argument falls apart:

As far as I know, and please correct me with references, nowhere in the documents of Vatican II is there a new missal or mandates for a new Mass. There are suggestions for changes in the Mass and based on these suggestions, Pope John XXIII put together a working group to come up with a new Mass (the OF) which he, as Pope, gave his approval to.

(By the way, you have twice said the Concil of Trent forbid any changes to the Mass. Can you please provide a reference because my understanding is that there have been changes to the EF since that council.)

Now, I am not saying the OF is perfect or that it is true to the suggestions of Vatican II, but what I am saying is that the OF is a valid form of the Mass promogulated by the Pope. So, in my mind, if you don’t think we should attend the OF you are going to have to try to base your argument on something other than the second council and prove to me the Pope was in error when he approved the new missal (and since the Mass is a matter of faith, your first step is to prove that approving a new form of the Mass was not an infallable act of the Pope - best of luck to ya’).

P.S. - I see you are relatively new here, so welcome. If you use the search feature, you will see a number of old threads where these ideas have been discussed. You may do well to read through some of them before you post again. Also, I am 99% sure degrading the OF or the EF will get you banned, so stick to facts and avoid the rhetoric (e.g. “dumbed down to appeal to Protestants” nonsense).

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Vatican II was not a dogmatic Council but a pastoral Council, meaning that Catholics need not accept the Novus Ordo or even attend it, especially when there are problems with it.

**Some of the documents of Vatican II **

---

Dogmatic Constitutions
Dei Verbum
Lumen Gentium
Sacrosanctum Concilium
Gaudium et Spes

Vatican II was an ecumenical council which is the highest teaching authority of the church. The term “pastoral” means it was a worlwide council.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Padre Pio did say, “Stop this Council!” He said this when a group of fellow monks came to him from Rome and began talking about getting rid of the religious habit.

Again, references to prove this. With out that it is just you saying it and I do not know you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

in the wrong place – it should have come at the end of the quote from Trent, not at the end of my commentary about it. Also, I mistakenly used the word “invalid,” when the issue here is not about the Ordinary Form’s validity but rather whether or not it’s Protestant, evil, or what have you.

Vatican II was not a dogmatic Council but a pastoral Council, meaning that Catholics need not accept the Novus Ordo or even attend it, especially when there are problems with it. When Peter the first pope fell into error–refusing to eat with those not circumsized, he was “corrected” by St. Paul. So, popes can err when not speaking ex cathedra, and pastoral councils can err also. The Council of Trent forbade future changes in the Mass. The German and Dutch bishops at Vatican II–the Modernists–planted seeds of liturgical destruction that slowly did damage in the 40 years since Vatican II. Read Michael Davies’ book, Pope John’s Council. Davies was a friend of Pope Benedict’s. Davies is now deceased. Thank you.

Vatican two was an Ecumenical Council of the Church and regardless of dogma being proclaimed or not it is still binding upon all faithful Catholics.

The Council of Trent did no such thing, Quo Primum was a document put out by the pope of the time.

The form of the Mass is a matter of discipline and a pope can not bind future popes in matters of discipline.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You need to do research on the unrevealed third secret of Fatima. Yes, the part of the secret kept “secret” by the Vatican does indicate apostasy “high up” in the Church. It speaks of enemies from within. Don’t be so casual in your dismissal of this. Check out the Blue Army website.

No need to check, I believe what the Church and Sr Lucia have said on the issue, all the rest is the purview of conspiracy theorists.

I can see from your posts there is no hope in discussion with you so I think it is time to move on.

 

[TheDoctor]

As far as I know, and please correct me with references, nowhere in the documents of Vatican II is there a new missal or mandates for a new Mass. There are suggestions for changes in the Mass and based on these suggestions, Pope John XXIII put together a working group to come up with a new Mass (the OF) which he, as Pope, gave his approval to.

Duh! Pope Paul VI promogulated the OF. Thought that was wrong when I typed it - should have gone with my first instinct.

 

[Judefrancis]

Again, references to prove this. With out that it is just you saying it and I do not know you.

Padre Pio was defintely a liturgical conservative. Do you think he would have approved of lay ministers, communion in hand, and awful secular hymns at Mass like On Eagles Wings? I really don’t think so. While Vatican II did not specifically order what the Mass has become in many parishes throughout the US, there were “time boms” in the documents that opened the door to many abuses. This is a fact. Just look at Catholic Church sacred architecture in the last 40 years: the destruction of high altars, the dismantling of sacred iconography, altar rails. Many post Council churches resemble Protestant churches. This serious issue is currently being addressed and architects are returning to more traditional forms.

The Vatican II “time bombs” led to abuses in the Novus Ordo Mass–clown Masses, rock masses with guitars, liturgical dancing, hand clapping, the emphasis on a “Meal” and not a Holy Sacrifice. So, yes, it is very true that the Novus Ordo or OF has been more of a “do it yourself” liturgy. There is no uniformity in many Novus Ordo Masses–some parishes have no bells at Consecration, some do, etc.

Vatican II also revised all of the Sacraments, a fact which concerns the Orthodox (The Novus Ordo does not please the Orthodox either–they claim that Catholics “destroyed their beautiful liturgy.”) Baptism was changed (exorcism was taken from Baptism), and so on.

Currently, there are many Catholics who would never attend the Novus Ordo. You cannot deny this. It is happening all over the world. They see the EF as the better, more mystical, more Catholic form.

All the best.

