Login Register

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 24 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:16 pm
Posts: 400
Location: Western MD
Religion: Catholic
First of all, let me say that I do not frequent this forum (although I've been looking in the past few weeks and I really should!), so if this has already been addressed, I'll happily read past threads on the subject.

I'm referring to positions such as this one, held by many who oppose Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. ETA: A portion of what they cite is quoted below:
Quote:
In 1966, the Father General [of the Franciscans] came to Rome prior to the special Chapter on the Constitutions in order to ask Padre Pio for his prayers and benedictions. He met Padre Pio in the cloister. "Padre, I came to recommend to your prayers the special chapter for the new Constitutions..." He had scarcely gotten the words "special Chapter"..."new Constitutions" out of his mouth when Padre Pio made a violent gesture and cried out: "That is all nothing but destructive nonsense." "But Padre, after all, there is the younger generation to take into account...the youth evolve after their own fashion... there are new demands..." "The only thing missing is mind and heart, that's all, understanding and love." Then he proceeded to his cell, did a half-turn, and pointed his finger, saying: "We must not denature ourselves, we must not denature ourselves! At the Lord's judgment, Saint Francis will not recognize us as his sons!"

I realize that all of the saints sinned/were mistaken at one time or another (barring Our Lord and Our Lady, of course), but if this is simply to be dismissed as such, it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that one does not usually encounter a saint who has lived a relatively long life of holiness sinning so near his death; rather, the ones that sinned near death (e.g., St. Gensius) converted immediately before death.

Any light to shed on the subject?

_________________
http://www.catholiccomposer.com
Ask me to write music for you—I'm always looking for inspiration!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:32 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:04 pm
Posts: 6318
Location: "Fish-shape Paumanok where I was born"
catholiccomposer wrote:

Any light to shed on the subject?


Light? The Society of St. Pius X -- to whom you have linked us -- is a bunch of self-righteous, disobedient schismatics. Considering that they provide a disproportionate amount of heat, and no light at all, I do not understand why, when you have provided a link to such a crew, you would then ask such a question.

I have always wondered what it must feel like to be absolutely convinced that one is more Catholic than the Pope...

_________________
BOSWELL: "Have not they vexed yourself a little, Sir? Have not you been vexed by all the turbulence of this reign?"
JOHNSON: "Sir, I have never slept an hour less, nor eat an ounce less meat. I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure; but I was not vexed."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:46 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 173
inho being passionette in what one says does not constitute sin. the Scriptures do say "be angry and sin not."

considering in hindsight now of the comment of the Father General:
"But Padre, after all, there is the younger generation to take into account...the youth evolve after their own fashion... there are new demands..."

and how the youth of today, sadly as a rule demand to "evolve after their own fashion"

Padre saw the writing on the wall and his word denature..

de·na·ture (d-n ch r) v. 1. To change the nature or natural qualities of. 2. To render unfit to eat or drink without destroying usefulness in other .....

was certainly appropriate.

speaking with passion imho is not sinning.

_________________
Pat
John 3:16


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:48 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Custos wrote:
catholiccomposer wrote:

Any light to shed on the subject?


Light? The Society of St. Pius X -- to whom you have linked us -- is a bunch of self-righteous, disobedient schismatics. Considering that they provide a disproportionate amount of heat, and no light at all, I do not understand why, when you have provided a link to such a crew, you would then ask such a question.

I have always wondered what it must feel like to be absolutely convinced that one is more Catholic than the Pope...

You step way out of line and into calumny by accusing people of schism which Holy Mother the Church does not regard as such. Rather than hurling calumnies against a group you obviously have no real life experience with, you could be helpful and provide a source either discrediting or explaining the story?

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
catholiccomposer wrote:
First of all, let me say that I do not frequent this forum (although I've been looking in the past few weeks and I really should!), so if this has already been addressed, I'll happily read past threads on the subject.

