Saint Padre Pio NEVER said the Novus Ordo Mass

CP&S comment: Remember that St. Padre Pio died on 23rd September 1968 when the Novus Ordo Mass was already in place in practically all Catholic parishes in the world. This exceptionally holy priest, whose mystical experiences and abilities, deep sufferings, and the frequent onslaughts from the Devil (due to the demon’s fury at the countless souls saved from Hell through Padre Pio’s intervention), all single him out as a unique saint, highly favoured by God. If Padre Pio had even ONCE celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass, it might be surmised that he evaluated it as a fitting and holy Commemmoration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross. But did he?


Written by Father Ladis J. Cizik

imageSaint Padre Pio was the first stigmatized Priest in the Church, sent from God to be a sign for our times. Francesco Forgione (born 1887) received the five wounds of Christ only after ordination (1910) when he began offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and became known as Padre Pio. These visible and bleeding wounds of Christ, which he had received on September 20, 1918, had disappeared from Padre Pio by the time that he completed his last Mass on September 22, 1968 – two days after the 50th Anniversary. The wounds were related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Padre Pio was sent as a visible sign of the Sacrificial nature of the Mass. In 1968, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was undergoing changes in the wake of Vatican II to transform it from the unbloody God-centered re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary into a man-centered memorial meal. The stigmatized Padre Pio is a sign of contradiction to this Protestantized Modernistic thinking.

Like Saint Padre Pio, all priests are ordained, in a special way, to offer Sacrifice to Almighty God, in the Person of Christ (in Persona Christi). At the Altar of the Cross, the priest stands in Persona Christi, to re-present the Sacrifice of Calvary to the faithful through time and space for all generations from the time of Christ until the end of time. Padre Pio, who was a stamped representative of Our Lord, a living Crucifix, was sent to remind us of the unique character of the priest who is ordained to offer Sacrifice, and not to ‘preside’ at a community meal. There were no banquet tables set up at Calvary on that first Good Friday.

Anyone can ‘preside.’ Only a Priest can offer Sacrifice and effect Transubstantiation, thereby changing bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The Divine Victim, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is then offered to God the Father by the priest as a propitiatory Sacrifice for our sins at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Saint Padre Pio, a priest forever, offered Sacrifice. He was not a ‘presider.’

When it was announced that experimental changes to the Traditional Latin Mass, so loved by Saint Padre Pio, would take place in the mid-1960’s, Pio did not hesitate to request permission from Rome to continue offering the Immemorial Tridentine Mass. It is said that permission was granted in consideration of his advanced age, fragile health, and poor eyesight.

By the time the Novus Ordo Liturgy was promulgated by Paul VI on April 3, 1969, Padre Pio had been dead for six months. The full Novus Ordo ‘Sacramentary,’ with all its revised prayers, would be published in 1970 – over one year after the dead body of Padre Pio was placed in his tomb. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that Saint Padre Pio never said the Novus Ordo Mass. Hence, it is false and misleading for anyone to suggest otherwise.


Words written by two Capuchin priests, who actually knew and lived with Padre Pio, have become the genesis of fallacious theories proposing that Padre Pio said the Novus Ordo Mass. One of those priests, Father Pellegrino Funicelli, who was with Padre Pio when he died, wrote in his 1991 book, Padre Pio’s Jack of All Trades (pp. 401-402):

In 1966-67 Padre Pio received permission from the Holy See to celebrate Mass in Latin, and seated. However, the Holy See allowed this under two conditions: That he celebrate facing the people, and that he use the new rite of the Eucharistic Prayer.”

The statements from this book, which are just now making their rounds on the internet, are deceptive. The Holy See gave permission to Padre Pio to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. This was not merely permission for a “Mass in Latin,” such as, saying the Novus Ordo in Latin. To use the “new rite of the Eucharistic Prayer” cannot mean to replace the Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass. It would be absurd to expect that an elderly, weak, frail, vision-impaired Padre Pio would be able to read the words and learn the rubrics of a new ‘Eucharistic Prayer.’ Besides, the permission from Rome for Pio and other elderly Priests was to use the entire Missal, including the Canon of the Mass – which they had presumably memorized over many decades of recitation. Father Pellegrino continues:

“… knowing the conditions, he (Padre Pio) begged the Superior to teach him the new form of the doxology. After he had seen how he should raise the paten, with the Host and the chalice, he thanked the Superior and appeared to be satisfied … During the night he called to me and said: ‘Do me a favor. Go get the chalice and the paten in the little church and let me see the new rite once again … I must perform the rite precisely as the Church desires.’”

