Correcting some false narratives about Padre Pio

I have recently come across a number of posts that are setting up false narratives about a great Saint that demand a correction.

First there is a notion out there that Padre Pio offered the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) mass.  Generally people like to make reference to a few pictures or a video about Padre Pio offering mass versus populum, ergo he offered the new rite.

Only problem is that he died in 1968, a year before the new rite was promulgated.  Second just because mass is offered versus poplulum doesnt mean it is an ordinary form mass.  People forget, or choose to, that the time from 1965-1969 was an era of liturgical insanity in the church, with experimentation with the liturgy being prominant throughout the church.  This is also true with the Capuchin order which Padre Pio was under obedience to.  Therefore if his superiors ordered him to offer the ancient rite as such he will obey because of his vow before God and man.  The only things that can be said about these pictures and videos is that Padre Pio said the ancient rite versus populum, and that is it.  It doesnt speak to his will to do so, only that it was offered.  We also know that Padre Pio at this time was unable, do to his health to stand at the high alter, hence he is sitting down at a make shift altar.

The other thing to note is the supposed meetings that Padre Pio had with some notable Catholic leaders are often spoken of in ways that are pious yet fictional.

The first is his meeting with a young Fr. Karol Wojtyla (later JPII).

This encounter took place around 1947 or 1948. At that time in post-war Italy, it was possible to have access to Padre Pio, since travel was difficult and great crowds were not besieging the Friary. The young priest spent almost a week in San Giovanni Rotondo during his visit, and was able to attend Padre Pio’s Mass and make his confession to the saint. Apparently, this was not just a casual encounter, and the two spoke together at length during Fr. Wojtyla’s stay. Their conversations gave rise to rumors in later years, after the Polish prelate had been elevated to the Papacy, that Padre Pio had told him he would become Pope. The story persists to the present day, even though on two or three occasions "Papa Wojtyla" denied it.      Recently, new information about this visit has come to light, according to a new book in Italian published by Padre Pio's Friary, Il Papa e Il Frate, written by Stefano Campanella (1).  As reported in this book, the future Pope and future Saint had a very interesting conversation.  During this exchange, Fr. Wojtyla asked Padre Pio which of his wounds caused the greatest suffering. From this kind of personal question, we can see that they must have already talked together for some time and had become at ease with each other. The priest expected Padre Pio to say it was his chest wound, but instead the Padre replied, "It is my shoulder wound, which no one knows about and has never been cured or treated." This is extremely significant, not only because it reveals that Padre Pio bore this wound, but because, as far as is known, the future pope is the only one to whom Padre Pio ever revealed existence of this secret wound. 

The other is that Archbishop Lefevre was condemned by Padre Pio for actions yet to happen.

The meeting which took place after Easter in 1967 lasted two minutes. I was accompanied by Fr. Barbara and a Holy Ghost Brother, Brother Felin. I met Padre Pio in a corridor, on his way to the confessional, being helped by two Capuchins.
I told him in a few words the purpose of my visit: for him to bless the Congregation of the Holy Ghost which was due to hold an extraordinary General my Chapter meeting, like all religious societies, under the heading of aggiornamento (up-dating), meeting which I was afraid would lead to trouble...
Padre Pio kissing Archbishop Lefebvre's ring.
Then Padre Pio cried out. 'Me, bless an archbishop, no, no, it is you who should be blessing me!' And he bowed, to receive the blessing. I blessed him, he kissed my ring and continued on his way to the confessional...

I do hope this clears up some things about Padre Pio that are commonly said in haste.

+JMJ+

The New Evangelization in the Eyes of Catholic groups

I remember watching a Simpson’s episode as a child where Ralph Wiggum receives his report card from the teacher and it reads that he failed English, and Ralphie says “Me fail English that’s unpossible”.  Needless to say after the last couple of days I have been engaged in different thoughts especially after the terrible and despicable bombings occurred.  I find myself going back to current as well as old issues in the church.  Last night I was reading some different blogs and I was honestly frustrated with the way some people are running with this concept of the “New Evangelization”.  Specifically speaking Catholics in the US have different ideas.  There are at least 3 groups of Catholics out there, perhaps 4 but the forth one which I would consider myself part of is like skateboarding on floss so it seems like madness. So how do these four groups go about promoting or destroying JPII’s so called new evangelization?