I'm referring to positions such as this one, held by many who oppose Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. ETA: A portion of what they cite is quoted below:
Quote:
In 1966, the Father General [of the Franciscans] came to Rome prior to the special Chapter on the Constitutions in order to ask Padre Pio for his prayers and benedictions. He met Padre Pio in the cloister. "Padre, I came to recommend to your prayers the special chapter for the new Constitutions..." He had scarcely gotten the words "special Chapter"..."new Constitutions" out of his mouth when Padre Pio made a violent gesture and cried out: "That is all nothing but destructive nonsense." "But Padre, after all, there is the younger generation to take into account...the youth evolve after their own fashion... there are new demands..." "The only thing missing is mind and heart, that's all, understanding and love." Then he proceeded to his cell, did a half-turn, and pointed his finger, saying: "We must not denature ourselves, we must not denature ourselves! At the Lord's judgment, Saint Francis will not recognize us as his sons!"

I realize that all of the saints sinned/were mistaken at one time or another (barring Our Lord and Our Lady, of course), but if this is simply to be dismissed as such, it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that one does not usually encounter a saint who has lived a relatively long life of holiness sinning so near his death; rather, the ones that sinned near death (e.g., St. Gensius) converted immediately before death.

Any light to shed on the subject?

Well this would not be liturgical per se, but the constitutions of their order. And no one sane denies that there were many unfortunate changes made to the constitutions of many orders

This was not something mandated per se by the Council, so it is wrong to use this conversation as if proof of Padre Pio's rejection of such. Padre Pio's concern was a real one...they were contemplating greatly changing the very nature of their order. I am not personally familiar with what the Capuchins ended up with...but I do know that I live across the street from a school of the Friars Minor (a different branch, a result of a merger of three branches called ordinariates)...and they did change radically and this school, a seminary, well lets say it is open to dispute whether it is the greatest center of dissent and liturgical wackiness (ecological liturgy?) or the 2nd greatest in the area. I have no knowledge of the changes with the Capuchins, but at the very least there was a reasonable fear of what might happen

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
It is also worth noting that the Novus Ordo was not around yet...it first debuted ad experimentum 1968. The Consilium (you want to find disobedience and arrogance, look right into them and their subterfuge within the Curia itself) implemented many ad experimentum initiatives, many unofficially and without proper oversight of the Holy Office (there were concelebrations that were questionably valid for instance- they ranged from priests with their own patens and chalices saying the words at the same time, to several priests with one paten and chalice each saying only parts of the words)

The so-called 1965 Missal was already implemented (the date given here is 1966). The Novus Ordo to effect 1970. 1967 and 1968 saw some changes made to the 1965 Missal (addition of Canons, etc). So exactly what "experiment"Padre Pio was recoiled by is not automatically clear.

But nothing prevents a good Catholic from disagreeing, even vehemently, with reforms No scholar since the 18th century would defend Urban the VIII's reforms to the Breviary which were atrocious and bad. No one gets riled up by me saying that. Well someone had to start the criticism that led to the rejection of those reforms in the Liturgy of the Hours. The question here is obedience...obviously Padre Pio requested permission to be exempt, which is an act of obedience while still retaining disapproval. If he had lived and been ordered to I have no doubt that he would have celebrated the Novus Ordo. Cardinal Ottaviani did, and he strongly protested the reforms as did Cardinal Siri.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:39 am 
Offline
Jedi Padawan
Jedi Padawan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:48 am
Posts: 4101
Location: Pittsburgh
Religion: Catholic
If this statement is accurate, there is nothing wrong with it. He gave his legitmate opinion on the prospect of making the Capuchins (which was one of the strictest religious orders when St. Padre Pio entered) more lax in their observance of the rule of St. Francis.

However, one should read the sad story regarding St. Padre Pio and his sister Suor Pia, who left the Briggitines after almost 50 years due the laxities which entered into the order. The elderly St. Padre Pio was furious and considered it to be an act of disobedience.

_________________
"The more we honor the Blessed Virgin, the more we honor Jesus Christ, because we honor Mary only that we may the more perfectly honor Jesus, since we go to her only as the way by which we are to find the end we are seeking, which is Jesus."

-St. Louis De Montfort


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:08 am 
Offline
Majesty
Majesty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:59 am
Posts: 9542
Padre Pio wasn't involved with SSPX.

Since he was elderly and had trouble with his eyes, he was permitted to say the Mass the old way.

