Did Padre Pio really refuse to "have anything to do with the Novus Ordo Mass"?!

I have notice several postings on this forum where someone has made the accusation that St. Pio was disobedient to Rome and the Holy Father, and refused to have anything to do with the Novus Ordo Mass. Would those of you who have posted these accusations kindly provide some proof. Below is a link to an answer from Colin Donovan to a question that was posted to the EWTN Q&A site. Please take the time to read it all the way through, especially the letter written by Saint Pio himself.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=403114&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=novus+ordo&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

He could not possibly have refused to have anything to do with the Novus Ordo Mass as he died in 1968 and the NO Mass was intoduced in 1969-1970.

However, IIRC, he did receive permission to continue using the 1962 missal instead of the 1965.

James

[quote=James0235]He could not possibly have refused to have anything to do with the Novus Ordo Mass as he died in 1968 and the NO Mass was intoduced in 1969-1970.

However, IIRC, he did receive permission to continue using the 1962 missal instead of the 1965.

Is there a difference between the NO mass and mass in the vernacular?
I started Catholic school in 1967, the mass was in English. I don’t remember a Latin mass at all.

James
[/quote]

Great find, Kelly! I wouldn’t expect to hear to much from those who say differently. The truth hurts! :wink:

** As I posted this earlier, from Spirit Daily, a “Novus Ordo” publication and not Traditional. In this, the writer even admits Padre Pio had many problems with Vatican II. The Novus Ordo unfortunatly has been trying for decades to show pictures of Padre Pio celebrating the New Mass, with pictures of him with his back actually to the laity and facing the altar, but making it look like he was the other way around. Note how in BOLD face how the writer states proudly that the Novus Ordo mass is celebrated at San Giovanni and anyone who uses the Latin rite is denied, as once again this proves that for some reason the Vatican fears the TLM and wants to limit and restrict its use.**

Return to archive page

**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 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).”

[quote=Kelly]I have notice several postings on this forum where someone has made the accusation that St. Pio was disobedient to Rome and the Holy Father, and refused to have anything to do with the Novus Ordo Mass. Would those of you who have posted these accusations kindly provide some proof. Below is a link to an answer from Colin Donovan to a question that was posted to the EWTN Q&A site. Please take the time to read it all the way through, especially the letter written by Saint Pio himself.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=403114&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=novus+ordo&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
[/quote]

Interesting. The article doesn’t say he had problems with VII. It says he had problems with Church trends. Heck, I have a problem with trends in my little corner of the world. Remember, I’m from the infamous “clown mass” land. It would seem that you are trying to draw conclusions that are not made in this article. Besides that, I’ve pointed this out before, we don’t have to like every discipline that comes our way but if you look at Paster Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 we are to submit to them. The reigning Pontiff is the arbiter of these disciplines.

Dont know bear, I am caught up in being a loyal soldier of Christ and the Vatican, Pope and all, as that is where my heart is, but I read some of the documents and changes and my head says something…

You can only assume Padre Pio was feeling likewise, not that I am no Padre Pio, but you get my drift.

God bless

[quote=bear06]Interesting. The article doesn’t say he had problems with VII. It says he had problems with Church trends. Heck, I have a problem with trends in my little corner of the world. Remember, I’m from the infamous “clown mass” land. It would seem that you are trying to draw conclusions that are not made in this article. Besides that, I’ve pointed this out before, we don’t have to like every discipline that comes our way but if you look at Paster Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 we are to submit to them. The reigning Pontiff is the arbiter of these disciplines.
[/quote]

[quote=bear06] The reigning Pontiff is the arbiter of these disciplines.
[/quote]

Precisely. I find it interesting that many on this site want to not only claim St. Pio as a poster boy for an anti-NO Mass/VII stance, but also to claim him as a partisan against Jews and JPII/the Catechism’s stance on them, in order to bolster their own anti-semitism. I’m glad to have other information that casts doubts on their claims in both these areas, ie., there is also apparently some doubt that he called Jews “dogs.”

Never heard of Padre Pio calling Jews dogs.

And lets be clear that it every Christians responsibilty to try and convince a person who does not have Christ in his/her life of the merits of salvation through him, whether Jewish or not. To be an anti-semite, you express hatred and dismay at this person, two different things here.

You obviously are pulling an OJ here, and as your back is against the wall, as it is difficult for liberal Catholics to substantiate their positions as it is against the doctrinal teachings of the church for the past 2000 years, they throw names like anti-semite, indifferent, uncharitable, mean, rigid, all to make you feel like you are doing something wrong by believing in the ONE TRUE FAITH that shall stand the test of time.

