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."
That's addressed to God, obviously.
Here’s another:
“As documented in a solidly researched book, Padre Pio: The True Story (by an initially skeptical Protestant minister), there were accounts that defy the belief of even the most ardent believer: a sighting of him at the Vatican even though he never left the San Giovanni monastery; the transfiguration of his face into that of Jesus’ during consecration; a worker named Giovanni Savino who lost an eye that later materialized under the bandages after Pio visited him in bilocation.”
As documented in a solidly researched book, Padre Pio: The True Story (by an initially skeptical Protestant minister), there were accounts that defy the belief of even the most ardent believer: a sighting of him at the Vatican even though he never left the San Giovanni monastery; the transfiguration of his face into that of Jesus’ during consecration; a worker named Giovanni Savino who lost an eye that later materialized under the bandages after Pio visited him in bilocation.
http://www.padrepioonline.com/
There is also the dying teen in a Pennsylvania hospital who woke and spoke about being visited by St. Pio who came into the room and patted his hand and talked to him.
He’s an extraordinary saint. Of course, all these great followers and friends of our Lord are.
Would you like some more examples of prayer to saints or will you be honest and admit that Catholics pray to saints
I think you just found an error in the catechism.
(Congratulations!)
The citation for that sentence points to John 8:46, which could certainly be used as a prooftext for Christ's sinlessness, but not the idea that sinlessness is his exclusive prerogative.
Jesus suffered 3 hours on a cross for the sins of men, to reconcile the elect to the Father.
THREE HOURS was deemed sufficient by the Father for that to be COMPLETED .
Padre Pio must surely be something , to endure that same sufficient suffering for 50 years.
He must be more of a man than Christ was ?
Can you not see how this stigmata does not cause one to look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, but to the old monk and his stamina and endurance and HIS holiness?
This does not point to Christ and make His REAL suffering for us seem unendurable by us and cause us to be thankful and worship HIM .. it makes us look at a man and say that he could endure it maybe we could too.
That my friend is the work of Satan.
.
Read the sections in the Catechism on Mary.
But the word originally only means "to ask respectfully". I pray you to understand that!
But will you be honest, and admit that we don't give saints the worship of "latria" due to God alone?
No, it shows the monk's unity with Christ and his identification with His Lord's sufferings. You do the work of Satan to twist it into something it is not.
Padre Pio would get a good laugh out of that.
Next he would point out to you that he was forbidden to show anyone the stigmata, so if you don't like them, don't look at them (or try to look at them), look at Jesus instead.
One great piece of advice I was given lately was not to engage in conversation with demons.
He was also confined to his cell, to his monastery and not permitted for long years to speak to the outside world.
“He had the charism to read souls, bilocation, and other great gifts. At night, Satan would attack him in his cell.”
These are usual signs of great holiness among monastics.
St. John Vianney, St. Clare of Assisi.
In all honesty, bilocation is not at all uncommon in Eastern Christianity. I understand that it is uncommon in the West. At any rate, at Mt. Athos right now there are several spiritual fathers, elders, who are known to bilocate.
The citation for that sentence points to John 8:46, which could certainly be used as a prooftext for Christ's sinlessness, but not the idea that sinlessness is his exclusive prerogative.
So your church has a major error in its teaching? Men can be sinless?
"Only Christ is sinless on his own account. Mary was rendered sinless on account of a prevenient action of God, applying Christ's future merits and perfection to her. Mary did no work to make her a sinless vehicle for God-in-the-flesh. It was purely on account of God's grace, and the work of Christ, that Mary was made sinless.
That means Mary sinned as do all men, but she was declared righteous by a work of Christ as are all born again, (saved) men,http://www.churchyear.net/ic.html
2 Corinthians 6 >> 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Peter 2 >> 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
Hebrews 10 >> 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our [1] conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
2 Corinthians 5 is about the sinless life of Christ.
This is YOUR Catechism. It was vetted by the Magestrum and pope that acts infallibly in matters of faith according to you.
If they are wrong here, perhaps they are wrong elsewhere.
578 Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments".330He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.331 On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts.332 This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."333
579 This principle of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many Jews of Jesus' time to an extreme religious zeal.334 This zeal, were it not to lapse into "hypocritical" casuistry,335 could only prepare the People for the unprecedented intervention of God through the perfect fulfillment of the Law by the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.336
580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son.337 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".338 Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant".339
"............. 582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ."346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor,348 which his own healings did."
Here is the bottom line. Only one that never sinned could take the sin and the curse on himself , Mary could not have done that because like all the saints she was freed from the guilt of sin ONLY through the death of Christ.
She was a sinner like all of us, to be consistent in its doctrine in this area is a problem for your church
Are you saying that your church is inconsistent or confused??
So no one ever saw the supposed wounds?
T:Like a laser as always !
Of course! And what it symbolizes, obviously, is those in heaven offering prayers for us on earth.
You need to learn the difference between symbolism and literal language.
LOL! (Sorry.)
OK, what do you think it symbolizes?
And why should I prefer your personal interpretation to the beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of Christians (1.4 billion Catholics + Orthodox + Anglicans out of 2.1 billion world Christians)-- for over 19 centuries?
Yes the dead in Christ are part of the Church Universal, but that does not mean that those still alive on the earth can communicate to them as if there were still here in their bodies.
That's not quite an accurate description of historic Christian belief. We don't believe we can communicate in exactly the same way. We can't, for instance, see them or touch them. They can, however, pray with us and for us. It's a spiritual thing.
God’s Word says you don’t try to talk to the dead
No, it doesn't. God's word forbids necromancy. It does not forbid us to talk to those you the dead. Jesus --- and He is not God of the dead, but of the living -- showed us that.
She was a sinner like all of us, to be consistent in its doctrine in this area is a problem for your church
Amen!
My husband said he stopped being a Catholic when he realized the church doesn't really believe many of its own teachings.
As an altar boy he said he learned that although sins are supposedly forgiven through the confessional, it is not necessary that the confessional be utilized.
Imagine that, he reasoned. Men can actually seek and receive forgiveness from the only mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.
The jig was up.
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.