Was the New Mass ever promulgated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RSiscoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Always blasting the Trads and everything that they say as garbage, that is calumny at its worst. For that matter, I probably believe more of what the Trads say, and question what comes out of the Vatican, like the latest Fatima fiasco where the Pope pushed for the “Ecumenicalization” of our beloved shrine, then when the only group to stand up to the desecration, St Pius X stood up and made waves, the Vatican backed down and said they had nothing to do with this, while the Bishop there stated he was told to allow the Hindu worship by the Pope himeself.

On a second note, this is right out of Spirit daily, a Novus Ordo Periodical that I read daily, written by Novus Ordo writers, who put a different spin on this Padre Pio controversy, and they are saying that he started to incorporate some of the Novus Ordo into his mass, but still did not agree with Vatican II, and as far as his age at the age of 81, 90% of the priests now are probably over the age of 70, as I read there are more priests over the age of 75 than under 35

Spirit Daily

Former Aide To Padre Pio Says The Saint Had Incorporated Part Of The New Mass


By Michael H. Brown

An Italian priest who served as a liaison between the famed Capuchin St. Padre Pio and English-speaking followers says that the saint had incorporated elements of the new or *“Novus Ordo” *Mass into his own celebrations of the liturgy before his death in 1968 despite rumors to the contrary.

The assisting priest, Padre Ermelindo Di Capua – currently stationed in San Giovanno, Italy, where St. Pio spent nearly his entire ministry – says the saint strictly adhered to dictates from Rome and sought information on precisely what he needed to do in order to conform with new strictures as the liturgy was changed from the Latin Rite after Vatican II.

The remarks are significant at a time when controversy has arisen over both the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the reaction to it by Pio – considered a paragon of discernment.

It also comes at a time of enhanced interest (including here) of reintroducing elements of the Latin Rite into the modern Mass to bring back its mystical aspects. “It’s not just old-timers wanting to cling to pre-Vatican II ways who are coming to the liturgies,” notes one newspaper recently. “People in their twenties and thirties are filling many of the pews, finding serenity and a sense of awe in the solemn rituals.” Additional interest has been sparked by director Mel Gibson, who recently made headlines with his movie about the Passion and who reportedly adheres only to the Latin Rite.

While there is no indication that Pio embraced all the reforms of Vatican II – and indeed are even reports that he was distressed by certain Church trends – Padre Ermelindo told Spirit Daily there was no indication that the saint opposed the new way of saying Mass, which has the priest facing the congregation and speaking in the national vernacular, which many believe detracts from reverence.

Ermelindo notes that the *Novus Ordo *is the only rite used at San Giovanni today and that visiting priests who request to use the Latin Rite are denied in conformance with the national bishops.

“He used to say Mass according to the new order,” asserts the Franciscan, who lived in the same monastery as Pio and answered his English-speaking correspondence. “By 1968 [when Pio died] the new order was not yet complete, but had changed some things from Latin into the Italian language. He attempted to say Mass according to the new disposition of the Church. He tried to learn and adapt himself to the new rules of the Mass. There was still some Latin. It wasn’t yet completely changed. The canon I don’t remember exactly.” "

Latin proponents have asserted that in fact Pio never did recite the new rite. “When the Mass of 1965 was introduced, bearing the first changes that were the precursors to the *Novus Ordo, *Padre Pio, without even reading the text, publicly took the position that he did not want to celebrate it,” claimed one such correspondent. “He died before the full-blown Novus Ordo was issued in 1969 (and then recalled for doctrinal flaws).”
40.png
ByzCath:
I have heard this argument before, the Trads love to throw St Pio into the mix, but a couple of things come up.

Saints are not infallible.

I was not aware of the book you mentioned but yes, all older priests where given an indult to keep saying the Trad Latin Mass due to their advanced age.

.
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
Always blasting the Trads and everything that they say as garbage, that is calumny at its worst.
I am sorry that you feel this way but when Trads put words into the mouths of Saints to support their dissent and when they question the validity of the Mass of the Church and promote open dissent and schism they are the ones uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage the Church and the Popes who support and promote the Mass of the Church.

When Trads turn to and take the work of dissenting/schismatics over that of the hierarchs who are the proper authority they are the ones who are in practicing the garbage that you accuse me of.

