To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, offers a well-reasoned (yet sure to be controversial) examination of Padre Pio, a "saint" of the Vatican II sect, who is also revered by many Traditionalists.
Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
Padre Pio: A Skeptical View
By Dominic Caggeso
In their efforts to make their new, counterfeit religion appear credible, the Novus Ordo sect has employed many tactics. One of their schemes is the creation and promotion of imitation “saints”. These pseudo-holy men and women, often known for their false signs and lying wonders, employ various religious deceptions to achieve their ends. Mother Teresa’s apparent care for the poor distracted from her rejection of the necessity of the true Faith for salvation. Similarly, the rock-star status of John Paul II served as a smokescreen for his numerous public acts of apostasy.
There is a clear litmus test for these fake “saints”: their acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo religion, and/or their rejection of the Traditional Catholic Faith. Thus, it is relatively easy for Traditional Catholics to discern the genuine from the counterfeit. It is possible that someone who died before the Second Vatican Council and was “canonized” by a Vatican II antipope lived a sufficiently holy life to be considered a Saint. However, because such a person was promoted by the Novus Ordo sect, they must immediately be considered suspect of heresy or apostasy. Not all “saints” canonized by the Novus Ordo sect are heretics or apostates, but our default position towards these “saints” should be one of skepticism and prudence.
Over the years, through numerous conversations with other sedevacantists, I've come to notice that there are a few Novus Ordo “canonized saints” who are widely regarded as genuinely holy. Among these, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe (who seems genuine as far as I can tell) and Padre Pio stand out. While there may be others I have overlooked, these two are often held in high esteem, with Padre Pio receiving the most devotion from Traditional Catholics.
He is seen as a staunch promoter of Catholic Tradition, particularly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council. To be frank, I believe that some Traditional Catholics are also captivated by his purported fantastic miracles. Let’s delve into some of the significant events in Padre Pio’s public life and examine them more closely. Perhaps he should be counted among the other counterfeit Novus Ordo “saints."
General Information About Padre Pio
• Padre Pio was born in 1887 in Pietrelcina, Italy. He died on September 23rd 1968, shortly after the end of the Second Vatican Council (which ended in 1965) and he died shortly before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI, which took place on April 3rd 1969.
• He entered the novitiate of the Franciscans in 1903 around the age of 16 years old. He was ordained a priest in 1910.
• Padre Pio is famous for his alleged stigmata, and for the many reports of wonders and miracles that he performed throughout his adult life.
• He was "beatified" in 1999 by John Paul II. He was "canonized" in 2002 by John Paul II.
Condemnation by the Pre-Vatican II Holy Office
One of the most compelling reasons for skepticism regarding Padre Pio’s authenticity as a true Catholic saint are the numerous condemnations he received from the Pre-Vatican II Holy Office, spanning multiple decades. These condemnations take on further gravity considering they were issued and upheld by two steadfast defenders of Catholic teaching and Tradition: Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Cardinal Merry del Val, a close friend and confidant of Pope St. Pius X, led the Holy Office from 1914 to 1930. Cardinal Ottaviani succeeded him, serving from 1959 to 1968.
The initial condemnations of Padre Pio were made by Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val. Cardinal Ottaviani chose to maintain these condemnations, along with subsequent censures placed on Padre Pio in the 1930’s and 1950’s.
Here is a list of the acts of the Holy Office pertaining to Padre Pio through the first half of the 20th century:
1. On June 22nd, 1922 the Holy Office issued its first decree against Padre Pio:
• “He will celebrate Mass in private.
• He will not bless the people.
• He will not show to anybody the so called stigmata.
• He will stop immediately any communication with Padre Benedetto, his spiritual director.
• To best execute the above orders Padre Pio will be immediately transferred to a convent preferably in Northern Italy.
• Padre Pio will no more answer letters.
Wishing all the best, Cardinal Rafael Merry Del Val."
2. On May 31st, 1923 another decree came from the Holy Office:
• “The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, responsible for upholding the faith and defending morals, held an inquiry on the phenomena attributed to Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a member Friar Minor of the Capuchins at the Monastery of San Giovanni Rotondo in the Diocese of Foggia, and declares that: it cannot confirm from this inquiry any basis for the supernatural character for this phenomena and exhorts the faithful to conform their practices to this declaration."
3. On July 24th, 1924 the Holy office issued a warning for anyone to avoid contact with Padre Pio.
4. On April 23rd 1926, the Holy Office condemned a book written about Padre Pio, and put it on the index of forbidden books.
5. Another book was written about Padre Pio in 1931 and it was placed on the index of forbidden books by the Holy Office.
6. In May of 1931, the Holy Office stripped Padre Pio of all his ministerial functions.
7. In Fall of 1931, the Holy office confirmed all its previous condemnations concerning Padre Pio.
8. In 1933, he had his ministerial functions restored.
9. In 1952, the Holy Office condemned and placed on the index of forbidden books, eight books about Padre Pio. Previous to 1952, any book written about Padre Pio was regularly placed on the index of forbidden books.
10. On Jan 1952, the Holy Office made a report after having visited Padre Pio's monastery. The report said that the monks should discourage any pilgrims from coming to see Padre Pio, and to stop handing out pictures of him to pilgrims.
Padre Pio and the lead up to the Second Vatican Council
The drama surrounding Padre Pio, his followers, and various figures in the Catholic Church, unfolded over several decades, starting in the 1930s and continuing until his death in 1968. This drama was highly publicized, and at times, scandalous accusations were made by Padre Pio's supporters against certain Catholic Church officials. This controversy captivated the attention of Catholics in Italy, fostering strong feelings and opinions on both sides of the debate.
The drama reached a crescendo in the decade before the Second Vatican Council and persisted throughout the Council. Whether intentional or not, this controversy diverted the attention of many devout Italian Catholics away from the Second Vatican Council and onto Padre Pio. With the benefit of decades of perspective, it seems to me that this diversion was a convenient way for the Modernists to draw pious-minded Italian Catholics’ attention away from the events transpiring during the Council.
As Traditional Catholics, we can now see in hindsight that the Second Vatican Council was an immense evil that nearly devastated the Catholic Faith and religion worldwide. If Padre Pio was truly a wonderworker and mystic, how is it that he failed to sufficiently raise the alarm about Vatican II? He had three years after the Council's conclusion in 1965 until his death in 1968 to read its documents and point out the clear heresies contained within them. There could have been no better use of his miraculous powers than to alert the Faithful about the impending worldwide great apostasy!
As a final note on the issue of Padre Pio's silence regarding Vatican II, it's worth mentioning that he wrote a letter to Paul VI on September 12th, 1968, nearly three years after the conclusion of the Council. This letter contains no condemnation of the Council's false doctrines; on the contrary, it praises Paul VI for his “lofty teachings”.
Notably, Padre Pio commended Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae Vitae." However, Traditional Catholics have pointed out that "Humanae Vitae" obscures the traditionally taught hierarchy of the ends of marriage, a timeless teaching that places procreation first, followed by mutual aid to the spouses. This disruption of this hierarchy, as laid out in "Humanae Vitae" is the foundation for the Novus Ordo teaching that marriage is as much for the pleasure of the spouses as it is for procreation.
This letter, allegedly written by Padre Pio, was published in the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, on October 10th, 1968.
Padre Pio the Wonder Worker
Our Lord warned us that in the end days, there will arise many false Christs and false prophets. One very likely fulfillment of this warning of Our Lord are the anti-popes of the Vatican II sect. A real pope is the true vicar of Christ on Earth, and in that sense, he is another Christ. Therefore, an anti-pope would be a false Christ. Our Lord said the following in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 24:
24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25 Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. 26 If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not.
The original Greek word used for "closets" is "tameiois," which is given the meanings "inner rooms" or "closets." By a very basic and rudimentary examination of the word "cloister," we can see that one of its synonyms is the word "closet."
Thus, is it possible that Our Lord was warning us that in the end days there will be false prophets who will play the role of cloistered monks or nuns? It certainly does appear that way!
As for working great signs and wonders, there is no modern man with as great of a reputation for this than Padre Pio. In fact, one of the names given to him is the "wonder worker." Even though Padre Pio is regarded as a worker of miracles, there doesn't appear to be any other lasting legacy for him. He did not found any great Catholic reform movement, such as St. Francis or St. Ignatius of Loyola. He did not add to the body of Catholic study and understanding as St. Thomas Aquinas did. He did not battle the modernists who, at his time in the 1950s and 1960s, were infesting the Church, as St. Pope Pius X did. All he seems to be famous for is principally the wonders he worked.
Summary and Conclusion
Given that Padre Pio was “beatified” and “canonized” by the arch-heretic, John Paul II, and given the numerous condemnations and censures issued to him by the pre-Vatican II Holy Office, and given the convenient timing of the “Padre Pio drama” that transpired in the lead up to the Council, perhaps it is best that we let go of Padre Pio. But most of all, because he did not use his “miraculous” abilities to identify the errors of Vatican II and then broadcast them to Catholics around the world, I argue that we should stop all practices of devotion to Padre Pio. Let us stop posting his quotes on social media, let us take down his pictures in our homes and let us focus our attention on Catholic Saints whom we know are genuine because they were declared Saints by the true Catholic Church of Christ.
If you would like to view my video about Padre Pio on YouTube, which offers these points and many others, enter the following video title in the YouTube search bar.
Behold He is in the Closets, Believe it Not
Good text, Dominic ! A man who has had so many reports from the Holy Office is bound to be a suspect and should have been shunned by Catholics. Like "saint" Faustina, whose writings and false devotion to divine mercy were condemned (and the condemnation was approved by Roncalli) but put back into circulation by "saint" JP2 the Great Apostate. The V2 sect abounds in false "saints" and false prodigies, such as "Eucharistic miracles". It's a deception from the father of lies ! Most members of the sect who sincerely claim to be Catholics don't suspect they're being deceived, but the devil can't succeed in deceiving everyone, even if we believed his tricks at first without suspecting their fraudulent nature. Let's stay awake !
ReplyDeleteThank you Simon! The NO is loaded with deception. I was stunned to see it when I was coming out of the NO. I had a "devotion" to Padre Pio, but I made myself take an objective look at him... and this article (and my video) are the outcome.