Check the following:

http://www.ewtn.com/PadrePio/priest/Mass.htm

His fellow friars right in his own friary at San Giovanni Rotondo did obey and read the Novus Ordo mass.

_________________
.قالت امه للخدام مهما قال لكم فافعلوه

His mother said to his servants, "Do whatever he tells you." (John 2:5)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:12 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:16 pm
Posts: 400
Location: Western MD
Religion: Catholic
Custos, I never said that I agreed with the opinions of the SSPX, nor did I speak of their legitimacy/schism (or lack thereof). I simply provided their link because it was the first legitimate link I came across when I Googled "padre pio novus ordo." I have heard this from many people, none of whom are SSPX. I also agree with PED that your comments were, true or not, uncharitable and off-topic, and I'm sorry if I struck a nerve. That was not my intention with this post.

Pat, upon reading my original post, I should have clarified—it was rather late at night (for me) and I should have taken more time to read over my post before submitting. I was not accusing St. Pio of sinning myself, but rather referring to one of the defenses I've heard on the argument. Some people with whom I have discussed the matter regard Padre Pio's comments as error on his part, whether intentional or not. As I am preparing to debate this topic if necessary, I figured any refutations of that view would be helpful, as was yours. Thank you.

PED, this is more along the lines of what I was looking for. I suspected you (or someone else) would have information on the various experiments and such of the time, in addition to that which Padre Pio was actually rejecting (Constitution or Mass). I'd love to hear more about the reforms of the breviary and their rejection, even in another thread, if necessary. Thank you.

CCB, I will surely look into that story. Thanks!

Now, for another question that still pertains to the matter at hand. I have very little knowledge of canon law and the workings of church authority, so how much of something like Vatican II and the subsequent reforms (those approved by the church, that is, as opposed to those cropping up as liturgical abuses) can one disagree with without becoming imprudent or heretical? Again, if this has been covered, I'll gladly read other threads.

_________________
http://www.catholiccomposer.com
Ask me to write music for you—I'm always looking for inspiration!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:41 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
lbt wrote:
Padre Pio wasn't involved with SSPX.

Since he was elderly and had trouble with his eyes, he was permitted to say the Mass the old way.

Check the following:

http://www.ewtn.com/PadrePio/priest/Mass.htm

His fellow friars right in his own friary at San Giovanni Rotondo did obey and read the Novus Ordo mass.

1. The SSPX did not exist when he died, so that first point is fairly obvious and doesn´t mean anything...no one claimed he was
2. The Novus Ordo did not exist yet, but in general many priests of elderly age were given permission not to say it. It was very common in monasteries for old priests to still be saying the old Mass

3. I don´t think you can boil down his not wanting to celebrate ad experimentum to "he had bad eyes"...from everything I can tell the reforms generally worried him.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
catholiccomposer wrote:

PED, this is more along the lines of what I was looking for. I suspected you (or someone else) would have information on the various experiments and such of the time, in addition to that which Padre Pio was actually rejecting (Constitution or Mass). I'd love to hear more about the reforms of the breviary and their rejection, even in another thread, if necessary. Thank you.

CCB, I will surely look into that story. Thanks!

Now, for another question that still pertains to the matter at hand. I have very little knowledge of canon law and the workings of church authority, so how much of something like Vatican II and the subsequent reforms (those approved by the church, that is, as opposed to those cropping up as liturgical abuses) can one disagree with without becoming imprudent or heretical? Again, if this has been covered, I'll gladly read other threads.

1. Good ole pope Urban was a Ciceronian in tastes and mangled the hymns of the Breviary to fit "classical" standards (of course just as "classical" as white statues...the Greeks painted their statues and buildings thank you). The Dominicans, Benedictines, etc did not adopt this but rejected it (the Dominicans have their own rite, and the Benedictines, well they even reject St. Pius X's drastic reforms of the Breviary). There had long been a consensus that this was bad. When the Liturgy of the Hours was made in the 70's they rejected the Urban reform of the hymns, basing their reform on the older, traditional ones (though their changes were a lot more mild, they did make some notable ones and added hymns-so it is not wholly traditional, just ironically more so than say the 1962 breviary with regard to hymns)

2. Well Vatican II contained no new dogmatic teaching. That does not mean that it does not teach anything infallibly. Obviously it repeated things that the Church had already said. Rejection of such teachings would be heretical, but not per se against Vatican II, since they predate it.

