Hi, Emilio —

You said:
Padre Pio never celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass because it was evil.

Padre Pio died in September 1968. The Ordo of Paul VI was promulgated in an Apostolic Constitution dated April 1969, but it did not take effect until the First Sunday of Advent, November 30th. Consequently, if Padre Pio refused to celebrate the Ordo of Paul VI, it was likely because it wasn't authorized to be celebrated while he was alive!

In any case, it is disingenuous to suggest Padre Pio didn't celebrate it because it was evil when he died before its celebration was authorized.

• Do you have specific evidence that he said this?

You said:
We have celebrated the True Mass for over 1,968 years.

• How can you say that Jesus is in the Novus Ordo Mass when we force Him to come to us sinners?

You are ignorant of liturgical history if you believe that the pre-Vatican II Mass has been celebrated in the form you know it for 1,968 years.

The Mass is referred to as the Tridentine Mass because it underwent significant revision at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century by Pope Pius V.

Even if you argue, however, that these revisions were minor, still, the liturgy went through revisions several times throughout its history, and the most compelling case you can make is that it's been substantially the same since the seventh century. Certainly, the Roman Missal as you know it did not exist during the first several centuries of the Church.

Moreover, up until the Council of Trent, it is a matter of historical fact that there were many different missals (or rites) in use besides the Mass of Pius V. Trent suppressed all that were less than a few hundred years old leaving, if I am not mistaken, in the Latin Church only:

• the Ambrosian Rite
• the Mozambaric Rite, and
• the Franciscan Rite.

Of course, the Eastern churches always used their own entirely different liturgies. Any argument for maintaining the Mass of Pius V based on the premise that it was the only liturgy in use for 2,000 years is fundamentally flawed, because it has always been one liturgy, among many, in use. I'm not sure what you mean though by we force Him to come to us sinners.

• In what fashion does the Mass of Paul VI do this, but the Mass of Pius V does not?

You said:
In the Tridentine Holy Mass, we sinners beg mercy to God to listen to our petitions, works and pray that our offering is acceptable and pure.

Hmmm, we pray the same thing in the Mass of Paul VI:

Guess what — it's the same text!

You said:

The "Asperges Me" drives the devils from attending Holy Mass.

• What prayer does the Novus Ordo Mass have to chase the powers and principalities away?
  
  <None.>

Well I am puzzled at the comment, because the Asperges Me is also part of the Mass of Paul VI. Not a required part, indeed, but a part. This may be considered begging the question, but dare
I point out that the Mass, itself, is the greatest prayer possible, and that the prayers which transform the Body and Blood of Christ will drive the power of the devils away better than any other prayers so it seems to me many of your criticisms of the Mass of Paul VI don't really stick.

Yours in Christ,

Eric Ewanco

Hi, Emilio —

Thanks for writing. I believe you are mistaken on a few points.

1. It's erroneous to claim that Blessed Padre Pio rejected the new form of the Mass.
   
   Padre Pio indeed never celebrated the revised Mass, and for a very good reason:
   
   
   He died in 1968, a year before Pope Paul VI [Wikipedia] instituted it.
   
   From 1965 to 1968, priests were free to say Mass according to the classic form; alternatively, they could use the interim version (i.e., the same thing, translated
   into the vernacular).
   
   When Paul VI did institute the new 1970 Missal, he offered indults for elderly priests to say the old Mass, privately. If Padre Pio had lived to see that day, he might well have sought and obtained that permission.
   
   However, I am confident that he would have obediently said his public Masses in the revised form. Blessed Padre Pio taught his spiritual children many times, both in word
   and by example, that obedience is an indispensable virtue.
   
   Side note: This was why Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated from the Church:
   for a lack of obedience.
   
   
2. I believe you also misunderstand the for all vs. for many issue. The revised Mass editio typica has pro multis, just the same as the older Missal. His dispute is really about the English (or perhaps other vernacular) version of the Mass, not the Mass itself.
   
   
3. You may find it consoling that Ottaviani met with Paul VI personally about the issues in his Intervention, was satisfied with the answers he got, and came away accepting the doctrinal soundness of Pope Paul's Missal.
   
   I don't dismiss the Intervention lightly, but His Eminence's acceptance of the revised rite indicates that the objections he raised were not enough to justify an outright rejection of the new Missal. It is quite permissible to criticize the revised Missal in some aspects as a less-than-ideal expression of the faith. This is rather different from those who foolishly call it heretical — I say that because the approved Latin text contains no false teaching whatsoever.
   
   
4. The dire so-called La Salette prophecies which describe the Church as headed for apostasy are of doubtful authenticity. They were never approved as legitimate by the competent Church authority: the bishop overseeing that area. The seer Melanie only published them 33 years after the original apparition, and had to hunt around Europe until she found a bishop in Italy willing to let her publish her lurid secrets. In any case, the Church never uses questionable, unverifiable private revelations as a means of resolving Church disputes. Instead, the Church depends on the publicly known authority Christ has invested in the successor of Peter. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article on La Salette takes a similarly skeptical view. (See www.newadvent.org for a copy.)
   
   
5. The Asperges Me remains in the revised Mass as one of the options for the
   Penitential Rite at the start of Mass. Sadly, it is an option neglected by priests.
   
   
6. I am not sure what nonsense you have been hearing from foolish people who call themselves charismatics, or whom he calls that, but it seems inconsistent for him to denounce them, while praising the charismatic and eccentric Archbishop Milingo, . . . who even mixed African religion into his weird healing services.
   
   
7. On the positive side, we agree: It is right to disapprove of Martin Luther's errors.
   The Church has not canonized him or any non-Catholics.

Yours devotedly in our Lord,

— R

Hi, Emilio — 

I just wanted to add to what both my colleagues have said.

What it boils down to is refusing to accept the Church's judgment on what is valid and what is not. As faithful Catholics, we trust the Church's judgment on what is, and is not, a valid Mass.

If you don't trust this judgment, you're a schismatic.

Seeing the very first Mass was not said in Latin but probably in Aramaic or Greek, my question to you is:

• If Pope St. Pius V [New Advent][Wikipedia] had the authority to codify the Tridentine Mass, why don't you give Pope Paul VI [Wikipedia] the same authority to create a new Mass for the faithful?

The Church's authority to make such judgments can be found in the following Scripture passages. Here we find support for the authority of:

1. St. Peter
2. his successors, and
3. the Church founded by Jesus Himself!!

• Matthew 16:13-20
• Matthew 18:15-20
• 1 Timothy 3:15

We believe Jesus has bound Himself to the Church He founded. For short:

He found it, He bound [it] . . . or more appropriately [Her]!

The Church's choice is Jesus' choice.
The Church's stance is Jesus' stance.

The Church's Ordinary form of the Mass is Jesus' Ordinary form of the Mass
(Novus Ordo)
The Church's Extraordinary form of the Mass is Jesus' Extraordinary form of the Mass (i.e. the Tridentine or Latin Mass.)

We can say this with confidence because, again, we trust the Church to tell us what is, and is not a valid Mass. In the process of doing this, both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have told the faithful that they should never politicize one form of the Mass over another.

Sadly, this appears to be what you are doing.

Your brother in prayer, your brother in Christ,

Mike