Posted on 10/25/2007 9:24:05 AM PDT by NYer
The Other Christ: Padre Pio and 19th Century Italy, by the historian Sergio Luzzatto, draws on a document found in the Vatican's archive.
|
|
|
|
|
The document reveals the testimony of a pharmacist who said that the young Padre Pio bought four grams of carbolic acid in 1919.
"I was an admirer of Padre Pio and I met him for the first time on 31 July 1919," wrote Maria De Vito.
She claimed to have spent a month with the priest in the southern town of San Giovanni Rotondo, seeing him often.
"Padre Pio called me to him in complete secrecy and telling me not to tell his fellow brothers, he gave me personally an empty bottle, and asked if I would act as a chauffeur to transport it back from Foggia to San Giovanni Rotondo with four grams of pure carbolic acid.
"He explained that the acid was for disinfecting syringes for injections. He also asked for other things, such as Valda pastilles."
The testimony was originally presented to the Vatican by the Archbishop of Manfredonia, Pasquale Gagliardi, as proof that Padre Pio caused his own stigmata with acid.
It was examined by the Holy See during the beatification process of Padre Pio and apparently dismissed.
Padre Pio, whose real name was Francesco Forgione, died in 1968. He was made a saint in 2002. A recent survey in Italy showed that more people prayed to him than to Jesus or the Virgin Mary. He exhibited stigmata throughout his life, starting in 1911.
The new allegations were greeted with an instant dismissal from his supporters. The Catholic Anti-Defamation League said Mr Luzzatto was a liar and was "spreading anti-Catholic libels".
Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.
"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."
Over on HarleyD's "Calvin on relics and such" pages I was suggesting that we are all, without grace, idolatrous, and that we can even have an idolatrous relationship with God Himself.
And to the extent that "simul iustus et peccator" accurately describes our fix between the cross and the kingdom, idolatry will ever be at least nipping at our heels.
One of my reasons for starting prayers with making the sign of the cross and murmuring "In the name of the Father and the Sone and the Holy Spirit," is that I know I can never do anything right without God's help. So it's an appeal that God will bestow his grace on my prayers and supply themn with his sanctity, since nothing I can do on my own could possibly be holy.
And similarly, I end my prayers withthe same little act as an appeal that God will continue to supply the remedy to the gaping holes and defects in my prayers and intentions.
It's important to add that I'm confident that God in His mercy answers those prayers and resolves those intentions. "His mercy endures forever."
Thank you!
Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {”Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).
Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December [?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Luther, authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)
AMEN!
hey ya want to disagree :) Here it is.
Scripture has to be read in context, you can not isolate a verse or 2 to make it fit your predisposition.
We do not read that Mary ever fled into the wilderness after Christ's birth. Also, verse 14 of Revelation 12 says the woman was given two wings of a great eagle that she might fly into the wilderness. Clearly the woman being spoken of in Revelation 12 is not a literal woman; but is being used to symbolize something else.
The early church fathers felt she represented the church, bring Christ to the world.
This is figurative language, Revelation is a book with many symbols and signs in it.
No the woman is not Mary.
Hippolytus says that the woman of Revelation 12 is the church.
Read his thoughts on this. "By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the 'moon under her feet' he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, 'upon her head a crown of twelve stars,' refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, 'she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,' mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. 'And she brought forth,' he says, 'a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;' by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, 'her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,' signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.' 'And the dragon,' he says, 'saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.' That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: 'And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.'" (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 61)
(psst: "Stigmata" is a plural word. "Stigma" is the singular.)
Nope, because it's not my experience. Also not my theology since only God is holy, so any holiness perceived in the vicinity of Padre Pio is God's.
The reason that I'm dragging this comparatively old post up is that it hit me last night that it seems a lot of Protestant controversialists assume a certain internal state, characterized by superstition, stupidity, and ignorance in Catholics, and seem unable to entertain the idea that a few of us might actually believe in God. Certainly, some SAY that a few of us may believe and be saved, but that group doesn't seem to include those who defend and engage in Catholic faith and practice.
I'm reminded of my godmother saying that catholics were superstitious despite the fact that she knew about John Cardinal Newman.
