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."
Thanks Claud.
A prayer to Pio.
Perfect Love is the doctrine of John & Charles, that they received from The Master. No one preaches it like John did. And no one sings it like Charles.
Amazing Love how can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!
Yep, bonafide Methodist, but of the John, Charles, and George Whitefield variety.
All were reformationists with a twist of Arminius thrown in for good measure.
I’m an Asbury Seminary Grad.
Where did you attend?
Thank you for the kind words, TC.
“The new pastor, a beautiful African-American lady about my age, came around last week and introduced herself to all the leaders.”
Interesting. What part of Africa did she migrate to the US from?
Yes it is the Catholic Catechism, but I fail to see how you don't see that the two statements (Paragraph 578 and the statement from the other website, here) aren't contradictory.
Paragraph 578 states that it was by Jesus' own ability He was able to be free of all sin, but rather, the statement from the website clearly states that the only reason Mary was able to stay sinless was because of God (Jesus), NOT Her own ability. So there's no contradiction.
Also, the reason this all started was because you compared two catechisms with each other, the newer one today (cited here and the Baltimore Catechism cited here). The Baltimore Catechism is older, thus, not as complete in its explaination as the newer.
Now I'll grant you you can make a case similar to the one above you did using the newer Catechism alone, however, this again does not help your case as the relevant portion from the new agrees entirely with the statement from the other website you posted above.
You probably won't accept this rebuttal, but I'm posting this anyway for others' benefit and also mine (so I can save these links at home; I've always meant to get an online copy of the Baltimore Catechism but never got around to it. hehe)
By the way, this is a perfect example of what Campion was saying when he said the Catechism as a whole is not infallible. That is, as a document unto itself it is not infallible; only the doctrines/dogmas DESCRIBED there are infallible. Depending on what version you read (unless it's the latest, and probably even in the latest, although no serioius ones have been detected yet; however I suppose one could make a case for 578 compared to 492 in terms of unintentional ambiguity), there are bound to be errors, not in previously stated doctrine/dogma, and not even necessarily in grammar or pronunciation (although there can be those), but in the WAY the dogmas/doctrines are DESCRIBED, by the authors and editors of the Catechism, (NOT the original infallible pronouncements the descriptions are sourced from but the descriptions themselves), there can be mis interpretations (as you have done) of the sentences, words, paragraphs, etc.
This points to a need for a LIVING Magisterium (not merely words on a page, but actual, living human teachers) even more. Thanks for helping point that out. ;)
Wow!
Wow squared!
Oh, K, you Orthodox get around. :o)
From her voice, I concluded she came her from Rollie or Durm.
You’re welcome! I don’t think any group supports all the Scouts as generously and consistently as the Methodist Church.
You're understandably concerned about phrase "pray to", because that's as high as your adoration goes--so you can't see any practical difference between adoration and veneration.
But we have the Mass. We adore God not just by prayer but by sacrifice...and if you read through the order of Mass, even those that are specifically dedicated to saints, you will not find *any* Mass offered to a saint, but always and only to God.
That's where we draw the distinction. We have this whole higher tier of adoration that the saints never enter into.
Necromancy is conjuring the dead, not praying to them. Necromancy falls into the realm of seances and hucksters like John Edward and James van Praagh who pretend to have real-time conversations with the spirit realm. You've mistaken prayer for a 60 Minutes interview. It's simply presenting petitions, not delving into a conversation.
This is why you pray to the Father and Jesus. They are not dead.
So when you get to heaven, you'll be eternally dead and only God will be alive? I don't understand this statement.
No where in the new testament are prayers offered to people, living or dead.
Who was Jesus talking to at the Transfiguration?
Catholics ask the saints to pray. The saints no longer need anything for themselves (though they undoubtedly live in prayer of praise); we ask that they also make petition for us, who really do still need everything.
Mary was assumed into Heaven Body and Soul, Add that to your list.
Oh, wait, you said the saved - Orlando, definitely Orlando
Are your
THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS DINNERS
with the big extended family
More raucus
or
more daintily polite?
You have to understand Typology and History. All the Kings of Jerusalem did what ever their mother asked of them. Requests of the Jerusalem kings went through the Queen Mother. Read about Solomon. Read the list of Kings of Jerusalem, every time a king is named, its lists how long he reigned and who his mother was. Since Jesus is the true King of the Kingdom of Heaven He has a Queen Mother as well as with ALL past anointed Kings of Jerusalem. Jesus manifestation was done at the request of His Mother. She was the first true believer. She is the New Ark of the New Covenant. God fullfills His plan. Mary was the only one with faith enough to command the tree to uproot itself. She has more than enough Faith to fill unlimited mustard seeds. You can go directly to Jesus. I do too, but I ask his Mom to hold my hand and bring me to see Him.
I disagree with most of the posts here that claim “prayers” to saints are not really “prayers” but requests for intercession (its all very semantical and twisted). Paul was not asking the risen saints for prayer in the referenced passage, he was asking for prayers from fellow soujourners in faith - those whose faith could be built up by prayer.I say to you,"Please pray for me." I say to Dominic,"Please pray for me." Both of those are requests for intercession, as far as I can tell. What is it about my addressing the exact same words to Dominic as those I addressed to you that makes them NOT a request for intercession? I get that Dominic has died and you haven't, but I don't see how that changes the content behind the words.
When you truly begin to understand the purpose for prayer, the idea of praying to the saints becomes non-sensical.
Oh. I don't truly understand the purpose of prayer? Interesting. You base this conclusion on my having the effrontery to have an opinion different from yours?
Prayer is not a means of notifying God about a problem that needs resolution - do you think God is not aware of your needs or troubles?
Excuse me, but Duh.
Prayer is not a conjuring nor tour de force.
God forbid! Of course not.
We are not changing God’s mind when we pray nor are we breaking any news to Him.
Duh again.
Prayer is our means for developing a closer relationship to the One we pray. It is also a special means by which God sanctifies us and takes our focus away from ourselves (which we so rarely do otherwise).
AND, drum roll please, one last Duh.
Sorry for the "Duhs," but it's, well, strange to be told by someone I don't know that I when I understand I will agree with him and stop the foolishness I have believed for decades and the Fathers and the Church have believed for centuries, and which such luminaries of Piety as Francis and Dominic taught. And then the person telling me this unleashes some very good but scarcely new statements about Christian prayer as though they were brand new ideas - or ideas that MUST be new at least to me.
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.