DeleteThanks for this. Did not know most of it, though I did note that he said nothing about V2.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading that when his place of burial was opened, possibly to check for incorruptibility,, his mortal coil was missing. Or, none of that happened but I don’t know. I read it in the ‘90’s, possibly before Internet for me.
As for Kolbe, I read somewhere (again a long time ago) concerning one of his last writings in which he made parallels or comparisons with the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Spirit. I can’t recall exactly what it was but it struck me at the time as possibly heretical. If I recall, and that is a large IF, the implication seemed to be that the Blessed Virgin was like an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. My question is did he mean it literally.
If that’s not what he meant, fine; but if someone could dig up the writing in question (among his last) we might take a look at it.
Its my pleasure to share my thoughts on the topic of Padre Pio! As for Fr. Kolbe, I have never come across this comparison that you referenced. But I do think its worth looking into.
DeleteI remember seeing an article on here awhile back about a Heroic priest named Fr. Wiktor Mroz, he was a traditional Catholic priest during the crisis of Vatican 2. His spiritual director I think was Fr. Kolbe. I don’t believe for a second, a Heroic Catholic priest like Fr. Mroz would have any association with Kolbe if he was a heretic.
DeleteJeremy Van Auker
He most likely wasn’t a heretic. His speculation was written shortly before his death (as I recall) and was something I gather he was wondering about - not definite or formal.
DeleteA Feeneyite might leap at the chance to declare someone a heretic but this was something that stuck with me for some reason, if for no other reason than to ask this question at some point.
At the least we can clear up, for the Feeneyites as well as for ourselves, just what a (possible) error made at the end, speculatory and untaught, constitutes. But I’d like to find the exact words (if his journals or letters are online, and by now I guess they would be, I’ll look for it).
Ok I found it. Not where I thought I’d seen it originally but logically it had to be here. The quote from page 20 is out of context but from archive dot org I can’t pull out whole pages. So I read some of the context from there but am undecided as to the conclusion:
DeletePp. 18-26:
Panorama of the Marian doctrine of Blessed Maximilian Kolbe
-by Piacentini, Ernesto
Pg.20
Therefore," Father Kolbe concludes, "the Holy Spirit is the most holy, infinitely holy and Immaculate Conception."42
Sounds like a quote that could easily be taken out of context. All I can think of is that he is referring to the Holy Ghost being instrumental in Our Lady being immaculately conceived without sin. Just seems like a quote that never got fully elaborated on or clarified.
DeleteThe only other thing I can think of is he’s just trying to explain Our Lady virtues and holiness. There’s really not much context to it…
Jeremy Van Auker
I think, perhaps, that reasoning finds some parallel between the Holy Ghost (the eternal Immaculate Conception, borne out of the infinite love between the Father and the Son); and the B.V.M., the temporal Immaculate Conception, who was perfect in her love of God.
Delete'Let us make him a helper unto his own likeness.'
Fr. David Nix (who I know little about, though note was good friends with Fr. Peter Carota, whom Fr. William Jenkins addressed as 'Fr.' and seemed to speak highly of), wrote a piece on this manner of reasoning a few weeks ago; it can be found upon his blog.
At the entry for the book at archive dot org I entered the search term “Holy Spirit” and got all relevant passages (probably).
DeleteFrom what I gathered from pages 18-26 I get the point that he’s making. Christ -is- the Second Person of the Trinity as the Incarnation and Our Lady -is like- the Holy Spirit insomuch as it is possible when not actually an Incarnation (called “the” Incarnation which is emphatically singular).
His point is that as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit is eternally conceived of the love of the Father and Son.
Granted, as Fr. Kolbe points out, our language is limited when it comes to the Divine musteries.
Our Lady is the perfect “type” of the Holy Spirit. But as She referred to Herself as “the Immaculate Conception” at Lourdes, if the same term is used for the Holy Ghost you can see the problem.
I see St. Joseph as a “type” of the Father (in my estimation this is found particularly in Apocalypse) which completes the reflection of the Trinity in the Holy Family.
I am just a literalist, I guess, cairsahr, so I am both interested in, yet a bit resistant to the idea of the Holy Ghost being a conception. It seems too bold of an idea.
DeleteMy understanding is that the Holy Ghost, being God and pure spirit, existing eternally, cannot have been 'conceived'; while Jesus, though True God, is called the only 'begotten' of the Father due to His humanity provided by the BVM.
I'm no theologian, but like I said, I have a problem with the Holy Ghost as a 'conception'.
God bless, and thank you, Dominic.
Good article!
-Jannie
What’s really interesting you hear more about Padre Pio than you do Fr. Kolbe. It’s wrong. Fr. Kolbe lived a very devout and holy life, I am certain he is more of a saint than Padre Pio. I suspect if Kolbe lived longer he would be against Vatican II. God rest his soul.
ReplyDeleteI wish more traditional Catholics focused on him than they do Padre Pio.
Jeremy Van Auker
Yes! Fr. Kolbe's sacrifice at the end of his life was heroic!
DeleteThanks Dominic very interesting. A lot of deceit taking place these days. I am going to send this to my pastor and see what his take on this is.
DeleteDominic,
DeleteYa know what? I was just looking into the militia immaculate, the brain child of Fr. Kolbe and to be honest I wish more traditional (Sedevacantist) groups got into it. The mission Fr. Kolbe had with that idea unfortunately has fallen to the wayside. I know the SSPX uphold the traditional militia Immaculate. But Fr. Kolbe’s dream has really fallen apart since the Novus Ordo have hijacked it.
I mean, he started a whole community I think in Poland dedicated to the organization of the militia immaculate. I cannot understand how he is so easily overlooked by traditional Catholics. Why Padre Pio gets more attention I will never be able to wrap my head around.
Fr. Kolbe started an entire Marian based organization to combat the enemies of Holy Mother Church whereas the only thing I know about padre pio is well… just miracles. I think Fr. Kolbe and his life is far more inspiring and saintly than… Padre Pio. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Jeremy Van Auker
Thank you Dominic. I agree with your conclusions. I also see Traditionals referring to Akita a lot, which was in novus ordo church and the seer never came to Tradition. There are other issues there too.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping to get clarification on some terms. One is "sect". Recently I saw Bp Sanborn speaking on The Thesis in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/live/0VwEeNPr_JY?si=a0xQu5q4EuW_rdLd
At 23 minutes he says the Thesis does not say NO a sect? Is this because many don't stand behind that Thesis? Also, I thought the V2 popes were false popes as they don't fit by definition the term ""antipope"?Thanks for anyone who may be able to define more clearly these words.
He is saying that it is not juridically separated from the church, but only in fact, not that novus ordos are Catholics
DeleteTechnically one could still hold the essence of the thesis while maintaining that the novus bogus is a sect, and even that the elections of the novus bogus popes were invalid (this is possible through something called coloured titles)
@anon9:33
DeleteThe term sect is defined as "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical)." Perhaps Bp. Sanborn as a sedeprivationist sees the sect as a "material Church"? That's a question for him to answer.
The leaders of the V2 sect are "false popes" and not "antipopes." An antipope is a man who sets himself up in opposition to the true pope. A priest named Michael Collin in Canada declared himself "Pope Clement XV" by "order of God" in 1950 and that he--not Pope Pius XII--was the true pope. Collin (excommunicated and laicized by Pope Pius) was an antipope until the election of Roncalli. Then he was a false pope as there was no true pope.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you both for comments, very helpful! God bless!
DeleteThanks for the enlightenment.. I also, I'm coming out of the NO, and I used to pray using these "saints" and believed in the "miracles" they did, but you see, the NO are so smart in deceiving millions that they rip off any leaks that will link people to the truth, just like the sanctions of the Holy office against Padre Pio you highlighted here.
ReplyDeleteVery recently, they're looking to "canonize" a teenager who's body is allegedly "incorrupt" his name is Carlo Acutis.. I'd like if you could write something on him, or if you have, maybe reshare the link.
Thanks!
They probably embalmed him like Roncalli
Delete@anon9:38
DeleteI'll consider doing such a post if I can find time for the research--unless the idea appeals to Dominic or John Gregory.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Greetings to Introibo, Dominic and the other readers. Thanks to Introibo for the articles they recommended to me a few weeks ago. I read that Bishop Williamson is very ill, and in NOW some articles describe him as non-Catholic. If this bishop, who for so many people is an "ultra-Catholic" - this is the term that the left uses to denigrate him for his position on the Holocaust - is not Catholic, who is? How can people of good will know the true Faith without distortions with so many false shepherds, according to you, like Bishop Williamson?
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind my questions and doubts.
Thank you.
Young reader from Spain
Young Reader from Spain,
DeleteI do not consider Bp. Williamson to be "non-Catholic." He is seriously mistaken on the state of the papacy. Is the theology he uses Catholic? Not on that question. Is he guilty of heresy? In these unique times, I would say no if he is somehow in good faith. Only God knows if he is or not.
God Bless,
---Introibo
He seriously needs to drop mentevacantism
DeleteIf they are not sane enough to be heretics they are not sane enough to be popes!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns regarding the canonization of Padre Pio. One important factor to keep in mind is that problems with ecclesiastical authority and certain controversies regarding “holy” people are not determining factor to know whether someone is a saint or not. These are just a few examples of saints that have had controversies before being declared saints: “Saint Athanasius was condemned by several councils, and being deposed from his place as Pope of Alexandria, spent years in exile. Saint Benedict had hardly begun to work as Abbot of Vicovarro, when the monks tried to poison him. Saint Chrysostom was excommunicated, and driven out of Constantinople. Saint Damasus was so energetically opposed by his brethren that, upon the adjournment of the meeting at which he was elected Pope of Rome, a hundred and thirty-seven bodies of dead electors were found on the church floor. Saint Epiphanius, preaching in Jerusalem, was interrupted by the bishop in the middle of his sermon, and told to leave the pulpit.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1913/04/the-censured-saints/645469/. Just keep praying and don’t allow your heart to be harden.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment.
Delete@anon9:59
DeleteI agree. We have no Magisterial authority to make binding decisions. However, we must weigh the facts and make up our minds the best we can. That's what Dominic has done here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes, I guess the bottom line, conclusion of my article would be in the absence of a true pope, and in light of the prior condemnations of Padre Pio, it would be prudent to suspend devotion to him, as well as any prophetic statements he made.