In related news, being crucified is more than wounds in hands and feet. It is also being put in a position where breathing is exhausting and painful and finally one suffocates. The reason they broke the legs of the people crucified with Jesus was so that they wouldn't be able to push themselves up to inhale and thus would suffocate faster.
So no one is claiming that Padre Pio suffered the torture that Jesus suffered.
And that doesn't address the question of Jesus actively giving up His life, rather than merely waiting for death to come to Him. "I have the power to lay it down ..."
But the main point of my objection is that you are seem to be saying that God would not give the stigmata to Padre Pio (or Francis or any of the host of people who have had them) because it would lead people astray. But the Bible has led some people astray, and He gave us that.
The Way is straight. That some wander from it does not show that the way is bad.
Magnificent!
Zounds! Niceness nodules reappear!!!!!!!!!!
Which raises the key point: If the saint's situational awareness is filtered through God in the first place, then it makes more sense to go ahead and use the direct route to God.
Pray to God.
If you desire, then, to ask God to pass a message to a loved one, then feel free to do so.
Amen. I believe my darling dad in heaven in some way knows of my life and my children's lives and is happy that I am happy and that his child's life is meaningful, as any parent would want to know of their children.
To that I believe that my dad (along with all the saints in heaven) is spending 99.999% of his time and effort praising God and glorifying His name.
But I would no more pray to my dad than I would pray to a palm tree or a muffin tin.
As to the standard Catholic response that the saints in heaven are living, and not dead, that kind of parsing of God's word will not end well. Nothing in Scripture tells us to pray to anyone in heaven other than the Triune God.
That's pretty much Christianity 101.
Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield." -- Psalm 115:1-9"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.
Thanks. Well said. Except for a few posts, this entire thread has just made me sick.
I see no point in reading any religion thread outside the caucus, and won’t, in the future.
Please read your Bible.
Jesus laid out what the Old Testament was before the resurrection. Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired. Paul recognized Peter's writings as inspired. All the books of the New Testament were written before the last Apostle died.
IOW, the Scriptures were provided to us before the end of the Apostolic Era so that we would not fall into the same error as the Jews who had so grossly manipulated the law by their "tradition".
May we need to start labeling more threads as Catholic Caucus. I know the Daily Readings are a haven for all.
Guess I might have clarified a little bit more.
A haven of peace.
You need a dose of "niceness nodules." I am pinging Mrs. Tax for your coaching. Frustration is no justification for speaking truth... Besides, prudence, prudence...in all things, Prudence!
"And since the quarrel
Will bear no color for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities;
And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg,
Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell."
--William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
In no way did they think, write or believe that Mary was the "co-redeemer," Mary was without sin, Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, Mary was born sinless, or that Mary was the "dispenstrix of all graces" and all the other fictitious labels put on this woman whom God chose to give human birth to Jesus Christ in order to best illustrate the Jesus was fully both man and God. His humanity from Mary; His divinity from the Holy Spirit.
Luther and Calvin simply believed she most likely had no other children.
Get the difference?
We all need more Niceness Nodules. I suffered a terrible failure of Niceness yesterday, and Begged someone’s Pardon (and called him a Name) when I should have Blessed his Booties. I was expecting a reasoned discussion and was taken aback by a personal slander. Cebu, as we say around here ...
I’m going to bed with the baby now (babies are a major source of Niceness), and Anoreth is going to play a computer game with the Geeky Greek System Lord.
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
This is going to be one of those times we will disagree. I think what you are suggesting is the camel's nose inside the tent, so to speak. In no short order it leads to by passing God and going straight to talking with the dead. Look at all the Mary "veneration". It probably started the same way.
Duet. 18:11-12 ...or a medium, or a spiritualist, or one who calls up the dead....are an abomination..
I Sam. 28:1-25
IChron 10:13
Isaiah 8:19
This opens the whole discussion as to what happens between
the moment we die and the judgement.We are no longer in this time and space.
Are we instantly swept to the judgement ?
“To Thee, the Champion Leader, we Thy servants dedicate a feast of victory and of thanksgiving as ones rescued out of sufferings, O Theotokos: but as Thou art one with might which is invincible, from all dangers that can be do Thou deliver us, that we may cry to Thee: Rejoice, Thou Bride Unwedded!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.