I will quote St Pio, as bear06 did…
“You did a wicked thing . . . We must respect the decrees of the Church. We must be silent and suffer.”
 
40.png
MrS:
I don’t see in these posts this comment, so here it is:

The changes from the TLM to the NO are many. But only the Latin-to-English seems to be the topic in this country. The true abuses that resulted from the ambiguities of Vat II are not so much in the language change, but in the prayer changes. A desire to return to the TLM by many is not based on the Latin, but on the prayers of the Mass. If one were to compare the prayers, and the critical points of theology that arise with those changes, one could not help but desire a return to the prayers of the TLM,
I completely agree. I only used the latin comment as an example of an ambiguity of the concil. The vernacular language is the lest of the problems of the new mass.
 
Well David,

Let us Latins tweek the Liturgy’s of St. John & St.Basil with a few Evangelicals and see how you respond.

I love your comment in post # 9, “return to things from the early church”. Well what are those things ?

I love the thought “don’t mess with mine, but let’s fix yours”.

I highly resent your derogatory comments about us Traditionalists, as least we respect what was handed down to us from our parents & grandparents, and the Fathers of old. Don’t ask for help when it comes your way.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for Rome to correct anything.

The door was left ajar, and the darkness has crept in.

james
 
40.png
Jakub:
Well David,

Let us Latins tweek the Liturgy’s of St. John & St.Basil with a few Evangelicals and see how you respond.

I love your comment in post # 9, “return to things from the early church”. Well what are those things ?

I love the thought “don’t mess with mine, but let’s fix yours”.
Actually this shows how much you don’t know. Our Liturgy is undergoing a reform of its own though our seminary.

No where did I say don’t mess with mine and you misrepresent the reform of the Mass. It was not done by others, it was done by the Church.

There are many things within the Mass that constitute a return to earlier practices, the Kiss of Peace, communion in hand, communion under both species, use of the vernacular, concelebration are a couple quick examples off the top of my head.
I highly resent your derogatory comments about us Traditionalists, as least we respect what was handed down to us from our parents & grandparents, and the Fathers of old. Don’t ask for help when it comes your way.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for Rome to correct anything.

The door was left ajar, and the darkness has crept in.

james
My comment is only to those Trads who are not obedient to the Church. Who claim that the Mass is invalid, who are schismatics and trying to lead others into schism.

And do not worry I will not ask for you help as our Church is progressing well, but slow, in returning our Traditions. As the Traditions of our grandparents are not the Traditions of our Church but of the latinizations fostered upon us by Latin Bishops.

I am first and foremost a Catholic and I will stand up and fight when anyone attacks the Church.
 
David,

I would gladly debate you on this and may I say being a very seasoned Latin that it would be a waste of time for both of us.

After a few years of studying the East and West, I can say that the veil has been lifted from my eyes and mind, and my path and journey leads elsewhere.

I wish you well.

james
 
RSiscoe,
You need to read what was written in Latin. The english gives a force that is not in the original.
Ok … the force seems that of law.

In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading: “Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.” (AAS 61 (1969) 217–222)

The standard Latin canonical terms a pope customarily employs to make a law are all present: *normae, praescripta, statuta, proponimus, statuimus, jussimus, volumus, praescripsimus, * etc. The legislation, obviously, then meets the simple canonical norm for promulgation.

In the text of the Constitution, Paul VI makes it abundantly clear that his will is to impose the obligation of a law on his subjects. Note in particular his language in the following passages:
  1. The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.” (“…novas normas…proponi.”) “proponi” means “to impose,” as in “impose a law.”
  2. “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].” (“ut eidem Precationi tres novi Canones adderentur statuimus.” “Statuo” with “ut” or “ne” has the sense of “decree, order, prescribe.”)
  3. We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.” (jussimus)
  4. And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.” (volumus)
  5. "All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.” (“Quae Constitutione hac Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient.”)
  6. It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.” (“Nostra haec autem statuta et praescripta nunc et in posterum firma et efficacia esse et fore volumus.”)
Question: Is it compatible for Vatican II to say that latin is to be maintained in the administration of the sacraments, then for latin to be totally eliminated from the administration of the sacraments on the authority of Vatican II? Do you see any contradiction there?
Latin is maintained in the administration of the sacraments. It is not totally eliminated as you assert. On the contrary, Latin is used every day in my diocese, both in the Pauline and the licit Tridentine Mass of the FSSP. I’m betting my diocese is not the only one. Furthermore, the editio typica is in Latin. This is the official Missale Romanum.