DeleteArticles like this is what make so many people extremely scrupulous. These are all just opinions, which I understand. But do clergy ever post things like this? Very rarely. One week people are handing out articles praising someone and the next, things like this pop up. We are lay people, not theologians.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how scruples work
DeleteI’ll let my priest know he taught me incorrectly, thank you, random internet theologian.
DeleteJust because a priest taught you something doesn't mean you understood it.
DeleteSo, tell me, what is a scruple? Warning people that Padre Pio was probably not a saint and he is not to be taken seriously? Or feeling you have committed a great sin because you read a book that had 1 imprimatur instead of 3? Warning people about a fake saint? or having an anxiety attack every time you will receive communion? Explaining to people why you don't think an Italian monk made true miracles? or returning to the confessional as soon as you received the sacrament because you had an intrusive blasphemous thought and your weakened imagination thinks you could have "consented"?
I am not saying you have not experienced scruples, but it doesn't look like you know precisely what it means. Padre Pio has not been canonized. Considering the condemnations he received, and the fact that they have not been abrogated, he should be considered as a distrustful individual. If priests don't have the time to talk or study about him (after all, the information about this guy is often contradictory), that's just too bad, but it doesn't mean this blog post is unnecessary - far from it, is just another example of Catholic action.
Furthermore, there are many topics that are way more important than Padre Pio and the priests do not talk about them. I guess well-informed laymen have nothing better to do but remain silent and complain about other well-informed laymen posting online, expecting the very few and work-ridden traditional clergy with no ordinary jurisdiction to spoon feed them the Catholic take on everything because if they research anything for themselves they will become lay theologians
“No ordinary jurisdiction”
DeleteFalse. They have ordinary delegated jurisdiction . canon 199. And this jurisdiction can be granted habitually
Canon 199.5 would fall under epikeia as it would be harmful for the church to not have ordinary jurisdiction.
Abp. Thuc was given all communicable powers by H.H. Pius XI when he was made Apostolic Delegate
Poni,
DeleteWow. Amazing comment! Thank you for writing it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon3:15
DeleteThat is your opinion, not a fact. You may hold it. Some theologians teach that delegated jurisdiction is not Ordinary. Please don't attempt to bind others where the Church has not decided.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Insofar as it is only an opinion that they do have ordinary jurisdiction so it is only an opinion that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction. I claimed no binding authority anymore than the one who posted this comment did.
Delete@anon9:23
DeleteThe Traditionalist Bishops themselves claim no Ordinary Jurisdiction, so that is the "common opinion." You certainly came across as teaching: "False." It reads like a correction of an error, not as the offering of one opinion against another.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Mea culpa
DeleteI am not offended.
Delete-Poni
There is a much more charitable way to approach me than what you are doing, but maybe you don’t fully understand charity? I am not saying I would struggle with scruples after reading this, and I am fully aware that scruples can be very debilitating, but they can also be very mild. For example, I know people who might read this article, especially the summary portion, and think “Oh I must immediately remove everything I have of Padre Pio or otherwise I am not a good Catholic.” This is untrue.
DeleteBut that wasn’t the point of my original post. My main concern is a layperson, who I am sure did not even ask a priest to read through this article, posting his opinion and then instructing people like he is an authority. I have been a sede long enough and I have heard way too many lay people who claim to be well researched tell me I MUST do this or that, or I am not a serious Catholic. Guess what my response is? I go to my priest, and 99% of the time what these lay people have said literally have no weight at all. Yes it is true our clergy are extremely busy, and do not have time to research and write articles such as this. But I know for a fact they would have time to read an article before it is published and give their thoughts. It is fascinating to me how many Catholics have self-appointed themselves as these well researched basement theologians. You are entitled to your opinions, but in the summary, “Let us stop posting his quotes on social media, let us take down his pictures in our homes and let us focus our attention on Catholic Saints whom we know are genuine because they were declared Saints by the true Catholic Church of Christ.” He takes it too far by trying to instruct others when he does not have the authority to do so. Does this man’s priest agree with his statement? I would never post an article such as this without my priests review. Humble yourself, sir. But I can tell by most of the comments, this seems to be an echo chamber, and if you aren't on the same team you get attacked, such as you are doing to me.
How sad you think you are being attacked. When I said "You don't know what scruples are", I might have been forceful, but in my opinion my next reply was sufficiently charitable, if a bit forceful. Tell me what offended you and I will correct.
DeleteLet me therefore see if your comment stands to reason:
"There is a much more charitable way to approach me than what you are doing, but maybe you don’t fully understand charity?"
I don't think I fully understand charity. Perhaps you could teach my by example by avoiding sarcastic comments when they are unnecessary, and being clear as to what you want to say.
"I am not saying I would struggle with scruples after reading this,"
I don't believe you.
and I am fully aware that scruples can be very debilitating, but they can also be very mild.
If they are very mild, then why do you care so much?
For example, I know people who might read this article, especially the summary portion, and think “Oh I must immediately remove everything I have of Padre Pio or otherwise I am not a good Catholic.” This is untrue.
Removing everything you have about Padre Pio isn't a scruple, it is just a reasonable action considering the information at hand. On the other hand, if someone thinks he has to do it immediately, then it is a scruple, because this can be done at a later time. As regards posting on social media, it is enough to publish to your followers that you no longer trust him.
Furthermore, if anyone you know has scruples like the one mentioned above, it's their own problem to deal with. I am not remaining quiet about the condemnations he received until a competent authority (not your priest) judges otherwise.
DeleteBut that wasn’t the point of my original post.
Alright, I will believe you, but reading your comments it doesn't look like that.
"My main concern is a layperson, who I am sure did not even ask a priest to read through this article,"
Why do you assume Mr. Cagesso didn't ask a priest for his review? Why make a temerarious judgement about him? Since the writing of his book Divine Poetry, this guy is fairly well connected. He also made videos with Catholic Family Podcast, who have connections with clerics. Do you even know who Dominic Cagesso is? If you really wanted to know if he cared about the opinions of clerics, you should have asked him in the first place.
posting his opinion and then instructing people like he is an authority.
He defended his opinion by pointing out at the Holy Office. You defend your opinion by complaining that he doesn't have authority to say you should scrub a man who was possibly a fake saint from your life.
I have been a sede long enough and I have heard way too many lay people who claim to be well researched tell me I MUST do this or that, or I am not a serious Catholic. Guess what my response is? I go to my priest, and 99% of the time what these lay people have said literally have no weight at all.
DeleteI really don't care about your experience with other sedes who claim to be learned. Just because they were wrong doesn't mean I am wrong.
And, anyway, who is this priest you talk about so much? Just because he is a priest doesn't mean he is right 100% of the time; such infallibility is reserved to the Roman See. Perhaps he can come and explain to Mr. Cagesso why he shouldn't tell people to scrub Padre Pio from their lives and explain away the Holy Office condemnations? Based on what you say about him later on the comment, he might be able to do that.
Yes it is true our clergy are extremely busy, and do not have time to research and write articles such as this. But I know for a fact they would have time to read an article before it is published and give their thoughts.
We should be very careful to use the expression "I know for a fact" before saying statements that might not be true on all situations. Just because your priest has time for this, doesn't mean others do. Furthermore, I was taught (by priests, too) that one should not question mandates of the Holy Office unless the question itself is whether they issued the ruling or not.
It is fascinating to me how many Catholics have self-appointed themselves as these well researched basement theologians.
DeleteYes, it is very annoying. But I don't see how this refutes anything Mr. Cagesso said concerning the Holy Office.
You are entitled to your opinions,
but in the summary, “Let us stop posting his quotes on social media, let us take down his pictures in our homes and let us focus our attention on Catholic Saints whom we know are genuine because they were declared Saints by the true Catholic Church of Christ.” He takes it too far by trying to instruct others when he does not have the authority to do so.
Who cares about authority when he is right? Posting his quotes on social media might lead others to believe on a spiritual hoax. Having Padre Pio pictures in your house implies veneration, and you know it is sinful to venerate someone who hasn't even been canonized. Focusing your attention on well-known canonized saints is what you are supposed to do when a man has doubtful character.
Does this man’s priest agree with his statement?
If he agreed with him, would you follow this priest?
I would never post an article such as this without my priests review.
But you do participate in combox discussions despite the fact you can't accurately distinguish scruples from genuine moral concerns.
Humble yourself, sir.
DeleteYou should humble yourself to the Holy Office, unless you can prove that such condemnations of Padre Pio never took place or where unjustified.
But I can tell by most of the comments, this seems to be an echo chamber,
Then you don't know this blog at all. The only people who are barred are Nazis and feenyites, and that only a few weeks ago. Anyone can comment, and serious discussions tend to last for more than a week. I have followed this blog since 2018, and if this is an echo chamber, then nothing is.
and if you aren't on the same team you get attacked, such as you are doing to me.
I am not attacking you. If any degree of confrontation makes you feel endangered, maybe you should stay offline. I don't think I was unnecessarily aggressive in my response; if I was, I apologize, if I was not, then why are you still here?
In conclusion:
+ You have not proved that it is a scruple to scrub Padre Pio from your life, therefore you have not proved that Mr. Cagesso can cause scruples on people by recklessly writing an article about a suspicious "saint".
+ You have not proved that the Holy Office condemnations didn't happen, which would greatly strengthen your argument.
+ You have judged Mr. Cagesso temerariously; essentially, he said something you disagree with and therefore he forgot priests exist.
+ You have not proved to be a worthy teacher of charity.
In view of the unreasonableness of your comment, I stand my place.
Didn’t introibo already write a post like this Dominic?
ReplyDelete@anon2:19
DeleteI did such a post--using other reasons than those offered by Dominic--eight years ago:
"Was Padre Pio An Ecumenist?"
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Oh, I didn't realize Introibo made a post like this before. I've only become aware of this blog site about 5 or 6 years ago. (time goes so fast!)
DeleteIntroibo
ReplyDeleteI am the person who asked about apharteid
Why did you not publish my comments in which I told you that I 1. Accepted your answer 2. Did not go on a rant and 3. Was genuinely asking
I now know that apharteid is wrong from your answer. I have told you this multiple times and you have not published these comments, painting me as a “self righteous buffoon”
God bless
@anon2:21
DeleteI'm not sure if this isn't really from the Hitler Fanboy, White Supremacist, Feeneyite or not. Taking you at your word, I apologize if you are distinct from him and those like him.