 

[Judefrancis]

I am glad that you admit that the Ordinary Form is not perfect. But you must also admit that when the new Mass was “arranged” in Rome it was done so on the advice of six Protestant observers. The new Mass was arranged so that it would be more friendly to Protestants. This is a fact. Again, you must read the highly detailed accounts of these happenings in Michael Davies’ Pope John Council’s. Davies was a friend of Benedict XVI’s.
The accounts of what went on behind the scenes are astonishing, to say the least. The format for the new Mass opened the door for liturgical abuses. Communion in hand was something the Pope did not want, but US Bishops did it anyway–ditto for altar girls. The OF, while valid if celebrated according to the rubrics, lends itself to “do-it-yourself” inventions, as today a Catholic can go from parish to parish and find variations in the way the OF is celebrated. While the intentions of Vatican II may have been noble, that’s not what happened, More and more thinkers and priests and bishops are realizing this today. It is disconcerting to walk into a modern Catholic church and find that it could also double as a Methodist church–thrust stage altar, a table rather than a high altar, no altar rail, miniature Stations of the Cross, plus signs instead of crucifixes, etc. etc. Obviously something went wrong. Thank God there is a huge return to tradition among Catholic architects.

Examples of the Protestant influence on the Novus Ordo: The priest beginning Mass by saying, “Good morning everyone.” This should be done before the sermon, not at the beginning of the Mass.

Check into Eastern Orthodox blogs and websites and you will find many comments concerning how Catholics have destroyed their beautiful liturgy. Again, if I am making you uncomfortable saying this, I cannot help it. It is a fact.

We all pray for the restoration of tradition.

As an Orthodox friend of mine once said to me when we were discusssing communion in hand and distribution of communion by laypeople: “There are no updates regarding how the Orthodox Church distributes commuion. We have been following the same tradition for 2,000 years.” There’s a lesson here!

Amen!

 

[Judefrancis]

No need to check, I believe what the Church and Sr Lucia have said on the issue, all the rest is the purview of conspiracy theorists.

I can see from your posts there is no hope in discussion with you so I think it is time to move on.

With all due respect, the total third secret has not yet been revealed. Malachi Martin himself says that he was given the total third secret to read in February of 1960 in Rome. He speaks of this on Art Bells’ radio programs. Only one half of the third secret was officially revealed; the rest was withheld. Check Father Nicholas Grunner and the Fatima Blue Army websites. There is also the famous best seller, The Fourth Secret, which created a sensation in Europe. Modernist bishops and their friends do not like the impac that this book has made.

Sister L. also revealed that what the Vatican released was not the total third secret. Please don’t dismiss this as conspiraracy theory. Research it objectively.

God Bless.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I am glad that you admit that the Ordinary Form is not perfect. But you must also admit that when the new Mass was “arranged” in Rome it was done so on the advice of six Protestant observers. The new Mass was arranged so that it would be more friendly to Protestants. This is a fact. Again, you must read the highly detailed accounts of these happenings in Michael Davies’ Pope John Council’s. Davies was a friend of Benedict XVI’s.
The accounts of what went on behind the scenes are astonishing, to say the least. The format for the new Mass opened the door for liturgical abuses. Communion in hand was something the Pope did not want, but US Bishops did it anyway–ditto for altar girls. The OF, while valid if celebrated according to the rubrics, lends itself to “do-it-yourself” inventions, as today a Catholic can go from parish to parish and find variations in the way the OF is celebrated. While the intentions of Vatican II may have been noble, that’s not what happened, More and more thinkers and priests and bishops are realizing this today. It is disconcerting to walk into a modern Catholic church and find that it could also double as a Methodist church–thrust stage altar, a table rather than a high altar, no altar rail, miniature Stations of the Cross, plus signs instead of crucifixes, etc. etc. Obviously something went wrong. Thank God there is a huge return to tradition among Catholic architects.

Examples of the Protestant influence on the Novus Ordo: The priest beginning Mass by saying, “Good morning everyone.” This should be done before the sermon, not at the beginning of the Mass.

Check into Eastern Orthodox blogs and websites and you will find many comments concerning how Catholics have destroyed their beautiful liturgy. Again, if I am making you uncomfortable saying this, I cannot help it. It is a fact.

We all pray for the restoration of tradition.

As an Orthodox friend of mine once said to me when we were discusssing communion in hand and distribution of communion by laypeople: “There are no updates regarding how the Orthodox Church distributes commuion. We have been following the same tradition for 2,000 years.” There’s a lesson here!

Amen!

I believe the Novus Ordo is valid. I concede that the protestant influence is evident and unsettling

I can’t help but feel that Jude has a point here - the ripping out of altar rails, the diminution in status of the tabernacle and even the architecture of some (nay, 99%) of modern churches is disturbing. As an ex-protestant it is disturbing to approach an altar that looks like a breakfast table. It is disconcerting to spend minutes trying to seek out the tabernacle (shunted off in the corner of the Church). I really do sympathise with those who feel this is also part of some diabolical conspiracy. That said I can’t beleive the Novus Ordo is invalid. Although why they disposed of the St.Michael prayer is a mystery?
Nevertheless, It is clearly still the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe the Lord would make it clearer to his humble servants if the mass was illegitimate or the consecration invalid. He would surely not deny millions of his sacramental grace when things are not clear cut.

I agree with Paul VI The smoke of Satan has entered the Church though and thus we pray for purification and a quick restoration of Beauty in the Sacrifice of the Mass. I pray that we are not going to end up with the One World Religion that has been prophecied. I trust the Novus Ordo is not a pre-cursor to all this as some have suggested.