Padre Pio accepted Paul VI as a valid pope.

[Geremia]

A LETTER FROM PADRE PIO TO POPE PAUL VI

A short time before his death, Padre Pio, having In mind the Audience which the Chapter Members of his Order would have in the course of their General Chapter, wrote a letter to Pope Paul. In the letter he expressed his firm adherence to the Magisterium and its teachings, particularly mentioning the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae". Padre Pio also expressed his obedience, devotedness and filial sharing in the anxieties of His Holiness. The full text is as follows:

Your Holiness:

Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet.

The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs.

I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times.

In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae", and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives.

May God grant truth to triumph, and, may pence be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians.

Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection.

Your Holiness' most humble servant,

                                                                         PADRE PIO, Capuchin

San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968.
Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
10 October 1968, page 9

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation
L'Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network

[Kaesekopf]

Clearly a liberal, then.

[Geremia]

Clearly a liberal, then.

I wonder about the authenticity of it.

[Kaesekopf]

Clearly a liberal, then.

I wonder about the authenticity of it.

Why?  And, about which?  Do you think EWTN lied or that someone forged a letter from Padre Pio?

[Michael Wilson]

That letter appeared after Padre Pio's death. Its authenticity has been questioned since it first appeared.

[INPEFESS]

The text of HV was deliberately not "clear and decisive." HV  subtlely undermines Catholic teaching by equating the ends of marriage, making each appear as important as the other, which the Church had previously taught against. This results in the subordination of the procreative end in the name of prioritizing the unitive, since neither are now more important than the other. HV was one small step for Catholics; one giant leap for Modernists.

It doesn't really make sense why he would randomly try to affirm the perfection of the encyclical when Catholic teaching up to that point had always very clearly ordered the ends to avoid the contraceptive mentality so prevalent in modern society. HV implicitly accepts that contraceptive mentality, albeit a "natural" Catholic version, when the true teaching of the Church is not to have a contraceptive mentality at all, natural or unnatural.

Padre Pio would have known this, given its concession to a (natural) contraceptive mentality the Church has shunned since her birth. The letter almost seems forced, like someone is trying too hard for something to be legitimized. How often do friars randomly right letters to the pope telling him that he approves of his work?

I think it is very suspicious, especially after all that Fr. Luigi Villa said about his acquaintanceship with Fr. Pio. Fr. Pio was the one who at the same time was saying that the freemasons were already up to the pope's slippers. Additionally, he told Fr. Villa to continue his work exposing the freemasons and Modernists within the hierarchy. Fr. Villa then went on to expose Paul VI as one of them. It just doesn't add up.

[Maximilian]

The text of HV was deliberately not "clear and decisive." HV  subtlely undermines Catholic teaching by equating the ends of marriage, making each appear as important as the other, which the Church had previously taught against. This results in the subordination of the procreative end in the name of prioritizing the unitive, since neither are now more important than the other. HV was one small step for Catholics; one giant leap for Modernists.

It doesn't really make sense why he would randomly try to affirm the perfection of the encyclical when Catholic teaching up to that point had always very clearly ordered the ends to avoid the contraceptive mentality so prevalent in modern society. HV implicitly accepts that contraceptive mentality, albeit a "natural" Catholic version, when the true teaching of the Church is not to have a contraceptive mentality at all, natural or unnatural.

Padre Pio would have known this, given its concession to a (natural) contraceptive mentality the Church has shunned since her birth. The letter almost seems forced, like someone is trying too hard for something to be legitimized. How often do friars randomly right letters to the pope telling him that he approves of his work?

I think it is very suspicious, especially after all that Fr. Luigi Villa said about his acquaintanceship with Fr. Pio. Fr. Pio was the one who at the same time was saying that the freemasons were already up to the pope's slippers. Additionally, he told Fr. Villa to continue his work exposing the freemasons and Modernists within the hierarchy. Fr. Villa then went on to expose Paul VI as one of them. It just doesn't add up.

I agree with what you say here, however, it might still be possible that the letter from Padre Pio is authentic, when you consider that so many well-intentioned Catholics were fooled by Humanae Vitae at that time.