I will not post further on this topic for people who want to push agendas.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you
DeleteGod bless
Why did the hays code authored by a Catholic priest forbid the ridicule of any religious faith. This is disgusting! Of course Islam or Hinduism or Judaism or Protestantism should be ridiculed in film. Considering this was written by a Catholic priest it should have said “No film or episode may throw ridicule on the Catholic faith” but instead it shamefully says “No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith”
ReplyDeletehttps://faculty.xavierhs.org/vargasv/TheMotionPictureProductionCodeof1930.pdf Here is the link
It also says children’s ____ are never to be exposed suggesting that it permits such indecency in regards to adults
Could this have been wil h hays tinkering with the draft given by Fr Daniel Lord S.J.
It was probably political. America was set up as a secular pluralist nation and, remember that in the 1930s there were only two religions- Catholic and Protestant and (generally-speaking) only two races- African and Caucasian. I don't think he could have got away with saying "you can't make fun of Catholics but you can make fun of Protestants". Consider what the Hollywood producers would have done with such a loophole. They would have pushed blasphemy and then said "It's okay because when I made light of God, I was making fun of Protestants"
DeleteThese are some great points
DeleteGod bless
I firmly believe Padre Pio was a Holy man and that he would have been canonized a Saint if there was a True Pope to do it. It’s disingenuous to compare the apostate Mother Theresa and the diabolical writings of Faustina with the life, miracles and sufferings of Padre Pio. He never celebrated the horrible abd sacrilegious “New Mass”, despite what many claim. He bore the markings of Christ in the stigmata, and he suffered greatly for souls and for Christ which you don’t mention in this article. He performed a number of verifiable miracles like the one involving Gemma Di Giorgi, who had no pupils but was able to see. There are many others. Padre Pio also helped many people when hearing their confessions and spent many hours hearing confessions, five to eight hours a day. He also was able to know people’s sins and when they were hiding grave sins in confessions. He prayed The Rosary almost constantly and was assaulted by devils on a regular basis. He was also persecuted by clerics in Rome. It’s amazing how some seem to think that the Modernists just appeared at The Vatican the night before V2, and that all was fine until then. The same people that silenced and persecuted Padre Pio are the same people that were behind V2. Padre Pio did talk about The Third Secret of Fatima and The Great Apostasy, but sadly, he was treated poorly and silenced by some around him and by The Modernists in Rome. Someone suggested Padre Pio was an “ecumnist”. To the contrary, he talked about the fewness of the saved and the necessity of The Catholic Faith to be saved. Padre Pio was given gifts from God to perform great miracles that can be compared to the greatest Saints in history, but that doesn’t mean he knew everything, he lived according to God’s Will. Saint Gemma Galgani is a wonderful Saint and she suffered for souls and united herself to Christ’s suffering in the Passion. She didn’t start a religious order, and was not even in a religious order until after her death (Passionists). But she is a great Saint, she was a mystic, and she suffered immensely for souls. There have been many lies told about Padre Pio in order to defame his holy life. He suffered for Christ and for souls, and he saved many lost souls throughout his life. Let us all ask for the prayers of Padre Pio and be thankful for his Catholic life.
ReplyDelete@anon5:22
DeleteTo be clear, your view is certainly one that may be held. Neither Dominic nor myself are claiming that one must hold our opinion. We are not Magisterial authorities.
Both Dominic and I have brought to light certain facts that make one wonder about his sanctity.
It is up to each individual reader to decide what to believe regarding Padre Pio. The one sure thing we know is that his "canonization" by Wojtyla does not make him a true saint---although he may be one.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What really gets me about the condemnations of Padre Pio made before Vatican II was that some of them were explicitly made by Cardinal Rafael Merry Del Val, who was a close friend and confidant of Pope St. Pius X. He can hardly be accused of modernism.
DeleteDominic: I am a great devotee of Rafael Merry del Val. However, he was a protege of Cardinal Rampolla before Sarto's election as Pius X. Vestiges of error may have remained.
DeletePadre Pio is definitely a controversial figure. The condemnations by the Holy Office and the points about Padre Pio not speaking out against the heresies of Vatican II and his praise of ‘Humanae Vitae’ certainly cannot be overlooked. But I do not feel like this is a fair representation of the entire man’s life. Certainly, if the man had supernatural gifts like prophecy, reading hearts, levitation, bilocation, healing, the stigmata, and much more, one could easily say, “Well then why didn’t he see that Vatican II was heretical and the V2 “popes” were false popes? Those are good questions and unfortunately we do not know. There have been many saints that have been VERY wrong on multiple things in their lives, yet their sanctity was not called into question because of these things.
ReplyDeleteRenzo Allegri’s book on Padre Pio entitled “Padre Pio: Man of Hope” was a very good read. He demonstrates throughout his book that Padre Pio suffered many things throughout his life unjustly. From a young boy, Padre Pio already had a love of Christ that was so strong and unusual for a child his age. The condemnations by the Holy Office are certainly important, but the take I got from Allegri’s book was that even Rome didn’t know what to make of him. His own friends closest to him admitted that he had many friars who were jealous of him, the allegations against him by women in the confessional were completely bogus, and much more. He said that he would jump through a window if his superior demanded him to because he took obedience (and all of his virtues very seriously). His miracles are certainly something that cannot be discounted as they brought countless souls to Christ and many people were cured spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically, including many children, who he had a very soft spot for. He wanted to start “The House for the Relief of Suffering” because he knew that he could not cure everybody that came to him and that many people would need help long after he was gone. He condemned the freemasons and communists and converted many of them too. He wanted Fr. Luigi Villa to devote his life to studying the infiltration by the freemasons in the church, which Fr. Villa did (and he survived multiple assassination attempts on his life). For those who say that his stigmata was the result of carbolic acid, okay fine, show the proof for this claim to back it up. To say that he should have known that Montini wasn’t a true pope is analogous to saying that St. Vincent Ferrer should have known that Benedict XIII wasn’t pope in his day. St. Vincent worked tens of thousands of miracles, yet he was seriously mistaken on several things. The fact that Padre Pio was mistaken on some things too is not a fair condemnation of the man. To say that he should not be considered a saint because he wasn’t like St. Francis, St. Ignatius of Loyola, or St. Thomas Aquinas makes no sense? Saints come in all different shapes and sizes. Some were martyrs, others scholars, others educators. Some saints were simple people who didn’t do anything extraordinary. They simply loved Christ and tried their best to follow his example.
Do I pray to him anymore? No I cannot in good conscience because we don’t have a valid pope who proclaimed him a saint. For me, Padre Pio is in the same boat as Maximillian Kolbe, Fr. Solanus Casey, and Bl. Martin de Porres (among several others). They very likely could have all been raised to the altars had we had a true pontiff in these ungodly times. Instead, what we have is what we have. We have to make the best of it as best we can. The jury will remain out on Padre Pio. We don’t have magisterial authority in these times. I choose to give the man the benefit of the doubt. If we ever do get a true pope again and Padre Pio is condemned for one reason or another, I will simply submit to the pope’s decree on this subject. For now, this remains an unknown.
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteTrue! We don't have enough evidence either way.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Saint Vincent was mistaken about a Catholic Anti-pope. Pio was dealing with Montini. I respectfully claim that the comparison fails Trad Warrior.
DeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteFair point. Yes, one was an antipope; the other was a false pope. My overlying point though is that holy people can be wrong about many things. I do not deny that the following are all problematic: 1) The Holy Office condemnations against the man are problematic, 2) He didn’t speak out against the Vatican II heresies (as far as I know), and 3) His apparent support of Montini and ‘Humanae Vitae’. However, we have to weigh everything carefully. We are dealing with a man here who was responsible for thousands of miracles in one form or another both during and after his death e.g. the healing of the blind person with no pupils, saving San Giovanni Rotundo from the bombs that would have destroyed the whole town during the war, etc. The list goes on and on and on. Many traditionalists that I have met on a personal level have such a rigid mentality level that their automatic robotic response they would offer is, “Well God allowed these false wonders to occur by this phony to keep people in the Vatican II sect.” Okay, that is one possible scenario and it could be true. But we have no way of knowing. There are other possibilities. People in the comments here have been quick to label him a fraud and I have seen much worse in other comments online about him. I don’t know that and I won’t do that. I’m not sure the man was a fraud. He could have been. Or he could have been a living saint and there are reasonable explanations to some of these things. The problem is that we have no authority in these times we live to make such a determination. I purposely brought up other holy people in recent times because there were several saints that did many great things. There was no pope to declare them saints but there were saints nevertheless in recent times that did many great things. Certainly, we pray to those that we know who were definitively canonized by a true pope. The rest we will find out in eternity.
-TradWarrior
Very well stated Trad Warrioor. I don't think I disagree with anything you say. To be blunt, I never had much devotion to him so I tend not to care much either way. I lose interest in the goings on after 1958. I do hope he saved his soul.
DeleteI love your posts, you make the commentary section more interesting. Hold on to your zeal and pray I do the same.
Pius XII promoted Montini Wojtyla Roncalli,violated the Council of Trent and Quo Primum.
DeleteWhere is his condemnation?
God bless,
Andrew
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago, you had a back and forth exchange with a poster who commented on how the Catholic Church is indefectible; nevertheless, an apparition (according to the poster) could be approved if it came from a lie (say from the children fabricating something in an apparition) though it wasn't anything specifically demonic or evil. Now, Steven Speray over on his blog, has written a VERY damning piece against Guadalupe. He is simply going where the evidence leads, like any good detective. In a few weeks though, readers of traditional sites have seen first someone argue against Fatima for the reasons given, and now Steven saying that the historical context of Guadalupe is COMPLETELY different than everything we have been told and this apparition never occurred. I defended La Salette and Melanie and Maximin in my VERY lengthy post a few weeks ago. I think I wrote a fantastic piece defending La Salette. But look what has occurred in the past few weeks. A poster has claimed that Fatima could have been approved by the Catholic Church and the pope even though it stemmed from a lie by the children. Steven Speray has written a VERY damning piece against Guadalupe which says that this apparition never occurred. Could La Salette be next? Or Quito? Perhaps Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres will have skeletons dug out of her closet that paints Quito in a horrible light. Or Lourdes? Perhaps Bernadette wasn’t what people thought she was. Or this apparition? Or that apparition? Fr. Lavery is writing a piece on Ven. Mary of Agreda and “The Mystical City of God”. While his research has not concluded yet, it certainly seems like he will be condemning Ven. Mary and her work, which has been praised by numerous popes, saints, theologians, etc. This is posing many problems. We don’t have to restate the obvious that private revelations do not need to be followed. Fine, we get that. But when private revelations are approved by the church and they are declared “worthy of belief”, then they are good for people to follow because they bring much spiritual edification. But now we have people who are saying that approved apparitions by the church (e.g. Volken) are not what we thought they were. This is very troubling. What do you think about all of this?