Given what was said, one would expect to find pictures or videos of Padre Pio holding the Chalice in one hand and the Paten in the other, chanting: ‘Through Him, with Him, in Him,’ etc. Such photos and/or videos do NOT exist. There are NONE. How can this be explained?

A former aide to Padre Pio, who answered his English-speaking correspondence, Padre Ermelindo di Capua, is quoted online as saying:

He (Padre Pio) used to say Mass according to the new order. By 1968 (when Padre Pio died) the new order was not yet complete, but had changed some things from Latin into the Italian language. He attempted to say Mass according to the new disposition of the Church. He tried to learn and adapt himself to the new rules of the Mass. There was still some Latin. It wasn’t completely changed. The Canon I don’t remember exactly.”

Padre Ermelindo’s comments, as quoted, cannot be taken to mean that Padre Pio abandoned the Traditional Latin Mass in favor of the “new order” (Novus Ordo). After his remarks came out in 2013, I corresponded with Father Ermelindo and asked him whether he had any photos or videos of Padre Pio proving conclusively that he said the “new order” of the Mass. He said that he had no such evidence.

So, how does one resolve this issue? It is often said: ‘Seeing is believing.’ In this case, ‘seeing’ for myself was very helpful in understanding what to make of the words spoken by Padre Pio’s fellow friars. I looked at hundreds of photos and dozens of videos capturing Padre Pio’s various Masses. Most importantly, I closely studied available video of Padre Pio’s Last Mass from September 22, 1968. If there were any novelties added to Padre Pio’s Mass, they would surely be on display in that final Mass. I found that the words of Padre Pio’s brother Capuchin friars were being incorrectly interpreted in favor of a Novus Ordo apologia.

Seeing is Believing

Seeing is believing. Here is what one can see with their own eyes concerning that Last Mass of Saint Padre Pio:


As Padre Pio was led from the sacristy, he passed between the Traditional High Altar to his left and the Novus Ordo altar/table to his right on his way to his seat (sedilia), from which he would lead the Confiteor and Gloria, and say the Opening Prayer. He would be helped out of his chair and led to the Novus Ordo altar/table, where he would offer his Last Mass facing the people. Padre Pio was obviously too weak to have climbed the three steps to the High Altar. In addition, the ‘Liturgical experiment’ of Mass facing the people from a free-standing altar/table was obviously in full swing at San Giovanni Rotondo, as it was in other parts of the world at that time.

Padre Pio was accompanied by a deacon and subdeacon indicating that this was a Solemn High Mass. Padre Pio’s Superior ordered him to offer a High Mass on this day and the weakened Pio obeyed. Note that the Novus Ordo Liturgy does not distinguish between a High and Low Mass; nor does it have subdeacons. This was a Traditional Latin Mass.

Padre Pio was wearing a white Fiddle-back vestment with a Maniple on his left arm. Such traditional liturgical garb is not worn in a Novus Ordo Liturgy.

Throughout the video evidence, Padre Pio only said the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass, including the Canon, and spoke them in Latin. This is during the time when Priests were ordered to say the Mass in the vernacular. In my library, I have a 1966 “Sacramentary” where all of the prayers are to be said in English. Padre Pio had permission, however, to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass from a pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum.

At the Suscipe, Sancte Pater, Padre Pio makes the Sign of the Cross with the Paten, and then allows the Host to slip off the Paten onto the Corporal. At the Sanctus, bells can be heard ringing three times at Padre Pio’s Last Mass. Both of these Traditional Latin Mass rubrics were eliminated from the Novus Ordo Liturgy.