Whether there were any new teachings at all I dispute. If there are then they must be accepted by assent of intellect and will, though they are not infallible. This is just saying that even when the authentic magisterium does not exercise infallibility, it is still owed obedience of intellect and will, though not of faith. My understanding, in my myriad attempts to reconcile the Council to clearer teachings before it, is more a pedagogical shift than a doctrinal one (though no doubt the text is at times purposely ambiguous precisely so as to allow heterodox interpretation...). So any statement of teaching should be read carefully, in context and in light of clearer Church teaching. We cannot reject a teaching of the Council, though we can say that we do not understand a text or how it reconciles, and just leave it at that if we must for the time being.

As far as disciplinary elements. A Catholic cannot hold that the universal Church could institute disciplines that were positively harmful to the faith. That means we could not hold say the New Mass is invalid or heretical-side note though, the New Mass is not at all identifiable with what Vatican II wanted...it is in fact a departure from it, though still legitimate because of the pope. We could still hold that a change was bad, not in the sense of positive harm, but negatively. One could argue that the Church's laws on fasting are too lax and therefore fail to conduce people to acquire that virtue. So the Church can err in disciplinary matters as a matter of prudence, but not so as to positively harm the faithful by heresy or lack of the essential means of grace. One could look at the condemnation of the Council of Pistoia for this doctrine.

One would have to avoid arguing that the Church habitually errs in disciplinary matters. If that were the case, that such mistakes were always or for the most part, not just with this pope, but in general, then that would do away with divine guidance of the Church. God can permit defects, but it would be impious to think He permits them more than He actually guides the Church

As far as prudence in voicing criticisms, it depends on the setting. Obviously my trashing of Urban's reform raises little scandal. But when I use the same manner of criticism of the Novus Ordo all hell breaks loose...scandal is caused. I think it is wise to judge such criticism by the respect to authority shown (particularly obedience in spite of disagreement) and by the scandal it might cause. Certain people I can say things that I cannot with others. For instance someone who understands the difference between criticizing the new calendar and rejecting the pope's authority to make that calendar might be more receptive to intelligent conversation on the matter, where someone who believes that any criticism is rejection, well it probably is not a good first step in talking with them to say that I dislike the reforms. Or for someone struggling with acceptance of papal authority, it is probably best to leave disputes over disciplinary changes alone because he is weak on a principle where such conversation might break whatever acceptance he has

I think you get the point. Be respectful to the authority, obey, and take into consideration what good you may achieve by airing your view and whether anyone might be susceptible to taking scandal.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:19 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:04 pm
Posts: 6318
Location: "Fish-shape Paumanok where I was born"
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
You step way out of line and into calumny by accusing people of schism which Holy Mother the Church does not regard as such.

That you find this lot sympathetic does not at all make my statement "out of line", nor does it make it "calumny". That there has not been a formal declaration by the Vatican that the SSPX is schismatic does not mean that it isn't, in the same way that it doesn't take a declaration from the Vatican every Sunday to render the mass said at my local parish church licit and valid.

Quote:
Rather than hurling calumnies against a group you obviously have no real life experience with, you could be helpful and provide a source either discrediting or explaining the story?

Rather than calumniating me by your rubbish talk of "hurling calumnies", I will give you a source that will explain to you precisely why I use the term "schismatic".

This is from Question 39 of Part 2 of the Second Part of the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, of whom I will presume you have heard.

The Angelic Doctor wrote:
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.


This understanding is reflected in the Code of Canon Law. Canon 751 reads:
Quote:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.


So tell me, then, precisely why do you want to pretend that the Society of St. Pius X submit to the Sovereign Pontiff?

I will also draw your attention to Ecclesia Dei, the motu proprio of Pope John Paul II issued on 2 July 1988:

Pope John Paul II wrote:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
...

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.


Do you think that Pope John Paul II was also "way out of line", and committing a "calumny", when he himself referred to this crew with the words "schism" and "schismatic"?