-TradWarrior
Trad Warrior...thanks for mentioning the Speray piece on Guadalupe...so disturbing but yet I am not surprised as so much information and disinformation and manipulation for so long. Did he write part 2 yet? I couldn't find.
DeleteI know a novus ordo priest who said he received his "healing" powers on pilgrimage there..he has a cult following, keeping many believing and trapped in novus ordo "miracle" lala land.
TradWarrior,
DeleteWe must return to Church teaching. When the Church approves a private revelation it need not be believed, as you correctly noted. Church approbation merely means two things: (1) there is nothing contrary to Faith and morals and (2) it cannot be the work/deceit of the devil/demons---that's it.
Steve is a good man, a friend of mine, and he's just trying to make sense of something that need not be believed. It may be disturbing to some, but it is nothing that need concern us. One note; as I'm sure you're aware, nothing can alter the status of St. Bernadette, "wasn't what people thought she was."
She was infallibly canonized by a true pope. Her sainthood cannot be questioned or called into doubt.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I missed the exchange TradWarrior mentioned; but we don’t have to worry about La Salette and Lourdes (close enough to our time and fully documented) and so much more we don’t have to worry about Fatima; for instance “The Whole Truth About Fatima” documents everything exhaustively.
DeleteAlthough I do not have a solid opinion of Padre Pio at the moment, and even though I think he was an honest and humble man, I would not put him in the same position as Father Maximilian Kolbe, as some have done. Father Kolbe was declared a Servant of God before Vatican II, unlike Padre Pio, and was radically anti-modernist and anti-masonic, and clearly lived a heroic life, unlike Padre Pio, who never spoke out against Vatican II, and, according to some, was inclined towards ecumenism.
ReplyDeleteGreat article and great information!
ReplyDeleteInternally the first objection that came to mind was that he's incorrupt. Isn't that a sign of blessing from God? A signal Grace indicating that he was of great Holiness?
But we know that anti-pope John the 23rd was embalmed in order to sell the novus ordo sect, and embalming can preserve the body for a very long time.
Lo and behold, although Padre Pio was not embalmed, that was my question to Google, he was "worked on by technicians" in order to "preserve and reconstruct" him after he was exhumed!
Not only that, but a silicone mask was also made to cover his face including beard and mustache"!
This is the kind of deception that inclines me more to complete rejection of this alleged Saint and the cult around him rather than mere caution.
What's also disturbing is the new church that they made in his honor which is horrendous and feels wickedly Masonic.
Thanks again for the great perspective and thought-provoking article Dominic!
Today Liturgical Year discusses Blessed Charlemagne...
ReplyDeletehttps://lyp.network/component/content/article/3059-january-28-the-same-day-the-blessed-charlemagne-emperor?catid=506&Itemid=165
Excerpt:
Charlemagne was held as a Saint by the people, and the decree of his canonization was given by the Antipope Paschal the Third, in the year 1165, at the request of Frederic Barbarossa; on which account, the Holy See has permitted this public veneration to be continued in all those places where it prevailed, though it has never given its approbation to the informal procedure of Paschal, nor made it valid by its own sentence, which it would, in all probability, have done had the request been made. At the same time, the many Churches, which, now for seven centuries, have honoured the memory of Charlemagne, keep his Feast under the simple title of Blessed, out of respect to the Roman Martyrology, where his name is not inserted.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteDo you know the titles of the eight books written by Padre Pio which were placed on the index of forbidden books? Do you know why they were placed there?
I've heard (not that it's true) that he had a preference for reading the condemned book call "The Poem of the Man God"
For those who missed it, I showed my disbelief in the Vatican II saints here: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-communion-of-saints.html
Lee
Hello Lee, No, I don't know the names of the eight books. I couldn't find them when I looked. However, years ago I bought a copy of the 1945 (or 46) Index of Forbidden Books on Ebay. In that book, there are two titles about Padre Pio that were banned as of that year (either 45 or 46..I'm pretty sure). I don't have the book readily on hand to check right now :(
DeleteLee, According to this, they are books *about* him, not books written by Padre Pio himself. It's interesting that the author of this article does not know what these books are, yet included this in his arguments against Padre Pio.
DeleteAnon 3:28,
DeleteYou are right about my misunderstanding of how I phrased the question. I was slightly distracted when reading the article and making the comment. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think not knowing the books written about him hurts his argument. He clearly gives the months and year they were placed there.
Lee
Lee, it's me again, anon3:28. I've done some research and found the books. While looking into things, I've also come across other details Mr. Caggeso left out. I might compile them in another comment because what has been left out is compelling and does not support his arguments. But back to the books in question - I'm currently trying to verify one thing I read that said Pope Pius XII didn't know about the decree to add these books to the index and when he found out, did not implement it and fired the officer who wrote it. Anyway, here is the link for anyone interested. It's an article from 1952, the books are listed in the footnote section. https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/70969/page/8
DeleteAnon 3:28,
DeleteCould you provide another link? In order to view The Tablet it's asking for a paid subscription. I'm not going to pay a subscription to read it.
Lee
Oh no, I wish I took a screen shot cause it's not letting me see it the same way as before either. I don't want to pay either but I'm determined to find it again cause it was a great article. I'll be back!
DeleteOk maybe there was a time limit for viewing and for the link, I switched to the computer and can see it again, sadly I can't post screenshots on this but anyone can go look! Go to Google, type "decree 1952 padre pio books" the first result(s) will show the site name "Exact Editions" with the title "The Tablet - 9 August 1952" when you click it should show without payment. There's another Google result that is the same site and says "The Tablet -15 August 1952" That is brief so I'm going to type that here. The other article was long. "A note in the Osservatore Romano about the condemnation by the Holy Office of certain books about Padre Pio da Pietrelcina, the subject of an article in these pages last week, confirms that the decree does not imply any sort of censure of Padre Pio himself, and is not to be regarded as a personal condemnation of the writers of the books cited. The books have been placed on the Index because the authors did not secure the necessary 'ecclesiastical revision' and approbation required by Canon 1385 and 1399 of the Code of Canon Law."
DeleteHey Dominic. Nice article. I have not read the comments yet, have the Fennyites come on and disparaged you. I know Bobby and Fred are into Pio.
ReplyDeleteHey John, I'm having a hard time keeping up with all the comments, tbh. I don't think the Feenyites have come on yet, at least from what I've seen. You know what they say... "sticks and stones will break my bones"...lol.
DeleteWe'll stated:o) I hope all is well with you and your family. God bless,
DeleteJohn Gregory
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“When the Church approves a private revelation it need not be believed, as you correctly noted. Church approbation merely means two things: (1) there is nothing contrary to Faith and morals and (2) it cannot be the work/deceit of the devil/demons---that’s it.”
Reply:
I agree with what you wrote. The problem goes beyond this. The whole approval of Guadalupe was based on the supposed apparition there in 1531 and Juan Diego the seer of the vision. What Steve has done is demonstrate very clearly that the apparition never took place and Juan Diego never existed. He basically just turned 494 years of something that was regarded as factual and demonstrated that it is now a myth. Millions of people have made pilgrimages to this site. People have had their faith enriched, experienced healings of various kinds, etc. But the crux of this site of pilgrimage was due to the belief of an apparition that took place there and the seer who was attached to the apparition. Both have been denounced pretty clearly by Steve (and again, his research is very well done). If such a thing can be done to Guadalupe, who is to say the same could not now be done to La Salette, 179 years later or Fatima, 108 years later? Basically nothing now. Why would God allow the surrounding miracles to occur to a mere sham? For example, the nitric acid spill on the tilma in 1785 or the tilma surviving a bomb blast in 1921? It makes no sense??? Shouldn’t there be no miracles of the tilma; after all, Steve just demonstrated that this apparition never occurred, yet God through Our Lady has gone through extraordinary means to preserve this tilma. Why? If Our Lady never appeared there and Juan Diego didn’t exist, then why do we have these miracles associated with the tilma, as well as all the other miracles associated with Guadalupe throughout the centuries; none bigger than the 7 million Aztecs converting to the Catholic Church within 8 years of the “supposed” apparition in 1531, as Fr. Miceli and many others have noted? This doesn’t add up??? Many things with these apparitions do not add up. I always found it strange that of the 10 approved apparitions that Volken lists, the very last 2 are Beauraing and Banneux, both of these occurring in the small country of Belgium and nearly back-to-back. It would seem like one of these could have easily been in the Orient, or Africa, or South America. Why 2 approved apparitions so close together in the same country? Then again, why did France have so many as the Eldest Daughter of the Church? God’s ways are not our ways so obviously He can do whatever He pleases. I get that. But back to Guadalupe, do you see my points? I get what you are saying about St. Bernadette. She was canonized by a true pope in Pius XI; whereas, Juan Diego was "canonized” by Wotyla, a false pope. I just think that this is interesting that we have the Catholic Church approving of Guadalupe which, according to what you wrote, contains nothing contrary to faith and morals and cannot be the work of the devil/demons, yet the apparition never occurred and the seer most likely never existed now. This is strange beyond reason!
-TradWarrior
Hey TradWarrior, Steve Speray will answer all of this in part 2 because he has to reconcile all of it. He's quite aware of the approvals and accolades to the Guadalupan devotion. Also, Speray noted that miracles have come from the image: "miracles began to increase. Keep in mind, miracles can be attributed to human paintings, carvings, etc." Introibo is not contradicting what Speray is saying because the Church is not saying these private revelations are true but rather they you may believe them. Remember, the Church also says we may not believe them if we have good reasons. This is admission by the Church that while nothing in the revelation is against faith and morals it also may not be authentic (from God). Introibo is not saying otherwise unless I'm misunderstanding him.