Even a saintly person might not have sat down and read the actual words of the document, but rather just accepted at face value the headline version of the story which said, "Pope affirms traditional teaching on marriage and contraception."

There were very few people who read the actual words of the document closely enough to realize that this was a misrepresentation, and that Humanae Vitae did not affirm traditional Catholic teaching, but rather overturned it.

This article from 2001 created quite a shockwave with conservative Catholics, even though it was published more than 30 years after Humanae Vitae:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/697297/posts

A received wisdom exists among both liberals and conservatives regarding Humanae Vitae: "In opposition to 'the spirit of Vatican II' which otherwise prevailed in the Church at that time, Humanae Vitae was a strong reaffirmation of the Church's traditional teaching on birth control. Liberals were dismayed to see the Church return to a 'pre-Vatican II' approach, while conservatives were pleased to see a period of experimentation brought to a halt."

The purpose of this article is to determine what correspondence, if any, exists between reality and this accepted history. When we examine closely the actual text of the encyclical, do we find that it indeed reinforces the constant teaching of the Church? Or is it possible that it repudiates nearly everything taught by Pope Paul's predecessors? What if Humanae Vitae was not a stabilizing influence at all, but instead was a radical new element in the history of Catholic moral doctrine?

[Prayerful]

A fairly notable Padre Pio film shows him routinely celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass, when he only celebrated it once, just once, at the urgings of the often hostile ecclesiastical authorities. This holy man had a great love of the Mass of All Time, but he did accept the Montini Papacy. He would not have celebrated that one New Mass, if he didn't. Also he was likely not fully aware of how Conciliar authorities used dubious changes in rules and dubious social sciences like psychology to successfully undermine holy religious orders. Given how far left many Conciliar nuns are, it will take years of de-programming.

Anyway the letter has the sort of language that was once routine for that sort of communication from priest to Pope.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. Padre Pio and the "N.O.M." What people claim that the video shows is not really what it shows. Padre Pio died in Sept. 1968; or about 6 Months before the promulgation of the N.O.M. So it was impossible for there to be a video of him celebrating the new Mass. Secondly, Padre Pio only celebrated the Tridentine Mass in Latin, and up to that video with his back to the public. But Padre Pio was pushed out on his wheelchair and presented for the first time with the altar facing the people. He had been heavily sedated against his will by a quack Dr. put over him by his Capuchin superiors and obliged under obedience to take the drugs that were hastening his death. The suffering inflicted on him by his superiors was in order to get him out of the way and take control of the large charity hospital that he had set up and was the legal administrator of. The Capuchins had invested in fraudulent real estate ventures; had lost a lot of money and saw the Hospital as a "cash-cow" to replenish their empty coffers. The problem was that Padre Pio did not allow any of the funds destined for the hospital to be diverted. The solution? Put Padre Pio under sedation and forge his signature on checks to the Hospital depositing them in another account. All this and the subsequent trial of the Capuchins for fraud became public a few years after his death. Its all documented in Sanchez Ventura's book: Padre Pio de Pietrelcina Un caso inaudito en la historia de la Iglesia (Spanish). [Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, an unheard of case in the history of the Church] can be read here: https://archive.org/stream/ElPadrePioDePietrelcina/ElPadrePioDePietrelcina_djvu.txt
So was it possible for these same criminals to forge a letter and present it as coming from P. Pio? I will leave it up to those who read the book, to answer.

[Maximilian]

Padre Pio died in Sept. 1968; or about 6 Months before the promulgation of the N.O.M. So it was impossible for there to be a video of him celebrating the new Mass.

The New Mass was being celebrated around the world for several years prior to its official promulgation date.

In fact, Patrick Henry Omlor's work "Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon" was published in March 1968, 6 months before the video of Padre Pio.

Omlor mentions that Father Gommar A. De Pauw had already written a letter questioning the validity of the New Mass in December 1967.

[INPEFESS]

The text of HV was deliberately not "clear and decisive." HV  subtlely undermines Catholic teaching by equating the ends of marriage, making each appear as important as the other, which the Church had previously taught against. This results in the subordination of the procreative end in the name of prioritizing the unitive, since neither are now more important than the other. HV was one small step for Catholics; one giant leap for Modernists.