As I said before, I have always wondered what it feels like to be absolutely certain that one is more Catholic than the Pope...

_________________
BOSWELL: "Have not they vexed yourself a little, Sir? Have not you been vexed by all the turbulence of this reign?"
JOHNSON: "Sir, I have never slept an hour less, nor eat an ounce less meat. I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure; but I was not vexed."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:44 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Custos, do you think Cardinal Castrillion, whom the pope put in charge of this matter, does not know what he is talking about...apparently the Churchś own interpretation of her own words is not good enough for you

Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyos has said not once, not twice, not thrice but many times that the SSPX is not in formal schism.

Please accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra." The bishops, priests
and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop
Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore
performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by
him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the
Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

Thus says the man that the pope has put in charge over Ecclesia Dei. And btw, the word "the" in Ecclesia Dei adflicta is interpretative. You should really read the letters of Rome and the SSPX between each other...it is not as you claim, you who thinks that Rome misjudges its own document. Schismatic action is taken as an act that tends to schism, as schism tends to heresy. Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyos is clear about that, and references St. Jerome

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:47 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27741
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
That and even the bishops are no longer excommunicated, but if they were in schism they would be. Schism by its very nature, even apart from Canon law, effects excommunication. Yet now even the bishops are not excommunicates

Rome and the SSPX are working very hard to maintain unity and to heal wounds...you, sir, are undermining the work of the Supreme Pontiff by trying to drive division. So no I did not calumniate you. I held back in fact

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:23 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2311
Let me weigh in on the original question. Vatican II's document on religious urged all religious institutes to return to the charism of their original foundation, and to prune away accretions that had been added over the years. Religious institutes were to examine their Constitutions, and revise them as needed. These revisions would have to be approved by the Holy See. There was a general recognition that in many orders there had been a sort of "creeping monasticism" in common life, and so orders that were intended to be active had added monastic practices over the years. (Indeed, within the Franciscan orders, it had become common to refer to the residences as "monasteries." After the council, the more particular term "friaries" became favored. In addition, there was a sort of "creeping jesuitism" in spirituality to the detriment of the spirituality of the founder. This was in partly due to the fact that Jesuits wrote such important spiritual books, and because they were very often the chaplains and retreat directors for various religious communities, especially communities of women. (I recently read a book on Franciscan spirituality that was written in the 1950s. Schmidt, Francis the Crucified. While it was excellent, it focused on what would now be seen as one important aspect of Franciscan spirituality, and completely missed the community-fraternity aspect. This is just one example of a change in focus, encouraged by the council.)

In the late 1960s, both the Church and the world were in turmoil. Indeed, in 1968 there were riots in European streets, and some commentators even compared this to the revolutionary years of 1789 and 1848. It was in that context that the Capuchin Franciscans (note: not the "Franciscans" as the SPXX quote would have it) began the process of looking anew at our Constitutions. There was understandable consternation among older friars about this process. The Constitutions had had only a few significant changes since their first promulgation in 1536. (Interestingly, among the most radical changes in the late 19th century was the removal of the prohibition of Capuchin friars hearing the confession of lay people! Where would Padre Pio be without that at-the-time radical change? Other radical changes allowed the taking of parishes and other forms of ministry outside the friaries.) It is therefore not surprising that Padre Pio would have been unsettled by the prospect of wholesale change, which is what some were proposing.

Specifically on Padre Pio: a) the quote deals with a matter internal to the order; b) there is no sin in taking a position on an issue of controversy; c) Pio was a model of obedience throughout his life and he did not become disobedient in his last years; d) Pio, and many other friars, continued to celebrate Mass according to the 1963 Missal until his death, and that at the time was a perfectly acceptable practice.

On the revision of the Constitutions: a) the process seems endless. b) A provisional revision was accepted about 1980, and a more or less final revision about 1990. The Constitutions retained their original "flavor" and many sentences are more or less directly taken from the 1536 Constitutions. There was a relaxing of requirements that seemed outdated (e.g. the wearing of the beard is now encouraged but not mandated), and some previously very specific requirements are now less specific (e.g. how much time required for mental prayer is vaguely given as "for example, one whole hour.") c) However, we are in the middle of another revision that is designed to remove some of the more juridic aspects (dating of chapters, appointment of guardians, etc.) and put them in a separate document (Ordinances). This is a practical matter, since Constitutions are difficult to change, but Ordinances may be changed more readily.

