St Padre Pio

[Tu Es Petrus]

Okay. Let me ask you a simple question that should bring an end to all this:

Do you know for sure, with 100% certainty, that Padre Pio is not in heaven?

If you answer "NO", which you'd better, then you cannot make the blanket statement that he is a fraud. To be a fraud would imply that he is not a saint and that therefore he is not in heaven, and you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Well?

.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Okay. Let me ask you a simple question that should bring an end to all this:

I'm sure you wish it were that simple.

Do you know for sure, with 100% certainty, that Padre Pio is not in heaven?

nope. Never claimed as such.

If you answer "NO", which you'd better,

(reading between the lines.... because YOU can't determine who is in heaven and who isn't, but my Church can. Neener Neener.)

then you cannot make the blanket statement that he is a fraud.

His stigmata, based on evidence, is fraudulent. I never once questioned or insinuated whether or not he was redeemed by God. One, does not neccessarily have anything to do with the other. I believe a great number of people who have done some very foolish, dastardly, decietful things, were, and are, forgiven by God.

To be a fraud would imply that he is not a saint and that therefore he is not in heaven, and you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

because I'm not Catholic.

besides, that was not the topic. My viewpoint of Sainthood clearly, and if you had have been thinking about it before posting, obviously does not match yours.

Well?

.

well. I've answered. And it doesn't bring an end to it, like you'd hoped, does it.

 

[MrPolo]

so some physicians were baffled. I forgot that these supposed physicians know everything!

You claim his wounds were caused by acid. Here you say "supposed physicians" so as to dismiss the examinations he underwent during life that verified the stigmata.

At death, his hands were examined with no trace of wounds. So what is the theory? Two sets of fake doctors? Can you substantiate this? You said you had evidence.

 

[Uphill Battle]

no, I claimed no such thing. He could have caused the wounds in some other fasion. In fact, if you look at all the documentation, I don't think it ever stated that they were CAUSED by the acid. Merely aggravated. A superficial wound will heal.

but don't worry, you don't have to pay any heed to any of the evidence. The canonization of Pio comes with "the infallibility of the church" so you can believe it without worrying about details.

 

[MrPolo]

no, I claimed no such thing. He could have caused the wounds in some other fasion. In fact, if you look at all the documentation, I don't think it ever stated that they were CAUSED by the acid. Merely aggravated. A superficial wound will heal.

Insults about my Church aside, all you provide is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. He caused the wound superficially. He facilitated the wound with acid. This all healed completely in a number of days right before his death bed. I'm just not seeing anything concrete offered. But I am familiar with the medical reports that offer validation. Sorry.

 

[Uphill Battle]

where do you see the claim that they healed completely in a number of days?

he wore mittens most of the time.

I personally believe he spent a great deal of time with no wounds at all.

The fact is, the wounds move around. Study the pictures. You'll see it, if you try not to avoid seeing it.

 

[Rhamiel]

well if you used acid on yourself a lot, there would be scars, there would be infections, acid and prefume, tell me that is not going to get infected, especially if you are an old man.

 

[katholikos]

Padre Pio - The Beatification

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1RlZyvZPyU

 

[Trento]

he wore mittens most of the time.

I personally believe he spent a great deal of time with no wounds at all.

.

St. Pio said daily Mass and always took the gloves off while saying Mass. The wounds were always visible seven days a week for 50 Years.

 

[Trento]

no. I have evidence he is. Not proof.

Evidence, such as

1) the stigmata are foolishly placed in the wrong spot. Evidence exists that the nails in the hands actually went through the wrist area. Fraudulent stigmatics copy artistic renderings, not reality.

.

4) various pictures of the "wounds" show different locations if critically examined.



I don't remember claiming any such thing. It's the stigmata etc.. that was fraudulent.


correction. I'm sure Catholicism isn't worried about that. I know it's hard to wrap your head around, but Catholicism =/= All Christendom.

The Church is very careful to scutinize anyone who
may think they have a stigmata as seen in this short article in the London Telegraph.

Google Image Result for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00444/news-graphics-2007-_444979a.jpg

The upper part of the palm is the most plausible location for the following reasons: The palm region is the location most Christians across the centuries perceived the wound to be.

The path through the upper palm is very strong and anatomically sound.

The path ends exactly where the shroud shows the wound image.

In the ancient literature, Lipsius and other authors and painters and sculptors related and depicted the hands that were transfixed in crucifixion.

It assures that no bones are broken in accord with Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12.


It explains the apparent lengthening of the fingers of the Turin Shroud because of nail compression at this area.


Lastly, it is where most of the stigmatists( prior to Dr. Barbet’s book ) like St. Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, Theresa of Konnersruth, St. Catherine of Sienna, Catherine of Ricci, Louise Lateau, etc. have displayed their wounds throughout the centuries.

 

[Sphinx777]

Padre Pio and Fr. Bing


​

 

[Esta2220]

I guess then, I'll have to figure out if it's fraud pio, or fraud Padre Pio.

shame really. Credibility of the papal order dropped another notch with the "sainthood" of Pio.

You have proof he's a fraud? Have you ever met him? Do you know exactly who is in heaven and who isnt?

.....

You both are on fimly on opposite sides of the coin concerning Padre Pio.

I will tell what my observations concerning him are.

I have read the arguments against him, all by anti-Catholic writers, when I say anti-Catholic I mean VERY anti-Catholic.
None of which I read was supported by first hand knowledge about him or that anyone knew him.

What I have read about him, and ever saw on TV (albiet it was the Catholic channel EWTN) was from Catholic sources of course, was from people who did have first hand dealings with him, that either him personally or that knew people that had known him personally (knowledge obtained once removed).

What intrigues me is that those that think he is a fraud, it is just based on spectulation.

Those that believe all or most about him was true, it is because they knew him and saw some real evidence that supported it. In their opinion anyways.

Also those that support him as not a fraud are not just a handful or 20 or 50 different people. It is many more. I don't see so many people coming together and making a conspiracy just to promote him as a saint.

I don't know what to think about the whole thing. As a non Catholic maybe I just don't want to think about it too much.

I think why Padre Pio is most interesting/important is because he is from our modern day, we are not looking at someone that lived hundreds of years ago and what was written about them so long ago.