DeleteSaddlery Tack,
DeleteYou understand me correctly!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Bottom line is no valid Pope canonized Padre Pio so no Catholic should consider him a Saint at this time.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteGood to hear from you again, my friend! You are correct re: the bottom line.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Trad Warrior...I always wondered how the conversions from Guadalupe were documented...someone counted all the baptismal certificates? I have also read the conversions were 6 to 10 million in various places. I think demons are responsible for the so called healing powers of the novus ordo "priest" who claims he received them there. So if Guadalupe never occurred, is it just human errors and lies? No demons could be involved?
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Mary appears as different races but Jesus doesn't?
ReplyDeleteMethinks something very serious is missing in both the Padre Pio & Guadalupe revisionist essays. I don't know what it
ReplyDeleteis - yet - but I smell a demonic deception.
@anon5:03pm
ReplyDeleteSaddlery Tack,
Thank you for your reply. It seems Introibo agrees with your take on this. This is posing many questions and I need more time with this. I am a very cerebral person and I like to think things through. My mind is always going. I’m seeing problems here on different levels with this but I will keep studying this and I look forward to future writings from Introibo and Steve (his part 2) on these topics.
@anon2:48am
Thank you for your reply. Yes, how were all the baptismal certificates recorded? Good question! Yet many have said that the conversions within that first decade of Our Lady appearing there (now it seems never appearing there) were VERY large in number. Why so many conversions? Something miraculous seems to have occurred there. I will wait for part 2 of Steve’s writing on this. The last part of what you wrote about whether this is from human errors and lies or whether it is from the demons is a very important point! Rome gets involved in these matters because, while it is true that all we need is public revelation, we need to know what is occurring here. If Our Lady is truly appearing, then God is sending her to Earth for a VERY important reason and mankind needs to know WHY! It is important that we listen to her. If it is demons, the Church has to warn people and say, “This is false!” If it is due to human errors/lies, we need to know that too. I have read and heard many amazing conversion stories throughout my life. There is one from a few years ago that was extremely remarkable. There was a person who should have been dead (I cannot go into all the specifics-too lengthy). This family SPECIFICALLY (emphasis added, I’m not yelling here lol!) prayed to “St.” Juan Diego of Guadalupe. The person should have been dead. I think a coma for life would have been miraculous alone, that’s how bad this situation was. Long story short, the person made a complete recovery. This was a very religious family (I can’t remember if they were Mexican or not). They prayed to Juan Diego for this miraculous restoration of life (I can’t even call this a cure because it went WAY beyond that) and their prayers were granted in spades. Well, now Juan Diego probably never existed. Did Jesus or Mary heal this person? Why? They went through Juan Diego’s intercession, a false saint. Are we going to sincerely say the demons cured this person when these people were such devout Catholics and were praying so fervently and constantly for a miracle? Do you see the problems here? There is much more that I could add here, but this blog is for all posters and I don’t want to monopolize the discussion. But I am writing these numerous posts because I feel the need to touch on MANY important things going on here. Trust me, there is a LOT more I could add here! I think a future post by Introibo could be beneficial and certainly we will wait and see for part 2 of Steve’s writing.
-TradWarrior
If you told us the specifics, maybe we could help your difficulty.
DeletePlus, medics are known to lie every so often.v
@anon4:42am
ReplyDeleteGreat question! Why does Mary appear as different races but Jesus never does? I wish I knew. I recently said to Introibo (and I don’t mind sharing this here), we have 3 very holy women who have been honored by many in the church – Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Bridget of Sweden, and Ven. Mary of Agreda. How long was Our Lady assumed into heaven after Christ ascended into heaven? According to Emmerich, it was 13 years. St. Bridget said it was 14 years. Ven. Mary of Agreda said it was 21 years. Logically speaking, only 1 of the 3 is correct or all 3 are wrong and it is a different number. It’s just like during the Great Western Schism when there were 2 men wearing white, and then later 3 men. Either 1 of the 3 was pope or none of them were pope. I joked with Introibo, why didn’t Christ just appear to all 3 and say, “My mother was assumed into heaven X years after I ascended into heaven.” There, problem solved! (Lol!) Seriously, why these discrepancies??? Another one is why some holy saints/mystics saw in their visions that Christ was crucified through the wrists, while others said it was through the palms. At least with the Eucharistic miracles (at least all the authentic ones that I have read about), there is consistency that Christ was “AB” blood type. Again, I get we shouldn’t place too much on private revelations, but it’s like, “Come on God! Give us some consistency here!” (Lol) As much as I love to study and research the faith, I do maintain a well-balanced, Earthy sense of humor! We have to. We will not get these answers this side of heaven (oh how I wish we did!)
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeletePope Benedict XIV wrote a book called Heroic Virtue. From Pages 367-408 he addresses Private Revelations and how they are to be treated. Here is a link to it if you are interested: https://archive.org/details/HeroicVirtueV3/page/n379/mode/2up
I personally believe in much of what Ven. Mary of Agreda wrote and did. What she says may not be infallible but I trust her visions. The Church approves her works through Pope Pius XI, Leo XIII, Benedict XIII and numerous bishops. If I'm wrong for believing her, then that's a chance I'm willing to take. I don't think it will affect my salvation if I'm wrong. If people do not want to believe in her they do not have to and quite honestly I don't care if they do or don't.
Another reason I trust her is because of how she bi-located to the America to teach the Indians the Catholic faith before the missionaries got there. Here is amazing article about that... https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_013_Agreda_1.html
The question is if all that is documented about her bi-location how can one doubt it?
Lee
Hi Lee,
DeleteThank you for the reply. I always enjoy reading your articles and comments, including your comments over at Novus Ordo Watch. I also personally believe in what Ven. Mary of Agreda wrote in “They Mystical City of God.” I read the abridged version a few years ago and I thought it was absolutely phenomenal! I am curious to see what Fr. Lavery concludes on her and her work, because it had the backing of popes, cardinals, and theologians, as the book clearly indicates. Her bilocation to the people in (what is now present day) Texas and New Mexico was absolutely astounding! Bl. Martin de Porres is also a fascinating individual because while he was in Peru the entire time, he bilocated at different times to Mexico, China, Japan, Africa, the Philippine Islands, and possibly even France. He had a dog, cat, and mouse all drinking from the same water bowl. In addition to his many other supernatural gifts, he could pass through locked doors to visit an infirmed person to pray and heal them. This sounds like one of the mutants in X-Men. He was amazing!
I also mentioned Fr. Solanus Casey in my previous post. This man was responsible for thousands of miracles during and after his life (much like Padre Pio). I personally knew of an elderly woman who should have been dead as a baby but he healed her and she lived to a very old age. She was a wonderful woman! There are so many other stories. I am reminded of the frantic mother who was told that her baby would be dead by morning because the baby was very sick and had a very high fever. She called the monastery and was pleading with Fr. Solanus for a miracle. He calmly told her that everything would be okay by morning and to trust in God. The next morning, the baby was completely healthy. The high temperature had completely come down. Fr. Solanus Casey and Fr. André Bessette were regarded as 2 very holy miracle workers in their day. Both men were incredibly humble. They met each other one time and everyone knew it was 2 living saints meeting each other. I believe they needed a translator because one spoke English and the other spoke French. It is a shame that there are so many saints who have not had a reigning pope to proclaim them saints, because there have been some extraordinary people the church has had that are not as well known in traditional circles.
Thank you Lee for sharing your thoughts on Ven. Mary of Agreda. I agree 100% with you on this topic.
God bless you.
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteI've had a lengthy discussion with Fr. Lavery on the Ven. Mary of Agreda. He sincerely believes the Mystical City of God has been condemned. For some reason he does not believe the other popes sanctioned it because he thinks they are unsubstantiated. I respectfully disagree with him on that.
Mr. Tim Duff who I would consider the top expert on that volume of books has done lengthily studies on its history and has even re-translated the entire book gives specific sources for each popes approval along with the many bishops. I've met him on few occasions as well and I believe he is a very devout and humble man who is well rounded in the Catholic religion outside of private revelations. For those who don't believe it, I consider it their loss and a sign of weak faith.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThank you for sharing this information. This is very interesting. I look forward to seeing Fr. Lavery’s writing on this topic and will weigh the evidence, but yes, I stand with you on this topic. From the moment I read Ven. Mary of Agreda’s work, I was tremendously impressed by it and felt it was authentic.
God bless you. I will keep you in my daily prayers.
-TradWarrior
Those discrepancies might be there for a theological, symbolical reason. Like the books of Apocalypse and prophecies.
ReplyDeleteI have read many times the devil can heal. Some priests have said not always a lasting healing. Perhaps he heals people in false religions so they stay in those false religions...like the novus ordo. I do think the devil is keeping many NOers thanks to their belief/obsession over Medjugorje. Yes I would like consistency too. I want the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. There are so many lies. I can see planes filling the skies with chemicals this very moment. So many maddening things in these evil times. I am going to cease invoking specifically Our Lady of Guadalupe for now...looking forward to the 2nd installment of Speray piece. God bless all!
ReplyDeleteAnon. 9:04
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with invoking Our Lady of Guadalupe. She is the Patroness of America according to the proclamation of a true pope. Speray's article is not trying to get you to not believe in the image any longer but rather question the story of Juan Diego. You are allowed to believe in the story or doubt it.
Pope Benedict XIV may have believed it when he declared her on May 25th 1754 in "Non Est Equidem" the Patroness of New Spain, established a liturgical feast day Dec 12th, and made it a holy day of obligation for all Mexicans.
The story is also recognized in the Roman Breviary as true because on Dec 12th it talks about the apparition.