In the Canon of the Mass there are numerous evidences that Padre Pio is NOT saying any new ‘Eucharistic Prayer,’ but is continuing to pray the Roman Canon, as he had always done. At the Quam oblationem, Padre Pio can be observed making multiple Signs of the Cross over the offerings. Just prior to the Consecration, Padre Pio made the Sign of the Cross over the Host at the benedixit in the Qui pridie prayer. Padre Pio also made the Sign of the Cross over the Chalice at the benedixit in the Simili modo prayer. Three separate bells were rung at each Consecration. Signs of the Cross were made by Padre Pio at the Unde et memores prayer. Padre Pio would not separate his thumbs and forefingers after the Consecration until after the ablutions. These rubrics, from the Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass, are NOT found anywhere in the Novus Ordo Liturgy.

As for the claim that Padre Pio practiced the “new form of the doxology … raising the paten, with the Host and the chalice,” there is NO evidence of this happening at Padre Pio’s Last Mass or at any other of his Masses. This “new form of the doxology” in the Novus Ordo replaced the “Minor Elevation” of the Traditional Latin Mass. However, in Padre Pio’s Last Mass, at the Minor Elevation, Padre Pio can be seen taking the Consecrated Host in his right hand and making Signs of the Cross over the Chalice and the Altar as is traditionally done at the Per Ip+sum, et cum Ip+so, et in Ip+so prayer. Padre Pio followed the Traditional Latin Mass Roman Canon here, and throughout the Mass, and did not succumb to the innovation of a “new form of the doxology.”

Padre Pio said the Per omnia saecula saeculorum before the Pater noster. Also, after fragmenting the Consecrated Host at the Qui tecum, Padre Pio is seen chanting Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Pio clearly said the Pax+Domini sit+simper vobis+cum while making the Sign of the Cross over the Chalice with the Sacred Particle. Both of these Per omnia saecula saeculorum prayers, as well as the Signs of the Cross with the Fragment, all done in the Traditional Latin Mass, were excised from the Novus Ordo Liturgy.
At the Agnus Dei, Padre Pio struck his chest. He can later be seen making the Sign of the Cross with the Consecrated Host over the Paten before consuming It. These are hallmarks of the Traditional Latin Mass. Padre Pio performs the ablutions of the Chalice and his fingers with wine and water after Communion. In the Novus Ordo Liturgy, only water is used.

In the permission that Padre Pio received to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass, it is generally agreed that he was given specific permission to use the Mass of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout the year. In Padre Pio’s Last Mass, the Proper Postcommunio prayer for the Immaculate Conception at the end of the Traditional Latin Mass can clearly be discerned:“Sacramenta quae sumpsimus, Domine Deus noster, illius in nobis culpae vulnera reparent; a qua immaculatem beate Mariae Conceptionem singulariter praeservasti. Per Dominum…

Having provided evidence that Padre Pio’s Last Mass was indeed the Traditional Latin Mass, there were however, at least two innovations that occurred: Mass on an altar/table facing the people; and the subdeacon read the Epistle in Italian from a pulpit facing the people. In addition, although they may have been edited out of the videos that I viewed, there was no evidence of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or the Last Gospel, noting that these were typical omissions during the post-Vatican II time of ‘experimentation.’

The Mass was changing throughout the world and before Padre Pio’s own eyes. As a weakened, nearly-blind Religious Order Priest, subject to obedience to his Superior, and not strong enough to offer effective resistance, Padre Pio was led by the will of others and was physically directed throughout his Last Mass. Weakened as his vision was, Padre Pio could see enough to know that it was time for him to leave this world. In fact, that very day of his Last Mass, his tomb was blessed and he would die at 2:30am the following morning, September 23, 1968.


For nearly all of Padre Pio’s life on earth he offered the Traditional Latin Mass exactly according to the Roman Missal of the Great Pope Saint Pius V, which priests had used for centuries without change, prior to the time of Vatican Council II. When he fell victim to the ‘Liturgical experiments’ prior to the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, his stigmata began to, and eventually, disappear – just as the Sacrificial nature of the Mass began to disappear.

As a dying old weakened man with failing eyesight, Padre Pio was like a lamb being led to slaughter at his Last Mass. Padre Pio would be the perfect imitation of Christ, ‘in Persona Christi’ to the extreme, to the very end. As a weakened Padre Pio was led by a group of men to the altar/table to ‘face the people,’ he was exposed to the crowd and put on public display, much like Our Divine Lord Jesus was as He hung dying on the Cross at Calvary. As the Son of God’s side was pierced by a lance and the last drops of His Precious Blood drained from His Body, so too was it claimed that after that Last Mass, Padre Pio’s body was practically devoid of blood.