It doesn't really make sense why he would randomly try to affirm the perfection of the encyclical when Catholic teaching up to that point had always very clearly ordered the ends to avoid the contraceptive mentality so prevalent in modern society. HV implicitly accepts that contraceptive mentality, albeit a "natural" Catholic version, when the true teaching of the Church is not to have a contraceptive mentality at all, natural or unnatural.

Padre Pio would have known this, given its concession to a (natural) contraceptive mentality the Church has shunned since her birth. The letter almost seems forced, like someone is trying too hard for something to be legitimized. How often do friars randomly right letters to the pope telling him that he approves of his work?

I think it is very suspicious, especially after all that Fr. Luigi Villa said about his acquaintanceship with Fr. Pio. Fr. Pio was the one who at the same time was saying that the freemasons were already up to the pope's slippers. Additionally, he told Fr. Villa to continue his work exposing the freemasons and Modernists within the hierarchy. Fr. Villa then went on to expose Paul VI as one of them. It just doesn't add up.

I agree with what you say here, however, it might still be possible that the letter from Padre Pio is authentic, when you consider that so many well-intentioned Catholics were fooled by Humanae Vitae at that time.

Even a saintly person might not have sat down and read the actual words of the document, but rather just accepted at face value the headline version of the story which said, "Pope affirms traditional teaching on marriage and contraception."

There were very few people who read the actual words of the document closely enough to realize that this was a misrepresentation, and that Humanae Vitae did not affirm traditional Catholic teaching, but rather overturned it.

This article from 2001 created quite a shockwave with conservative Catholics, even though it was published more than 30 years after Humanae Vitae:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/697297/posts

A received wisdom exists among both liberals and conservatives regarding Humanae Vitae: "In opposition to 'the spirit of Vatican II' which otherwise prevailed in the Church at that time, Humanae Vitae was a strong reaffirmation of the Church's traditional teaching on birth control. Liberals were dismayed to see the Church return to a 'pre-Vatican II' approach, while conservatives were pleased to see a period of experimentation brought to a halt."

The purpose of this article is to determine what correspondence, if any, exists between reality and this accepted history. When we examine closely the actual text of the encyclical, do we find that it indeed reinforces the constant teaching of the Church? Or is it possible that it repudiates nearly everything taught by Pope Paul's predecessors? What if Humanae Vitae was not a stabilizing influence at all, but instead was a radical new element in the history of Catholic moral doctrine?

Yes, I suppose that's a possibility.

[Prayerful]

Re. Padre Pio and the "N.O.M." What people claim that the video shows is not really what it shows. Padre Pio died in Sept. 1968; or about 6 Months before the promulgation of the N.O.M. So it was impossible for there to be a video of him celebrating the new Mass. Secondly, Padre Pio only celebrated the Tridentine Mass in Latin, and up to that video with his back to the public. But Padre Pio was pushed out on his wheelchair and presented for the first time with the altar facing the people. He had been heavily sedated against his will by a quack Dr. put over him by his Capuchin superiors and obliged under obedience to take the drugs that were hastening his death. The suffering inflicted on him by his superiors was in order to get him out of the way and take control of the large charity hospital that he had set up and was the legal administrator of. The Capuchins had invested in fraudulent real estate ventures; had lost a lot of money and saw the Hospital as a "cash-cow" to replenish their empty coffers. The problem was that Padre Pio did not allow any of the funds destined for the hospital to be diverted. The solution? Put Padre Pio under sedation and forge his signature on checks to the Hospital depositing them in another account. All this and the subsequent trial of the Capuchins for fraud became public a few years after his death. Its all documented in Sanchez Ventura's book: Padre Pio de Pietrelcina Un caso inaudito en la historia de la Iglesia (Spanish). [Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, an unheard of case in the history of the Church] can be read here: https://archive.org/stream/ElPadrePioDePietrelcina/ElPadrePioDePietrelcina_djvu.txt
So was it possible for these same criminals to forge a letter and present it as coming from P. Pio? I will leave it up to those who read the book, to answer.