Have the Capuchin Franciscans "lost our charism?" No. We are grappling with the same things that we have grappled with since the Capuchin reform of the 1520s and 1530s: poverty, charity, fraternity, relations with lay people in ministry and friendship, the interpretation of the Rule and the Testament. Do we have it down perfectly? No, and we never have had. But we continue to ask the right questions, and that alone will allow St. Francis to recognize us has his sons at the judgment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:32 am 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:23 pm
Posts: 15654
Location: Holy Mother Church
Religion: Catholic
That was an interesting post, Father.

_________________
Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quæ retribuit mihi?

"Take it as a certain sign that your charity is not genuine if your words, no matter how true, are not charitable." --St Francis de Sales

"The thing is--to be ready to die: and is there one of us who would quite like to die, doing as little for God as we are doing now?" --Fr Faber


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:37 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 13646
Location: Joyfully Caught in the Net
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus
Fr. Matteo wrote:
Specifically on Padre Pio: a) the quote deals with a matter internal to the order; b) there is no sin in taking a position on an issue of controversy; c) Pio was a model of obedience throughout his life and he did not become disobedient in his last years; d) Pio, and many other friars, continued to celebrate Mass according to the 1963 Missal until his death, and that at the time was a perfectly acceptable practice.

Thank you Father. I read through all of the posts and until I got to yours I was still scratching my head over the OP regarding why Fr. Pio was being accused of "sinning" in the first place. The man was entitled to his opinion as long as he remained obedient, which he did by all accounts.

_________________
"Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn, Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!" St. John of the Cross


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:32 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:16 pm
Posts: 400
Location: Western MD
Religion: Catholic
Yes, thank you, Father. It is really interesting to hear more specifics on the modification of the constitutions, especially from a Capuchin perspective.

Desertfalcon wrote:
...I was still scratching my head over the OP regarding why Fr. Pio was being accused of "sinning" in the first place...

The reason is that this is the only argument I've ever heard against the view held by, among others, the SSPX. Those who are not against Vatican II say that Padre Pio's views had to have been a one-time sin, because they feel he went against the mandates of the council by declaring what was quoted in the SSPX article, which was later repented and after which the good Father resumed obedience. I've personally never given much credence to this view, but I need to know the specifics of why it is wrong since I am preparing to debate this issue. This is what led me to ask the question, "...how much of something like Vatican II and the subsequent reforms (those approved by the church, that is, as opposed to those cropping up as liturgical abuses) can one disagree with without becoming imprudent or heretical?" Unless I'm mistaken, this question has not been addressed yet in this post.

_________________
http://www.catholiccomposer.com
Ask me to write music for you—I'm always looking for inspiration!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:36 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:55 am
Posts: 66151
Location: 1.56381501 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
matteo d'basio wrote:
Have the Capuchin Franciscans "lost our charism?" No. We are grappling with the same things that we have grappled with since the Capuchin reform of the 1520s and 1530s: poverty, charity, fraternity, relations with lay people in ministry and friendship, the interpretation of the Rule and the Testament. Do we have it down perfectly? No, and we never have had. But we continue to ask the right questions, and that alone will allow St. Francis to recognize us has his sons at the judgment.

I once asked a Capuchin (whom Fr. knows well) why it is that Franciscans tend to produce so many new orders. His reply focused on one of the points, but I think it would cover them all: The call to live in poverty can be realized at so many different levels and in so many different ways, and different people come up with different answers. This goes all the way back to the time of St. Francis himself.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Padre Pio and Vatican II/the Novus Ordo
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:37 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:24 am
Posts: 9279
Custos wrote:
The Society of St. Pius X -- to whom you have linked us -- is a bunch of self-righteous, disobedient schismatics. Considering that they provide a disproportionate amount of heat, and no light at all, I do not understand why, when you have provided a link to such a crew, you would then ask such a question.

Well, here's a person who knows nothing about the current state of affairs in the Catholic Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 24 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: