FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Chief Exorcist Father Amorth: Padre Pio Knew The Third Secret
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(08-03-2017, 10:13 PM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ]No, the church bears no resemblance to the church before Vatican II. It is a new religion from top to bottom. That is self evident.

Being old enough to actually remember the Church prior to the Vatican II Reformation and resultant 'Protestantization', I have to agree with you, to a point. Some very solid and necessary Traditions were just thrown out and highly questionable changes introduced and an evil presence that was making headway infiltrating the hierarchy of the Administration of Mother Church, became so well infiltrated as to effect down to the individual Parishes. Then, with resulting traumatic disgrace and horridly vile sexual perversions, as to scandalize her so deeply that very many good conservative Catholics left her. Then the attacks on Her Liturgy and Ceremony, down to changing the structure and possibly even the validity of The Mass itself.

The Church today is likened to Christ on His way to Calvary; broken, beaten, bleeding and abandoned by His once faithful followers, except one Apostle and a few women.

A sad state of affairs indeed!

But like Christ, She will rise anew!
@zedta I wish you had been more enlightening, but I thank you for the CFN article about Fr. Villa, which was entertaining if nothing else. It reminds me of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," at the end when they say, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Not that CFN is lying. I just don't see one blessed footnote. Is any of this verifiable? For inspiration, it makes for nice reading. I read Breitbart, too. For fun. But let's have verifiable facts, not propaganda. As for actual research, as you say, that will will be for another day. I'd love it if it's all true. 

Let's leave Padre Villa and return to Padre Pio. I read once that Padre Pio received a personal dispensation from Paul VI to continue saying the old Mass because he was old and infirm. How nice for him. I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. Assuming that the Mass actually matters. Assuming that it's somewhat important. Assuming that the Truth is more important than slavish obedience. 

If he had, do you think the new church would have ever sainted him? Can we trust someone who was sainted by an organization that makes a mockery of our religion? Not on those grounds, at least. 

Other people actually did stick their necks out for the truth: Lefebvre, Thuc, de Pauw, Feeney--many others who received a dry martyrdom but are unknown. Pio said nothing about the "Great Sacrilege," as Wathen calls the new so-called liturgy. Even an educated layman such as Patrick Omlor seems more relevant than Padre Pio. I have yet to see a refutation of Omlor. But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 
(08-03-2017, 11:32 PM)Zedta Wrote: [ -> ]But like Christ, She will rise anew!

Yes, I believe the same as you.
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ]@zedta I wish you had been more enlightening, but I thank you for the CFN article about Fr. Villa, which was entertaining if nothing else. It reminds me of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," at the end when they say, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Not that CFN is lying. I just don't see one blessed footnote. Is any of this verifiable? For inspiration, it makes for nice reading. I read Breitbart, too. For fun. But let's have verifiable facts, not propaganda. As for actual research, as you say, that will will be for another day. I'd love it if it's all true. 

Let's leave Padre Villa and return to Padre Pio. I read once that Padre Pio received a personal dispensation from Paul VI to continue saying the old Mass because he was old and infirm. How nice for him. I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. Assuming that the Mass actually matters. Assuming that it's somewhat important. Assuming that the Truth is more important than slavish obedience. 

If he had, do you think the new church would have ever sainted him? Can we trust someone who was sainted by an organization that makes a mockery of our religion? Not on those grounds, at least. 

Other people actually did stick their necks out for the truth: Lefebvre, Thuc, de Pauw, Feeney--many others who received a dry martyrdom but are unknown. Pio said nothing about the "Great Sacrilege," as Wathen calls the new so-called liturgy. Even an educated layman such as Patrick Omlor seems more relevant than Padre Pio. I have yet to see a refutation of Omlor. But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio was a saint, the same kind of saint as the Curé d'Ars.
He had many gifts, but unlike the Curé d'Ars he had the stigmatas.
God allowed him to say only what God wanted in his times, and nothing else. If he had a bad opinion of the Novus Ordo, God didn't allow him to say it aloud and he obeyed.
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ] I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. 

But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio died in September 1968.  The New Mass was not promulgated until April 1969. 

I would venture a guess that the reason Padre Pio did not repudiate the New Mass is due to the fact that it was not promulgated until after he died.
The NO promulgated less than a year after the death of one of the greatest saints in the past century. 

Hmmm...
(08-05-2017, 01:48 AM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ] I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. 

But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio died in September 1968.  The New Mass was not promulgated until April 1969. 

I would venture a guess that the reason Padre Pio did not repudiate the New Mass is due to the fact that it was not promulgated until after he died.

(08-06-2017, 12:26 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]The NO promulgated less than a year after the death of one of the greatest saints in the past century. 

Hmmm...

Nice points!
(08-05-2017, 01:48 AM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ] I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. 

But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio died in September 1968.  The New Mass was not promulgated until April 1969. 

I would venture a guess that the reason Padre Pio did not repudiate the New Mass is due to the fact that it was not promulgated until after he died.

St. Pio knew about the new Order of the Mass, because the first revised Masses were offered in 1967. Somebody told St. Pio that he would have to offer an experimental revised Mass in the vernacular; he subsequently asked Pope Paul VI to be dispensed to continue to offer the Mass of St. Pius V.
(08-08-2017, 01:50 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-05-2017, 01:48 AM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ] I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. 

But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio died in September 1968.  The New Mass was not promulgated until April 1969. 

I would venture a guess that the reason Padre Pio did not repudiate the New Mass is due to the fact that it was not promulgated until after he died.

St. Pio knew about the new Order of the Mass, because the first revised Masses were offered in 1967. Somebody told St. Pio that he would have to offer an experimental revised Mass in the vernacular; he subsequently asked Pope Paul VI to be dispensed to continue to offer the Mass of St. Pius V.

There was also the 1965 Missal which had a lot of vernacular and even versus populum for the Liturgy of the Word. However, that Mass would have at least been familiar to any Catholic who saw it.
Either way, even if he heard of this new revised Mass, there's nothing to say he that he knew the extent it would change things or that he sat down to read through the texts of it. His dispensation was probably more due to his poor health than knowledge of what the Mass was like.
(08-08-2017, 01:50 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-05-2017, 01:48 AM)DJR Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-04-2017, 02:57 AM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ] I would prefer that he would have said something on record against the new Mass for the benefit of the rest of us. 

But can anyone supply an unequivocal repudiation of the new Mass by Padre Pio? 

Padre Pio died in September 1968.  The New Mass was not promulgated until April 1969. 

I would venture a guess that the reason Padre Pio did not repudiate the New Mass is due to the fact that it was not promulgated until after he died.

St. Pio knew about the new Order of the Mass, because the first revised Masses were offered in 1967. Somebody told St. Pio that he would have to offer an experimental revised Mass in the vernacular; he subsequently asked Pope Paul VI to be dispensed to continue to offer the Mass of St. Pius V.

In the modern era, the first major revisions were promulgated in Advent 1964, and the first revised Masses were offered beginning in 1965.

However, Charlesh's post specifically referenced "the new Mass," not the revised Mass of 1967.  The revised Mass of 1967 was not "the New Mass." 

The Novus Ordo Missae, which is "the New Mass," was promulgated in 1969, after Padre Pio died.

Archbishop Lefebvre offered the revised Mass up to, and including, the 1967 changes.  He never offered "the New Mass."  He subsequently returned to using the older missal.
Pages: 1 2 3