This may also edify you. Taken from St. Alphonsus Liguori's book Glories of Mary: "
FATHER SEGNERI says, that the devil could in no better way console himself for the losses he has sustained by the overthrow of idolatry, than by attacking sacred images through the heretics. But the holy Church has defended them even by the blood of the martyrs; and the divine mother has also made manifest by miracles, how much she is pleased by devotion and visits to her images. The hand of St. John of Damascus was cut off because he defended with his pen the images of Mary; but our Lady restored it to him in a miraculous manner. Father Spinelli relates, that in Constantinople, every Friday after vespers, a veil which hung before the image of Mary was withdrawn of itself, and after vespers on Saturday it closed of itself. The veil before an image of the Virgin was seen to with draw itself, in a similar way, by St. John of God, whereupon the sacristan, believing the saint to be a robber, struck him with his foot, but the foot was withered. All the servants of Mary, therefore, are accustomed often to visit her images with great devotion, and also the churches dedicated to her honor. There are, in deed, as John of Damascus teaches, the cities of refuge, where we find safety from temptations, and from the punishments merited by the sins we have committed. St. Henry, Emperor,when he entered a city, always visited, before any thing else, some church of our Lady. Father Thomas Sanchez never returned home until he had visited some church of Mary. Let us not be weary then of visiting our queen every day in some church or chapel, or in our own house, where it would be well for that purpose to have in some retired place a, little oratory, with her image adorned with drapery, flowers, tapers, or lamps, and before it also the litanies, the rosary, &c., may be said. For this purpose I have published a little book, which has already gone through eight editions, of Visits to the most Holy Sacrament, as well as to the Virgin, for every day in the month. Some devout servant of Mary might cause one of her feasts to be celebrated in some church or chapel, and preceding it by a Novena, with the exposition of the Sacrament, and also with sermons.
But here it is well to notice the fact which Father Spinelli relates in the "Miracles of the Madonna. " In the year 1611, in the celebraten sanctuary of Mary in Montevergine, it happened that on the vigil of Pentecost the people who thronged there profaned that feast with balls, excesses, and immodest conduct, when a fire was suddenly discovered bursting forth from the house of entertainment where they were feasting, so that in less than an hour and a half it was consumed, and more than one thousand five hundred persons were killed.
Five persons who remained alive affirmed upon oath, that they had seen the mother of God her self, who with two lighted torches set fire to the inn. After this I entreat the servants of Mary to abstain as far as they can, and to induce others to abstain from going to such sanctuaries of our Lady in times of feasting, for hell then received much more fruit from it, than the divine mother received honor. Let him who practices this devotion go and visit them at a time when they are not thronged."
Do not give up devotion to Mary and her Sacred images approved by the Church.
Lee
Thank you Lee, you are very kind to send such a lovely reply. I had a chapel dedicated to OLG so I actually know about most of this. I have all those books. I studied it for years (but of course missed that it may not have happened). Perhaps even my focus on OLG delayed my studying of more important matters of the faith to escape sooner. I can now say I fully escaped novus ordo and R&R. Most of my former friends have not escaped and I will say their focus on approved and unapproved apparitions keeps them in NO as they have zero interest in why the NO is false. Jesus tells them He is there in those NO masses and they also think Mary would have warned us if the NO is false. Many will concede there are abuses in NO so they have to stay to comfort Jesus, they say. There is no study, no looking into anything, just trusting they in the NO because that is where God wants them. I would never give up devotion to Mary...however, if there was no apparition I will pray invoking her by her many other titles. I do doubt other approved apparitions. I just didn't think I would come to doubt this one. God bless you!
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:54,
DeleteI'm sorry to hear how your friends were hoodwinked by unapproved apparitions. I wouldn't blame it on solely on apparitions per say though. I blame it on the culture we live in, human respect, and laziness accompanied by what's on everybody's priority list.
When you say "I am going to cease invoking specifically Our Lady of Guadalupe for now..." does that mean when Dec12th rolls around you are going to withhold your prayers towards the liturgy for that day which invokes her specific honor? I'm certainly not.
Lee
@anon11:54am
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply to me. Yes, the demons can certainly work false wonders. This has been discussed by many saints and theologians throughout the ages. St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this issue in his “Summa Theologiae” (First Part, Question 114, Article 4). If this is what occurred in my Juan Diego story to keep the family in the Novus Ordo, then that explains it. If this miracle was not due to the demons, then my points remain in that lengthy post that I wrote. Either way, my points are valid.
I can relate to what you said about people that you know that are still in the Novus Ordo. I empathize with you and I have many people that I know who are in the same boat as you and I. They refuse to leave the Novus Ordo. Let’s keep each other in prayer and try to help as many people, lovingly and patiently, who are trying to find their way.
God Bless you.
-TradWarrior
Dominic, Intriobo, anyone What would you say to a newly converted Catholic who says they like yoga.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteSee my comprehensive post, complete with tips for "converting" those who practice yoga'
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/07/when-strangers-come-knocking-part-11.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks Intriobo!
DeleteThanks Lee...many are fooled by much! Very much! I mean that I will not call Mary Our Lady of Guadalupe, for right now. My Missal for that day does not mention Guadalupe in the Mass. Before the Mass it mentions the apparition of Dec 9 1531 to Juan Diego. And if that is false, then I need a new much older missal. I used to think of that year as incorporating the Genesis 3:15 verse. Now I think of it possibly as a freemasonic play on numbers that they are so well known for. I saw a secular video today talking about Biden's recent masonic honor...ha. Even they can identify the Vatican is fully controlled by masons but yet a billion Catholics cannot. Masons have been manipulating all for so long so I would not be surprised if they are responsible for this too. I just want the Truth. God bless you and all!
ReplyDeleteAnon. 3:44
DeleteI'm glad we are having this conversation. I looked in all my missals. St. Joseph Daily, Fr. Lasance, and St. Andrews, do not mention Our Lady of Guadalupe on Dec. 12th but rather the octave of the Immaculate Conception and these missals are all pre-58.
However, I do have a Maryknoll Missal from 1957 and it does have Our Lady of the Guadalupe on Dec. 12th and below it reads:
Double First Class:
"On the summit of a hill a few miles north of Mexico City, Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego, a poor Aztec Indian convert in December 1532. In order that the Spanish Archbishop Zumarraga of Mexico might have faith in the apparitions, Mary made roses bloom on the cold, arid hillside, and impressed a picture of herself upon Juan Diego's roughly woven mantle. Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe has helped to weld into a nation the various peoples of Mexico; and her shrine has never been closed, even during the most bitter conflicts between Church and State in that country."
So it certainly is a liturgical feast day and it appears the Church believed in the story before John XXIII. Just sayin.
Lee
Lee...I certainly appreciate the conversation as well..all I am saying is that if the apparition turns out to be false, never happened...then what is written in various missals is moot?Mine is St Joseph and on Dec.12 the Mass does not mention Guadalupe so I am fine praying that Mass and every Mass, when the Blessed Mother is invoked typically by Blessed Virgin Mary, holy Mother, Blessed Mary, etc. I am not ditching Our Lady one bit, only an apparition and the name OLG, if it turns out to be false. God bless!
DeleteAnon 7:55,
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with having your reservations of the apparition of OLG. I don't think we'll ever know with certainty in this life if the story is true. I don't think we need to worry about it too much. As you said there are many titles which Our Lady is known by and so there are plenty to choose from. As long as we show her our upmost honor, love, and devotion that's all that matters. You've made that clear. God bless you as well.
Lee
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteBishop Williamson has died. What do you think that his traditional legacy is?
@anon3:58
DeleteBp. Richard Williamson, Requiescat In Pace.
I think he played a role in keeping people aware of the heresies of Vatican II. He was part of the historic Econe Consecrations of 1988. That's to his everlasting credit.
Unfortunately, his tenacity in holding onto the "pope" in spite of Catholic theology, and his whacky ideas will also be remembered. Perhaps they will serve as a reminder to others to avoid such mistakes.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you, dear Introibo. Excuse me but I don't understand it. Isn't it supposed that if someone recognizes a heretic as pope, he is not Catholic according to the sedevacantists? If the bishop, and I regret his departure, was part of a false Church, he could not be Catholic. Not because I say so, it is what is read in sites like NOW, in fact there he is called a "false pastor" in the article in which the response of the sedevacantist bishop Sanborn to one of his writings is cited.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much.
Young reader from Spain
Young Reader from Spain,
DeleteIf Bp. Williamson, in good faith, believed his own mental gymnastics with theology, and convinced himself that Francis is pope, he was not non-Catholic. The Modernist Vatican re-excommunicated him for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.
He may have paid them lip service, but Bp. Williamson rejected the heresies of Vatican II and WANTED to be Catholic. He was not recognized by the Modernist Vatican as a bishop in good standing.
A "false pastor"? In so far as he taught R&R, CONCEDED.
Was he such personally? That only God knows for sure.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The denial of sedevacante is the denial of
DeleteInfallibility - a dogma
Indefectibility - a dogma
You aren’t a Catholic just because you denied two dogmas in “good faith”. Let us pray that he repented and converted in his final hours
In nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorum Caeli et terrae; et in Jesum Christum, Filium Ejus, Unicum, Dominum nostrum, Qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultis; descendit ad inferos; teritie die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit Caelos, sedet ad dexteram Die Patris omnipotentis; inde venturis est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen.
Pater Noster, Qui es in Coelis, sanctificetur nomen Tuum, adveniat regnum Tuum, fiat voluntas Tua, sicut in Caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris; et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructis ventris tui, Jesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Hi Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that at some point you have written on the invalidity of Bugnini's episcopal consecration formulas of 1968, quite likely having discussed the work of Fr. Cekada (R.I.P ); if indeed you have, could you please supply a link or URL?
Thank you in advance.
Anon 4:53,
DeleteI don't know if Introibo wrote about it in his earlier posts from the first few years but I did back in 2022 on this website. Here it is if you are interested: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-underrated-sacrament.html
Criticize if you like.
Lee
Go to February 2018. The blog "Invalidists" is about that particular topic.
DeleteThank you, one and both.
DeleteThank you very much for that most splendid article of 2022, Lee. I haven't yet read Introibo's, though your writing has helped a lot. The comments section also a good resource.
DeleteI understand Wotjla (spelling?) made some changes in 1990, so to make the intention more certain (or so I have read); do you have any knowledge of such? Were his changes of any material effect?
Anon 3:22,
DeleteI haven't heard of any such change. The only thing I know is that in 1990 JPII published a new code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches. I'm not aware of any changes that he made towards any of their rites for Holy Orders. If anybody has any knowledge of that I would like to see it.
Lee
Lee:
Deletehttps://wdtprs.com/2008/06/quaeritur-do-sspxers-think-new-rites-of-ordination-are-valid/
Anon 10:17,
DeleteI read Fr. Z's piece and I don't agree with him. In fact, he only gives an opinion and fails to demonstrate how Michael Davies is wrong when questioning the validity of the new rites.