Padre Pio collapsed at the conclusion of his Last Mass and had to be carried off into the sacristy, to his cell, where he was soon to pass from this world with his last words, “Jesu et Maria”(Jesus and Mary) on his lips. As the Traditional Latin Mass faded from this world, replaced almost everywhere by the Novus Ordo Mass, so too did Saint Padre Pio make his painful exit from the sanctuary. The priest acting ‘in Persona Christi’ at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be replaced by a ‘presider’ at a ‘community meal.’

However, just as Jesus rose from the dead, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass that would not die, is making a comeback. God would not permit the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, instituted by Him and offered to Him, to disappear from this world. Padre Pio, the Saint of the Traditional Latin Mass, continues to be an inspiration and an intercessor for all priests and seminarians who are called by God to dedicate their lives to the Mass of the Ages.

There always was, and still is, a remnant of the faithful who stayed with the Traditional Latin Mass. Always remember, and let no one ever discourage you: “…At the present time there is a remnant left, selected out of grace” (Romans 11:5). We are that remnant. Saint Padre Pio is our saint.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Saint Padre Pio NEVER said the Novus Ordo Mass

  1. Shadon says:

    Fascinating article and it’s such a shame that “alternative facts” are being used to undermine the traditional celebration of Mass. The Novus Ordu Mass is so widespread that I don’t even know where to look for places that celebrate the traditional Latin Mass (I live in Spain). I am also very confused by the different types of Mass (is it just the Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordu Mass) that are out there so any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. Apologies in advance for any ignorance on my behalf.


  2. kathleen says:

    Hello Shadon
    In answer to your question, we are really talking about only two forms of Mass. These are:
    1. The Extraordinary Form (EF), which is the beautiful Tridentine Mass (a.k.a. the Traditional Latin Mass). This is often described as the Mass of the ages because its origins go back to the earliest centuries. Fr Faber rightfully called it, “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”! The liturgical language is Latin, but the Epistle, Gospel and homily are nearly always in the vernacular.
    2. The Ordinary Form, or “new Mass” – hence, the Novus Ordo Mass – that came into use after Vatican II. For some reason, never properly explained, the instructions in V2 documents were ignored, and this Mass ended up being entirely in the vernacular. There is a vast difference in the way it is celebrated too; this can range from a devout Mass to an absolute shambles! In a few isolated places (but not, I think, in Spain) you may be able to find a Latin version of the NOM, which is usually a great improvement.

    I hardly think I need to tell you which of the two is the vastly superior one in every way, do I? 😉 The NOM lacks the God-centredness, reverence, and much much more of the TLM.
    My advice would be to seek out the Tridentine Mass wherever you happen to live in Spain. A Google search can tell you where the nearest one is to your place of residence.

    Hope this helps a bit.


  3. J.P. says:

    Kathleen March 1@23.48. Neither the Tridentine Mass nor the Novus Ordo Mass can be or is ‘vastly superior’. The Church itself does not claim that. Both are, by divine intervention, the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary.
    The only difference is that most members of the congregation, not knowing Latin, will not understand the former, whereas they will the latter. […]


  4. The Raven says:

    I don’t think that it is orthodox to refer to the Mass as a “re-enactment”, John. Surely the word you are looking for is the re-presentation of the single sacrifice of Calvary?

    You already know that we think that your opinions on the use of Latin in the liturgy are cock-eyed.


  5. Jude Punch says:

    The Raven. Whether the Mass is a reenactment or representation is the kind of useless logic chopping which engaged the minds of Medieval Schoolmen. The essential point Kathleen was making, however, was that the Tridentine Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo. That is not what the Church teaches. One may have a personal preference, for aesthetic or emotional reasons, for one over the other but that is another matter.What is in reality cock-eyed is the view of anyone who imagines that the intrinsic value of the Mass can somehow be enhanced to a superior state by being said in one language, Latin, which most people do not understand rather than in the vernacular which people do understand. If that simple proposition is cock-eyed, your understanding of the term is different to mine.You said ‘We already know…’ Who are we ?