Sorry about that

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Precisely. I find it interesting that many on this site want to not only claim St. Pio as a poster boy for an anti-NO Mass/VII stance, but also to claim him as a partisan against Jews and JPII/the Catechism’s stance on them, in order to bolster their own anti-semitism. I’m glad to have other information that casts doubts on their claims in both these areas, ie., there is also apparently some doubt that he called Jews “dogs.”
[/quote]

I actually have no idea if Padre Pio refused to say the “english or what ever language he would actually choose to say it in” Mass - but I highly highly HIGHLY doubt he ever said anything except The Traditional Latin Mass.

Come on people think!!! Here is an very very elderly man who LOVED the Mass above all things - It was his life his passion - he was not a modernist anxious to throw out the old and invite the new!!!

“I have not found in all my religious life a more rapid or efficacious means of living very closely united with Jesus than the Holy Mass.” “For about a year now I have had the happiness of saying Mass; the joy that one feels is like nothing in this world below; it is something higher, something spiritual and divine… There is something in me which I had never felt before, and which makes me see things in another manner; this is not the fruit of studies, nor of our holiness, more or less solid, nor of anything that has a personal or human seal. It comes from the priestly character which the Holy Ghost impresses in our souls; it is a closer paticipation in the divine life which raises and deifies us; it is a higher force which renders accessible the desires and aspirations which we had been unable hitherto to realize.”

I don’t know what Padre Pio said … but common sense tells me it wasn’t … oh goody!

You obviously are pulling an OJ here, and as your back is against the wall, as it is difficult for liberal Catholics to substantiate their positions as it is against the doctrinal teachings of the church for the past 2000 years, they throw names like anti-semite, indifferent, uncharitable, mean, rigid, all to make you feel like you are doing something wrong by believing in the ONE TRUE FAITH that shall stand the test of time.

Ahhhh, the hypocrisy is in the air. Once again you are resorting to calling us liberal Catholics. Please, please, please find just one of my posts (and there are a lot to choose from) that backs this up. I have absolutely no problems substantiating my postitions with documents pre and post VII like that little dogmatic constitution Paster Aeternus that makes some of you very quiet. Have you read it lately? :wink:

[quote=Rara Avis]I actually have no idea if Padre Pio refused to say the “english or what ever language he would actually choose to say it in” Mass - but I highly highly HIGHLY doubt he ever said anything except The Traditional Latin Mass.

Come on people think!!! Here is an very very elderly man who LOVED the Mass above all things - It was his life his passion - he was not a modernist anxious to throw out the old and invite the new!!!

So basically if you are a priest who says the Pauline Mass you don’t love the Mass above all things and you are a modernist that is anxious to throw out the old and invite the new at all costs? Let’s see, I think that there are a few priests I can think of that might disagree with you…Ratzinger, Fessio, Groeschel, etc., etc., etc. It would seem that these and many more have devoted their lives to the Mass and what do you know? They say the Novus Ordo!
[/quote]

Bear

The response was to JKirk, not you, was not calling you liberal, JKirk, in a roundabout way was implying that conservative Catholics are antisemitic and that Padre Pio called Jews dogs, which I have never heard of, and I think I would have heard that rumor before

[quote=bear06]Ahhhh, the hypocrisy is in the air. Once again you are resorting to calling us liberal Catholics. Please, please, please find just one of my posts (and there are a lot to choose from) that backs this up. I have absolutely no problems substantiating my postitions with documents pre and post VII like that little dogmatic constitution Paster Aeternus that makes some of you very quiet. Have you read it lately? :wink:
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Never heard of Padre Pio calling Jews dogs.

And lets be clear that it every Christians responsibilty to try and convince a person who does not have Christ in his/her life of the merits of salvation through him, whether Jewish or not. To be an anti-semite, you express hatred and dismay at this person, two different things here.

You obviously are pulling an OJ here, and as your back is against the wall, as it is difficult for liberal Catholics to substantiate their positions as it is against the doctrinal teachings of the church for the past 2000 years, they throw names like anti-semite, indifferent, uncharitable, mean, rigid, all to make you feel like you are doing something wrong by believing in the ONE TRUE FAITH that shall stand the test of time.

Sorry about that
[/quote]

Wow, must have hit home somewhere. I’m not a liberal Catholic, by anyone’s reckoning…unless you’re a member of SSPX or a Sedevacantist. Just a Catholic who tries to follow the teachings of the Church, the ONE TRUE FAITH. And I quite agree: we should present the Gospel to all people. And my back is against a Rock.