He also could have shown exactly what John Paul II did in 1990 when he reinserted into the rites some elements that had been removed.
The New Rite of the ordination of priests and episcopal consecration of bishops is very different than it had been before 1968. Many essential prayers were abolished which were necessary for confecting the sacrament.
If it wasn't so important than Archbishop Lefevre wouldn't have used the old rites when consecrating the 4 bishops in 1988 nor would he have worried about it if any bishop can ordain priests and bishops using the newer rites.
Sadly the SSPX recognize the new rites and 27 priests who work with them have not been re-ordained. They even let "Bishop" Huonder consecrate their holy oils a couple years back and he was a Novus Ordo consecrated bishop. It's only a matter of time before they have no more valid bishops. They are down to 2. This is the consequences of compromising with the new religion.
Thank you for sharing the article though.
Lee
My pleasure and thank you for your summary. With I hope no absence of charity, I have little regard for 'Fr.' Z's opinions, despite his very sizeable knowledge across many issues. I saw one post of his where he suggested JPII, "in his opinion" should be made Doctor of the Church. I still laugh about that (which is better than weeping).
DeleteBut, do you think Mr. Z has a point? Have Bugnini's wretched Rites been augmented since 1968?
Although I agree with Bp. Williamson on The JQ, he was sadly heretical/schismatic on some very important theological issues. One being the The Papacy and The Sedevacantist issue. You can’t call JP2 a “good man” and then claim to be a Catholic Bishop after seeing all the evidence of JP2s wicked sins against The Faith. How can a Catholic Bishop be in union with an AntiCatholic impostor like JP2? One can’t say that The Vatican 2 religion is a false one, but that the “Popes” who lead this counterfeit Church are part of The Catholic hierarchy. This is very simple to grasp.
ReplyDeleteA critique was written about this article from another sede on Twitter: https://x.com/DTCory/status/1884338973406904508
ReplyDelete@anon5:48
DeleteI will let Dominic respond, as it is his work and he knows what he wrote and why. Some observations from me:
* The Holy Office puts in place cautions for a reason. Padre Pio was investigated by Fr. Adhemar DePauw, OFM, an older brother of Fr. Gommar DePauw. Fr. DePauw said that his brother never wanted to speak of him, even in those things which were of common knowledge and not related to his investigation and vow. This led Father to conclude his brother did not think highly of him. He went on to tell me that he had heard from high ranking sources at the Vatican (back in 1962, when he was a theological expert, or peritus, at Vatican II) all kinds of conflicting reports and testimonies, and he honestly did not know whom (or even what) to believe about Padre Pio. He concluded by saying, "He will never be one of my favorite so-called saints."
* His staunch defenders actually produce material which, if true, made Padre Pio an ecumenist who denied the dogma of the necessity of being within the RC Church to be saved. That is in my post from eight years ago:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html
* Padre Pio was lauded as a "miracle worker." Bi-location, the ability to know the state of a penitent's soul and any sins they forgot, the ability to know if someone was a Freemason, and TO PREDICT THE FUTURE.
* If the above were true, once could reasonably expect him to detect heresy and a false pope. To the contrary, he never said anything and is alleged to have endorsed the phony Garabandal apparitions (most likely of demonic origin).
Given that background, is it not reasonable to believe that the cautions of the Holy Office were in place for SERIOUS cause?
God Bless,
---Introibo
In response to the critique of my article on Twitter, I read through the comment briefly and encountered an argument I hadn't come across before. It suggests that the actions taken by the Holy Office concerning Padre Pio were not condemnations but rather protective measures. Apparently, they were safeguarding his humility by imposing various restrictions.
DeleteHowever, the Twitter author’s claim that Padre Pio, not being a trained theologian, couldn't be expected to identify errors in the Vatican II documents, strikes me as implausible. The documents contain numerous and varied errors. Moreover, there were numerous other indications in the Vatican during the final years of Padre Pio's life, along with all the talk about the Church undergoing changes. It seems completely unrealistic to me that Padre Pio, if he were indeed a genuine saint, would not have noticed that the enemies of the Catholic Faith had taken control of Rome.
On a related note, it's interesting that Padre Pio named his hospital "The House to Relieve Suffering." Why choose such a humanistic name?
Your final point there is silly.
DeleteVatican II is a punishment from God upon his unfaithful people - specifically the Catholic seculars of that time - and it is likely that Saintly Padre Pio, via almighty God, would've known that, and thus the associated hows, whys and wherefores. Quite possibly God wanted him to 'keep Mum'.
There is a quotation from Pio, I think towards the very end of his earthly life, to the effect of "the world will awaken one day to find the Communists have taken power, without a shot being fired" and I ponder if he was referring to the 2020 election in the US and A.
PXII certainly trusted him, sending young Fr. Luigi Villa to his care & instruction for the mandate given the young priest to investigate ecclesiastical freemasonry.
Introibo: CAN YOU PLEASE investigate the blog settings re comment posting; the type field becomes invisible after a few lines and is extremely annoying.
Further to my previous remark (the one complaining about the Comment field), and make light of this: last year I forgot Saintly Pio's 'feast day' (23rd Sep.). I knew it was approaching though, living in a regional area and having no access to Holy Mass, I was unaware of precisely which date and day of the week it was. I pray the Rosary daily, and thus receive signal graces (as per the promises attached to it), and on the evening of the 23rd, having commenced my evening prayers, from my 'home altar' in an adjacent room, I heard a 'clank'. Going to investigate, I noticed that the framed image of Saintly Pio had fallen over. Restoring it and investigating the details of his 'feast', I found & prayed the Latin rendering of his Collecta with the standard Pater-Ave-Gloria - with contrition for my oversight - and upon completion (if memory serves) there was a 'confirmational' 'crick' that emanated from the direction of the said home altar.
DeleteDear Introibo , I could not have said it any more better as you just stated about the fraud Padre pio .
ReplyDeleteThank you Dominic for another outstanding writing . I have all your books and look forward to future ones . Thank you o much for starting a publishing house .
Bishop Richard Williamson(RIP) was a very confused man and 100 % agree on his mental gymnastics with theology and the Papacy .JP 2 a good man ,just garbage
TradSedeCath,NZ
JP2 a good man? He said this? Wow. Let us pray that he repented before he died.
DeleteIntroibo I am the ordinary juristiction guy
ReplyDeleteI should also point out that the theologians you are reffering to as saying delegated Jesus is not ordinary likely are the ones who are saying that juristiction which is delegated by the law itself is not ordinary as it is not tied to an office. However jurisdiction delegated by an ordinary is ordinary as it is tied to an office, in this case apostolic delegate of the pope, by the way the apostolic delegate has all communicable powers of the papacy.
However you are right in stating that this is just my opinion as a layman and that was my fault for stating it as a fact
If you are reffering to different theologians I am happy to be corrected
God bless
According to IMDB the good the bad and the ugly was condemned by the legion of decency is this true
ReplyDelete@anon7:52
DeleteYes. The Legion condemned the film for being nihilistic, and portraying self-centeredness as a good trait.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I can still watch it though right? I have already watched it before I found out about the condemnation
Delete@anon2:12
DeleteYes. The Legion's ratings are cautionary and advisory. They do not bind under pain of sin.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello Introibo
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that on one of the SSPX websites ,it states that Bp Richard Williamson has died and that he had retired to England????
This is untrue.He was expelled from the SSPX .This is not even justifiable using the argument of mental reservation.This is simply lying.
Other info that has come to us is there will be no public Requiem Mass offered by the SSPX.A private one maybe.They say according to canon 2262 , it would be an act of scandal to offer one for a excommunicated cleric.Is this for real.
My family are through with the SSPX.Bp Fellay and his currupt organization need to be exposed . Bp Williamson was at the heart of that Apostolate and Fellay and co cut the heart out of it.
Bp Williamson did have some wacky ideas but he was a real man who taught my sons to follow in the same way. He exposed the evil rock music and sick culture of today.
Our hearts are sick with grief
Jane
Jane,
DeleteI was not aware of this information. A new low point for the SSPX. Interestingly, Bp. Fellay didn't consider himself or his consecrating Archbishop to be excommunicated. Nor did he consider the other three SSPX bishops to have done anything wrong when they consecrated Bp. Licinio Rangel in 1991 to replace Bp. de Castro Mayer.
More "theology we make up as we go along" brought to you by the SSPX.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Father David Hewko of the SSPX Resistance?
@anon3:15
DeleteI do not know much about him. He is supposed to be very orthodox, although I don't believe he is sede. Some have described him as having "extreme ideas." As I have not looked into it, I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteThat is so bad about the SSPX.There was nothing in our Sunday bulletin to pray for Bp Williamson's Soul.Shame on them.
Prayers for Jane
C.T
Sydney,Australia
Hello C.T
ReplyDeleteAs a fellow Aussie,are you aware we have a former Novus Bogus "priest" Father Michael Rowe here in Perth . He was removed by the Archdiocese.He did not go anywhere near the SSPX but went to the SSPX resistance . He has over 350 souls under his care.Bishop Benelli(line of bishops from Bp Wiliamson) re-ordained him and gave the Sacrament of confirmation to many.He said to us the current SSPX are playing a very dangerous game.We too are through with them.The last straw was the so-called rosary crusades to free up the Traditional Mass and lift the SSPX excommunications years ago called for by deluded Bp Fellay.Why pray for something like that that, for years the SSPX were saying that they were null and void.Talk about the height of complete madness.
God bless
Fr Hewko is r & r.
ReplyDeleteHe opposed Williamson and others compromised but doesn't see he is compromised.
Fr Hewko was once in Boston,KY with other resistance priests but had a parting of the ways. Yes,he is R&R
ReplyDeleteHi Introibo
ReplyDeleteHave you thought of writing on the subject of the so - called Orthodox Churches and their errors.A number of Novus Ordo folk are leaving for them.Thank you and God bless
Pius XII promoted Montini Wojtyla Roncalli and most of the Bishops at Vatican 2,made the first set of revolutionary "Liturgical changes" and weakened the Holy Communion fast yet there is no condemnation of him.
ReplyDeletePadre Pio wasn't perfect and couldn't forsee the V2 revolution yet neither did most of his contemporaries including Pius XII.
Sorry this article is weak.
God bless,
Andrew