  6. The Raven says:

    Well, in the first place, John, your characterisation of medieval thought is sadly out of date. May I recommend “God’s Philosophers” by James Hannam as a corrective?

    And aren’t you rather echoing (yet again) the Protestant heresiarchs when they talked of the Mass as a ‘mummery’, an act, instead of a true sacrifice?

    I’m aware that many in the Church are still wedded to that dusty product of fantasy and outdated scholarship that we call the Novus Ordo, that doesn’t really matter; Kathleen, myself and many others are entirely free to say that the Old Mass is superior to the new.

    I suppose that they both have their place, although it has often been pointed out that the interim missal of 1965 had fully achieved the instructions of the Council Fathers in their proposals for the revision of the Mass (Fr Bouyer’s memoirs shake to the foundations the idea that the manufacturing process involved in the new Mass had any great merit).

    You and I have already rehearsed the arguments for and against the Latin tongue in the Mass and you seem wholly unable or unwilling to engage with any notion of participation in the Mass other than an engagement with the text. “We”, meaning everyone who read our comments last time, already know of your inflexible, cock-eyed opinions on the subject.


  7. J.P. says:

    The Raven, you are indeed free to say that the Old Mass is superior to the new. That is your subjective opinion which does not objectively make it a fact. Others will disagree. as do I.
    As for your taking issue earlier with my description of the Mass being a re-enactment of Calvary I would refer you to ‘Calvary and the Mass. A Missal Companion’ by the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wherein he uses the words ‘renew’, re enacted, and represented’ in that order in this context. […]

    Personally, I have no problem with the Tridentine Mass which I attended daily for years as a young boy, in the Catholic seminary/high school where I learned Latin, and indeed for years thereafter until the changes brought about by Vatican II. However, the reality of the Tridentine Mass, for those like me who actually attended it, as opposed to those having a hazy nostalgic idea of what it was, was of the celebrant with his back to the people muttering the words of the liturgy which most people did not understand, not having learned Latin; those persons then simply resorting to saying the rosary as was obvious from the use of the rosaries in their hands, clearly absent in another world, and disconnected from the liturgy actually taking place.

    The congregation to-day in the Novus Ordo can, and do, participate fully with responses and the communal recitation of some parts of the Mass such as the Creed and the Our Father a much better outcome than having a silent uncomprehending and disengaged congregation as was previously the case. Repeating these facts does not make them untrue, but of course unpalatable to you, a Latin purist.


  8. Shadon says:

    Back to Kathleen’s comment, I’d just like to say thanks, it did help clarify things a lot and now I did find a place (just the one) in the city where I live. I will need to do some studying to make sure I don’t go in completely unprepared. But really looking forward to going some day in the near future.
    I will also be so bold as to add my own opinion about the 2 types of Mass and I would start by saying that both are equally valid for the Church.
    I would have to add that I have borne witness to many Novus Ordo Masses that could well be described as “a shambles” and a smaller number that have been much more devout.
    Since I have never been to a Latin Mass, I cannot offer my own opinion, but in principle, and from my own limited understanding, it just seems like the best way to me. It avoids all the potential errors with imprecise translations (whether inserted with malicious intent or innocuously),,minimises potential distractions from the worship of God and would allow any pilgrim to attend Holy Mass with minimum confusion while travelling in countries with different languages.


  9. This article brought tears to my eyes. As an old man who grew with, and in, traditional ways of the Church (pre-Vat2), the changes to Mother Church both offend and pain me. My challenge isn’t to make rhetorical sense, but the struggle to not condemn those who have torn apart the legacy of 1900 years. As long as we have comments i.e. as above, we have a chance to reconcile our condition with God, who understands the ‘why’ of our confusion and chaos, even if we don’t fully know ourselves. Thank you all.


  10. The Raven says:


    The Ven. Fulton Sheen was using the word ‘re-enacted’ in the context of a far longer, impeccably orthodox, description, whereas you used it in isolation; his formulation does not admit a minimalist interpretation, yours does.