My point was more that one of the films (eg Padre Pio) gives the impression he celebrated the NOM. Now perhaps the producers erred innocently having seen the video, but I think not. Obviously he cannot have celebrated the NOM proper, and it was unlikely he had interest in liturgical experiments going back decades, including vernacular and versus populum in the thirties. There was the 'transitional' Missal of 1964 where both liturgical approaches and preaching could at times come close to later horrors. Thank you for reminding me of how this holy man came to be little more than a prop to draw pilgrims. Perhaps Padre Pio signed it when he wasn't in a clear state of mind thanks to medication or like Cardinal Ottaviani's signature on a letter approving the New Mass after some revised General Instruction (1970 I think), the signature was real, but the letter was written later.

Anyhow, sedevacantism was a position then held by maybe two priests on earth then. It took the New Mass to increase the numbers rejecting the Montini Papacy, which is somehow disappointing, as the Council was the foundation of the New Mass. One needed the other, neither could exist without the other.

[Michael Wilson]

Padre Pio died in Sept. 1968; or about 6 Months before the promulgation of the N.O.M. So it was impossible for there to be a video of him celebrating the new Mass.

The New Mass was being celebrated around the world for several years prior to its official promulgation date.

In fact, Patrick Henry Omlor's work "Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon" was published in March 1968, 6 months before the video of Padre Pio.

Omlor mentions that Father Gommar A. De Pauw had already written a letter questioning the validity of the New Mass in December 1967.

The ordinary of the N.O.M. was only published in 1969. The "Missa Normativa" i.e. The forerunner of the N.O.M. Was first presented to the bishops in Rome on October 24, 1967; but the Mass in use up to 1970 was the T.L.M. There was no N.O.M. Missal until that time, as the "lections" had not yet been revised. The Tridentine Mass was said after October 1967 entirely in the vernacular. The mis-translation of the "Pro-Multis" into "For All" in the new vernacular canon is what gave rise to Mr. Ohmlor's book "Questioning the Validity.." The same goes for Fr. Depau. If you check into both those you will find that they concentrate on the false translation in the canon and not on the text of the Mass.

[Maximilian]

The ordinary of the N.O.M. was only published in 1969.

Paul VI himself said that the publication was the end of the process, not the beginning. He said that he wanted to draw the curtain on several years of experimentation. The publication did not mark the beginning of the N.O., but the culmination of a process of inculturation.

The "Missa Normativa" i.e. The forerunner of the N.O.M. Was first presented to the bishops in Rome on October 24, 1967; but the Mass in use up to 1970 was the T.L.M.

No, "presented to the bishops" makes it sound still experimental, but it was in nearly universal application from that time forward. Many dioceses in the US had been using experimental liturgies already for several years before that.

There was no N.O.M. Missal until that time, as the "lections" had not yet been revised. The Tridentine Mass was said after October 1967 entirely in the vernacular.

It wasn't the Tridentine Mass. At best, in the more conservative areas it was the new Mass of 1964 which was already dramatically changed from the TLM. But in reality the new "Vernacular Masses" were in use all around the world.

The mis-translation of the "Pro-Multis" into "For All" in the new vernacular canon is what gave rise to Mr. Ohmlor's book "Questioning the Validity.." The same goes for Fr. Depau. If you check into both those you will find that they concentrate on the false translation in the canon and not on the text of the Mass.

Yes, that mis-translation is one objectionable aspect of the New Mass which happens to be particularly relevant since it is one that can render the Mass invalid. But that doesn't mean that they were otherwise doing the TLM. They were not.

In late 1967 there were a handful of resistant priests and dioceses continuing to use the 1964 version of the New Mass. Everyone else was using the newly introduced "Vernacular Mass" which had eliminated the last vestiges of the TLM that remained in the 1964 Mass. No one except a small hard core who would soon be going independent were continuing to celebrate the TLM.

I can remember the exact date when the New Mass came to our parish, a parish which was not at all liberal or cutting-edge. It was August 1966. I was in the hospital, and my sisters came to visit me and told me that they had introduced something new in the church from now on -- "missalettes."

[Prayerful]

Missalettes aren't even good as toilet paper.