Thus, you think that the context should be ALL Latin, at EVERY Mass, in EVERY parish. I disagree. Even in the 1600s, the pope gave permission for the Chinese missions to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular. This didn’t eliminate Latin from the Liturgy, just from the liturgy in China. And it was lawful to do so.
 
It doesn’t take a canon lawer to realize that the “not properly promulgated” argument given by Lefebvrist apologists is ridiculous.

To “promulgate” a law means nothing more than to announce it publicly. That is what the pope has done. As the lawmaker, he can and did publically propose the law to the community. He has plenary authority to do so, apart from Vatican II. That Paul VI did so in accord with Vatican II is irrelevent. He has plenary authority to legislate for the entire Church apart from any council of bishops.

The Code of Canon Law simply says: “Laws enacted by the Holy See are promulgated by their publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.” (canon 9). This is all that the Code requires and it suffices to make known the will of the legislator, the pope.

Unless another provision has been made in a particular law itself, a law becomes effective (binds) three months after its official publication date in the Acta (canon 9).

The Vatican first published the new Ordinary in a small booklet in 1969, along with the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (a doctrinal and rubrical preface). The new order of Scripture readings appeared in May 1969. The full Missal, containing the new Orations for Sundays, seasons and feasts, appeared in 1970.

In the front of this booklet appear Paul VI’s lengthy Apostolic Constitution on the New Mass, Missale Romanum, and the 6 April 1969 Decree Ordine Missae from the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Consilium).

The Decree, signed by Benno Cardinal Gut, states that Paul VI approved the accompanying Order of Mass and that the Congregation was promulgating it by his special mandate. It set 30 November 1969 as the effective date for the legislation.

Now, the Decree by Cardinal Gut was never published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. So, many goofy Lefebvrist has concocted a theory that it was impromperly promulgated so it is not binding. This is nonsense, as the Apostolic Constitution itself WAS published and it didn’t need a cover letter by a Cardinal to make the pope’s law official.

The key question in canon law about the promulgation of any law is the will of the legislator. In this case, did Paul VI manifest his will to impose on his subjects an obligation? Yes. Did he do so in the Acta Apostolica Sedis? Yes.

Some opine that the Pauline Mass was merely “permitted” not intended to be imposed as an obligation. This too is absurd. Both Quo Primum and Paul VI use identical “lawmaking” terms in key passages: norma, statuimus and volumus. Canonists describe these words as “preceptive” which clearly indicate a strict obligation.

Paul VI: “It is Our will [volumus] that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.” The same word “volumus” is used by St. Pius V in Quo Primum. It is not merely a wish, but the manisfest will of the Supreme Legislator.

Much of what I’ve asserted above is summary of what Fr. Anthony Cekada assets in an article called Did Paul VI “Illegally” Promulgate the New Mass?. Fr. Cekada asserts that the Pauline Mass is evil, but rejects the claim that Paul VI did not properly promulgate it. The former is incorrect, but he got the latter part correct. 👍
 
Consider also the following …

From the Holy Father’s Instruction Constitutione Apostolica (20 October 1969), AAS 61 (1969) 749–753:
“The foregoing documents decreed that, from 30 November of this year, the First Sunday of Advent, the new rite and the new text be used” …
"The individual conferences of bishops shall also establish the day from which (except for mentioned cases in paragraphs 19-20) **it shall become obligatory to employ the [Pauline] Order of Mass. **This date, however, shall not be deferred beyond 28 November 1971.” …
“The individual conferences of bishops shall decree the day from which use of the texts of the new Roman Missal (except for mentioned cases in paragraphs 19-20) shall be prescribed.” …
“On 18 October 1969 the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Paul VI, approved this Instruction, ordered it to become public law, so that it be faithfully observed by all those to whom it applies”
The exceptions were for older priests who offered private Mass and who experienced difficulties learning the new text.

Furthermore, the decree Celebrationis Eucharistiae (26 March 1970) is entitled: “The new edition of the Roman Missal is promulgated and declared the editio typica.” (AAS 62 (1970), 554)

The Notification Instructione de Constitutione (14 June 1971), AAS 63 (1971) 712–715, is entitled “On the use and the beginning of the obligation of the new Roman Missal, [Breviary], and Calendar.” It states, "from the day on which the translated texts must be used for celebrations in the vernacular, only the revised form of the Mass and [the breviary] will be allowed, even for those who continue to use Latin.

Seems like a no brainer. It was certainly promulgated, and it was certainly obligatory.
 
RSiscoe, et. al.,

I’d like to comment on this part of the article posted by RSiscoe…
if the Pope makes changes in the universal customs of the Church, he is not to be followed.
I find an inconsistency in this teaching that I’d like our traditionalists brethren to think about and provide comment.

From Pope St. Pius X, *Quam Singulari (1910)
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm
The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning
to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. … done at Baptism until the thirteenth century …
Code:
This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were **not permitted** to approach the Holy Table **until they had come to the use of reason** and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. **This new practice**, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215 ...
The custom of giving Holy Communion to infants was “from the beginning” as Pope St. Pius X puts it, “until the thirteenth century.” This seems like an even more “immemorial” custom than the Tridentine Mass which dates back no earlier than the 5th century. Yet, the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 promulgated a “new practice” which no longer permitted this custom. Now, as St. Pius X asserts, this “later died out.” However, why prohibit it then? Obvioiusly there must have been some “remnant” churches who still maintained this 1200-year custom, but by decree of the Church, were no longer allowed to practice this custom.

If the Pope makes changes in the universal customs of the Church, such as no longer permitting infants to receive Holy Communion in the Latin Rite, should he be followed?*
 
In case anyone missed this thread, this goes along with ours.

Letter from Padre Pio:
San Giovanni Rotondo
September 12, 1968
Your Holiness,
I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.
I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of the people of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical “Humanae Vitae”; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.
May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.
Prostrate at your feet, I beg you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also to bless all our good endeavours which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.
Humbly yours,
P. Pio, Capuchin
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Ok … the force seems that of law.

In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading: “Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.” (AAS 61 (1969) 217–222)

The standard Latin canonical terms a pope customarily employs to make a law are all present: *normae, praescripta, statuta, proponimus, statuimus, jussimus, volumus, praescripsimus, *etc. The legislation, obviously, then meets the simple canonical norm for promulgation.

In the text of the Constitution, Paul VI makes it abundantly clear that his will is to impose the obligation of a law on his subjects. Note in particular his language in the following passages:
  1. The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.” (“…novas normas…proponi.”) “proponi” means “to impose,” as in “impose a law.”
  2. “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].” (“ut eidem Precationi tres novi Canones adderentur statuimus.” “Statuo” with “ut” or “ne” has the sense of “decree, order, prescribe.”)
  3. We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.” (jussimus)
  4. And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.” (volumus)
  5. "All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.” (“Quae Constitutione hac Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient.”)
  6. It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.” (“Nostra haec autem statuta et praescripta nunc et in posterum firma et efficacia esse et fore volumus.”) …
It doesn’t take a canon lawer to realize that the “not properly promulgated” argument given by Lefebvrist apologists is ridiculous.
This is what I was referring to when I said read the Latin version:
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pO-wqtwjJbUJ:www.geocities.com/militantis/sacrilegechp5.html+promulgation+of+Missale+Romano&hl=en

You said it is a “Lefebrist” argument that the new mass was never promulgated. I don’t know of any SSPX priests who publically teach that; it is usually independent priests who do.

I am not saying I believe the new mass was never promulgated. What I will say is that if it turns out that it never was promulgated, it would not surprise me one bit, because I believe we are living in a day of total deception, and what appears to be, is not always as it appears. For example many parts of the new catechsims seems to say one things - and thus many people interpret it as meaning that - when in reality, it actually does not say what it seems to say.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the link I gave above.
 
A letter written by a man who had just blasted the entire new Mass and Vatican II at sickly at the age of 80,which probably someone else wrote for him does not prove much, as does Sister Lucy locked up in confinement, not allowed to speak to the public because she is probably waiting to die after seeing what has happended to her beloved church. The Vatican keeps her so secluded, and I understand that she is allowed to worship the TLM, but like Padre Pio, whom Pope Paul VI hated as he was jealous of him and all the attention he was receiving, probably wrote the letter to show the world that he was in line and not disobedient to Rome, really proves nothing.
40.png
bear06:
In case anyone missed this thread, this goes along with ours.

Letter from Padre Pio:
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
A letter written by a man who had just blasted the entire new Mass and Vatican II at sickly at the age of 80,which probably someone else wrote for him does not prove much, as does Sister Lucy locked up in confinement, not allowed to speak to the public because she is probably waiting to die after seeing what has happended to her beloved church. The Vatican keeps her so secluded, and I understand that she is allowed to worship the TLM, but like Padre Pio, whom Pope Paul VI hated as he was jealous of him and all the attention he was receiving, probably wrote the letter to show the world that he was in line and not disobedient to Rome, really proves nothing.
Nice to see the old conspiricy theory is still alive and well.

First, Sister Lucia is not confined. She is cloistered as all cloistered nuns are. Please show proof that she is there against her will.

Second, provide proof that someone else wrote the letter that is St Pio signed and sent himself.

You can’t… But you still try to explain them away becuase they do not fit your assumptions. It is sad what hatred does to a person especially when the hatred is directed at the Church and the Holy Father.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
My comment is only to those Trads who are not obedient to the Church. Who claim that the Mass is invalid, who are schismatics and trying to lead others into schism.

.
I really do not understand. Very little that you find in the Novus Ordo Mass offered today is actually obedient to the teaching of the Church. Why is it that as soon as a traditionalist points out eggregious abuses to the liturgy he is immediately labeled a schismatic?
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
A letter written by a man who had just blasted the entire new Mass and Vatican II at sickly at the age of 80,which probably someone else wrote for him does not prove much, as does Sister Lucy locked up in confinement, not allowed to speak to the public because she is probably waiting to die after seeing what has happended to her beloved church. The Vatican keeps her so secluded, and I understand that she is allowed to worship the TLM, but like Padre Pio, whom Pope Paul VI hated as he was jealous of him and all the attention he was receiving, probably wrote the letter to show the world that he was in line and not disobedient to Rome, really proves nothing.
Where again did he "blast the entire new Mass and Vatican II? Here come the conspiracty theories!!!
 
Why is it that as soon as a traditionalist points out eggregious abuses to the liturgy he is immediately labeled a schismatic?
Can you quote where Byz did said this?

He specifically stated:
Who claim that the Mass is invalid
,

Once again, we go back to the “if we just say it enough, people will believe it” card.
Very little that you find in the Novus Ordo Mass offered today is actually obedient to the teaching of the Church
Why don’t you list specifics so we can have a true debate rather than just saying that we’re mean for calling people schismatics?

I’ve never called any of you a schismatic but I will say that you use the same arguing tactics that they do! 😉
 
These posts are getting quite uncharitable on both sides, but we Latins are all entitled to our opinions regarding OUR Liturgy.

I seriously doubt that all here follow all the guidelines of their professed rite to the letter, if they say yes its a out right untruth.

May I link one of my favorite articles concerning the Mass;

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4647

by Fr. Joseph Fessio

james
 
Munda cor meum:
I really do not understand. Very little that you find in the Novus Ordo Mass offered today is actually obedient to the teaching of the Church. Why is it that as soon as a traditionalist points out eggregious abuses to the liturgy he is immediately labeled a schismatic?
Again, I said that those who say that the Mass of the Church is invalid are in error.

The Mass is obedient to the teachings of the Church, it could not be otherwise unless you think the Church has gone into error itself.

Yes there are abuses in the Mass, I have not claimed otherwise. But the Trads here are not pointing out those abuses, they are making claims that it is invalid and was not promulgated. That is what makes them in error or schismatics, especially when they support schismatic groups like the SSPX and/or pray for schism as one of them has said he does in another thread.
 
CrusaderNY,
Pope Paul VI hated as he was jealous of him and all the attention he was receiving
I think you’re mixing up John XXIII with Paul VI. John XXIII severely restricted Padre Pio’s freedom and visibility. I doubt he hated him, but I think he saw too much of a cult following that tended toward spectacle at times, rather than piety. Right or wrong, it was John XXIII that limited Padre Pio’s freedom, not Paul VI.

On the contrary, once Paul VI took over, he lifted the restrictions placed upon Padre Pio. In fact, so many bishops from Vatican II were making trips to see Padre Pio that it was said that the council seemed more to occur in San Giovanni Rotondo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top