    Personally, I have no problem with the Tridentine Mass

    But then you go on to deprecate both the Mass and the people’s participation in and connexion with the Mass. Generations of my own family drew their spiritual strength from the Old Mass, continents were converted to the Faith on the back of the older form and people were willing to earn the martyrs’ crown to assist at something you dismiss as ‘the celebrant with his back to the people muttering the words of the liturgy’.

    And the empty churches that followed the introduction of the new Mass hardly constitute your ‘better outcome’: the congregation that doesn’t turn up is considerable more disengaged than a congregation which hears Mass and participates each after his or her own fashion.

    Repeating these facts does not make them untrue

    All that you are doing is reciting are your own opinions, John; repeating them does not mystically transform them into facts.

    I’ll also point out that my recollection of the Vetus Ordo is unlikely to be that hazy, having heard Mass in that form quite regularly over the last few years.


  11. J.P. says:

    The Raven @08:04. I certainly don’t deprecate the Mass which I am happy to attend in either form. However, it was Kathleen’s suggestion that the Tridentine Mass was superior to the Novus Ordo, by implication inferior, which drew my comment.There is only one Mass re-enacting, or if you like representing, the sacrifice of Calvary.The one form cannot be superior or inferior to the other. I believe the Fathers of Vatican II who approved the new form knew what they were about.

    Like yours, generations of my family too drew their spiritual strength from the Old Mass, in good times and in bad, of which there were many. But that nostalgia itself is not sufficient to justify the continuation of the celebration Mass in a language most people do not know.

    It is the extent to which the laity can meaningfully participate in the Mass which is the issue and which form facilitates that. For most persons who do not know Latin, that is the Mass in the vernacular. Otherwise, you argue for a mainly uncomprehending congregation.

    Neither, I am afraid, does reciting your own opinions mystically transform them into facts. Readers herein have to gauge for themselves whether it is better to understand the Mass one attends, or perhaps it is better not to understand it.


  12. The Raven says:

    Your refusal to engage with your interlocutors’ arguments is very vexing, John.

    You keep talking about ‘nostalgia’, ignoring the point being made to you that the lay experience of assisting at Mass in the Vetus Ordo was something that people were willing to die for, whether their native tongue was Gaelic or Guarani.

    You are utterly fixated on one way of ‘participating’ at Mass, engagement with the text, and seem incapable of conceptualising that other people might find other ways to participate more spiritually nourishing. Similarly, you seem unwilling to conceive that people may understand something without hearing it.

    The whole tenor of your comments about the use of Latin makes it plain that you consider the Vetus Ordo and the laity’s participation in that rite to be grossly inferior to the modern right. Why comment otherwise? The stuff about ‘there is only one Mass’ is just a rhetorical twitch, used by modernists to try to protect the new Mass from a harsh comparison that they fear it would not stand. And surely you must know that the New Mass was more or less bulldozered through the Council Fathers after their initial ‘non-placet’ on the first version initially presented to them?

    I’ll finish by pointing out that I am not reciting my own opinions as facts: that is your vice.


  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Hear, hear.
    [And you know who I mean]


  14. J.P. says:

    [The Moderator – Mr Kehoe, we would prefer it if you started developing your argument, instead of simply restating it. Yours in anticipation.]


  15. William Carey says:

    I do not claim to be deep into this subject. I think the Mass was first celebrated in Greek – the language of the people and later changed to Latin when it was the predominant language. When I was growing up in the 50s and also was an altar boy, I remember that I was one of the few people who attended with a Missal, having been encouraged by the Sisters to get one around the 7th or 8th grade. As an altar boy, I had an excellent view and knew what parts of the Mass were occurring but I am not sure how much comprehension there was in the pews. I was not conscious of the eglish equivalents of all of the Latin resonses i was saying, sometimes at rapid pace, as at the Prayers at the foot of the Altar.I don’t think there were English missals in the pews. Personally, I accept whatever the Church accepts. I was disheartened by abuses in the last 50 years but believe the Novus Ordo can be celebrated legimately and correctly. In the Old Days some daily masses could be said in less than 20 minutes or 3 in an hour on All Souls Day. I remember serving three in a row on all Souls Day. I recall bishop Sheen often referring to “reading Mass.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s