First is the Progressive delegation of the Church.  There are many figureheads of this wing, to name a few

there are the nuns on the bus led by Sr. [?] Campell from the liberal political lobbying group Network, the LCWR leadership, Fr. James Martin the progressive Jesuit and thousands of priests near you.  Such people will often reference the spirit of Vatican II when confronted for their dissidency, and do their best to poo-poo the magisterium when things don’t go their way.  I find that their idea of the New Evangelization consists of tearing down anything traditionally Catholic is favor of any form of ecumenism.  Such people claim that if the Church is to ever be relevant we must have women priests, allow the adulterous to receive Holy Communion, give full acceptance to same sex attracted individuals in all their actions, demand that the government be our caretakers for life and create a decentralized leadership more open to apostolic collegiality.  If we do this, they say, people will come to love us and want to be Catholic because we are thus open to all truly; finally we would be an actual Catholic Church.

The second group is generally referred to as the conservative Catholics, some also refer to them as Neo-Cons in the church.  You might be familiar with the term RINO after the last few elections me

aning that they are Republican in name only.  The latter is not a perfect analogy, but for this I think it serves a purpose.  This groups figureheads include the likes of George Weigle, the late Fr. Richard Nuehouse, many EWTN personalities, many bishops since the JPII era like Archbishop Dolan, Chaput, Wuerl and so forth.  This group of people is not to be seen as against the faith like the progressives, but they should concern us because all too often they don’t actively engage problems with the necessary zeal.  They are also concerning because they delve into a strict heresy from time to time called Americanism.  They will often be on the front lines defending what they call “Americas First and greatest Freedom”, that is the freedom of religion. It seems to be that this group sees the new evangelization as the new spring time for the church were we show love and mercy, only compromising certain disciplines to create an easier to stomach face of the Church, a Catholic-protestant wing persay, that many not be specifically heretical but dance on the edge of indifference and modernism specifically.  It is my opinion that this is the most troubling of the groups because the progressives don’t hide their agenda anymore because they have become prideful.  These Neo-cons are like Wolves in sheeps clothing, whether knowingly or not they are a greater danger than the progressives because they keep alive the Jansinist heresy in different shapes.

The third group is generally referred to as the Tradtionalists with a capital T.  Such people are not

SedeVacantists nor SSPX for both of those groups are either not Catholic or they are canonically irregular.  These people do find themselves on the edge of this abyss however and include the likes of Robert Sungenis, Fr. Michael Rodriguez and others.  To be sure, and I want to make this clear, these people are not as bad as either the progessives or the Neo Cons, but they tend to take things a step too far and try to read all intentions as being wrong in themselves.  It is the traditionalist view that the New Evangelization is nothing more than a sticker campaign to distract people from all the problems the church faces. 

The last group which I generally find myself in is the traditionally oriented Catholics.   Such other people

would include Fr. Z, Michael Voris, Louie Verrecchio, Patrick Madrid, Pat Arnold, and so forth.  We tend to love all of the Catholic faith and really wish to promote more traditional practices within the churches life.  We are also very focused on routing out heresy within the church, but are conscience to the problems of overt traditionalism like the near denial of VII or overstating the role of disaplines without the context.  John Zimack who is a fantastic writer for the National Catholic Register and an author of a number of great books was on churchmilitants Mic’d Up show a while back and kind of attacked the “New Evangelization” as something without a a basic underpinning.  It does seem like a bumper sticker campaign as well to us, but we do want to get out and build the church.  Our concern is not the numbers like the neo-cons and progressives but the quality of the conversion to Christ.  We are focused on teaching the whole faith, unfiltered truth of the faith and demanding a full commitment to Holy Mother Church.  Perhaps the greatest way to look at our position is what Fulton Sheen would say, “The Catholic faith is like a Lion, just uncage it and it will do the rest”. 

So what is the New Evangelization, and how should we go about it?  The NE is just the attempt to rechristianize the West after Protestantism has realized its ultimate end.  We should not expect that the new evangelization will yield grand fruit in terms of the amount of people its draws in, but we should expect that those drawn in by the no holds barred traditional approach will be of high quality.  IT reminds me of the early church, there was only 12, but from those zealous 12 Christendom was born. 

+JMJ+