[quote=CrusaderNY]Bear

The response was to JKirk, not you, was not calling you liberal, JKirk, in a roundabout way was implying that conservative Catholics are antisemitic and that Padre Pio called Jews dogs, which I have never heard of, and I think I would have heard that rumor before
[/quote]

Now, that’s what you get for leaping to conclusions. I know lots of conservative Catholics who are not anti-semites. I myself am fairly conservative and I’m no anti-semite. I also did NOT say that Saint Pio called Jews dogs. Read the post again. Make certain of your facts before you accuse someone.

why must people use the saints as ammo, there is no such thing as a traditional or liberal catholic, you are roman catholic or you are not a catholic simple as that

Jkirk,

Ditto, I am not a St Pius X er or whatever, and even if I was, so what as this board has Protestants, Moslems probably and Orthodox Christians (probably acting as Roman Catholics and distorting the faith to us Real Catholics), and that is accepted and which I find absurd and disturbing.

Who cares if someone goes to St Pius X as I have with family and friends gone there for masses and they are some of the nicest devout people you will find, lets get off this high horse that we are better than them as they will eventually come back to the fold, and all this bad talk about them is only going to drive them farther away. I would never leave the church as I am a loyal soldier, and I feel the church needs people like me (though I am sure some on this board would disagree!). But it seems people throw that St Pius X name around when ever a conservative catholic disagrees with a liberal, right away it is thrown “Oh, you must be a Lefbevreist or sedevacantist or something”, and that is out of line as then the string goes into a defense mode and that defeats the purpose, in my humble little opinion

With Love and Peace

Crusader

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Now, that’s what you get for leaping to conclusions. I know lots of conservative Catholics who are not anti-semites. I myself am fairly conservative and I’m no anti-semite. I also did NOT say that Saint Pio called Jews dogs. Read the post again. Make certain of your facts before you accuse someone.
[/quote]

[quote=CrusaderNY]Jkirk,

Ditto, I am not a St Pius X er or whatever, and even if I was, so what as this board has Protestants, Moslems probably and Orthodox Christians (probably acting as Roman Catholics and distorting the faith to us Real Catholics), and that is accepted and which I find absurd and disturbing.

Who cares if someone goes to St Pius X as I have with family and friends gone there for masses and they are some of the nicest devout people you will find, lets get off this high horse that we are better than them as they will eventually come back to the fold, and all this bad talk about them is only going to drive them farther away. I would never leave the church as I am a loyal soldier, and I feel the church needs people like me (though I am sure some on this board would disagree!). But it seems people throw that St Pius X name around when ever a conservative catholic disagrees with a liberal, right away it is thrown “Oh, you must be a Lefbevreist or sedevacantist or something”, and that is out of line as then the string goes into a defense mode and that defeats the purpose, in my humble little opinion

With Love and Peace

Crusader
[/quote]

unless you’re a member of SSPX or a Sedevacantist.


These are my exact words. I never said you were either of these things. I said I wasn’t a liberal Catholic by anyone’s reckoning, unless someone happened to be a member of SSPX or a Sedevacantist. I notice that you’ve felt free to bat the word “liberal” around with those who don’t agree with you. I think I’ve been far more charitiable by allowing people to put the shoe on if it fits. As for SSPX being devout and nice, I’ve no doubt of that. I know Protestants who are the same. But shouldn’t we put Protestants, Liberal Catholics, SSPXers, and Sedevacantists in about the same category: the rebellious one? It’s really the only logical place to put them, if they deny the Council and the Catechism, or spend time dissenting from the Pope’s teachings and directives. At least the Protestants can claim ignorance. The others should know better. And I wonder if attending an SSPX service regularly wouldn’t put one in danger of materially supporting schism?

And I wonder if attending an SSPX service regularly wouldn’t put one in danger of materially supporting schism?

The Church has said that it is a danger and this is why we should be concerned about our family, friends, whoever attending chapels. To say that “My family, etc. will never fall into schism” is the same is saying that they are immune to sin. We’re supposed to avoid the occaision of sin!

then why did a bishop allow the SSPX to use one of his churches for a TLM,without the conditions of the 1988 indult? Becuase they’re not schismatic. I have had a friend that asked the SSPX in Italy if they said Mass in that diocese under the indult and they replied no! See this bishop considers his faithful to be good enough to be put under these “schismatics”[yeah] spiritual care.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.