I would not be surprised if he used the 1962 Missal. Didn't he use the new 1955 Holy Week which was also bad compared to the old one it replaced, just as the 1962 Misssal is bad compared to the one before it.

P.S. I consider the 1962 Missal to be acceptable and go to an SSPX Mass where the 1962 Missal is used, but I consider the Missals before the Holy Week changes to be best.

That's a fine claim, to say you "wouldn't be surprised" if he used it. But to definitely say that he -did- use it, is not provable.

You are right. I haven't researched it so I have no evidence or proof. Someone out there might know for sure and have written about it, but if he did, I haven't read it.

P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.

.

Did every Church in the world, once a new missal was published, purchase or receive a new one? No. We know Padre Pio did not accept the 1965 missal, but do we really know if he was even given a 1962 missal? No. We do not. This is the point of contention here.

Many churches didn't get new missals for many years. Some weren't even using a 1962 missal in 1962, and didn't receive a new missal until 1965 when there were substantial "forced" "experimental" changes.

So the argument that Padre Pio used the 1962 missal, much less was even aware that there was a change during that time, is in direct question.

I'd like some absolute proof that Padre Pio was even aware that there was a new missal in 1962, like a missal that showed the date on the missal he used between 1962 and 1965. If no one can show me this, as far as I'm concerned, Padre Pio wasn't even aware that Saint Joseph was inserted into the new missals, or that any feasts had been abolished or moved, or any such thing.

Since no one can really provide this, all we know is that he rejected the 1965 missal, not that he accepted the 1962 missal.

Discuss. :)

Edit: Also, the Mass of Pius V, is not the Mass of John XXIII.

This is a good question.  

It is known that when he was in his last year or two, in 1967
or 68, he was commanded to start saying the "transitional rite"
which had elements of the imminent Novus Ordo Newmass in
it.  He attempted to obey and do as he was ordered, but at the
altar, his pain increased to such a degree he had to stop saying
the "Mass."  Note: this is no small matter, for he was well
aware that a priest is obligated to keep on going, once he
makes the sign of the cross at the foot of the altar he is duty-
bound to finish the Mass, even if his life is in danger by doing so.  
Therefore, the pain that Padre Pio must have experienced in this
moment must have been unimaginable to us in its severity,
otherwise he would have kept on going even if it put his life in
danger.  It must have been a pain that actually prevented him
from moving.  

I had something like that when I had a spinal injury and had
spasms that went from head to toe.  I was unable to move
any part of my body except breathing and swallowing, lest the
spasms returned.  Even so much as turning my head, or
extending one finger or twitching my toes caused the spasms
to begin all over again.

Some may argue that he had the ability to know things that
were not immediately evident by natural senses like sight,
sound, touch or smell.  But this ability was not his own power
but one given to him by God, and if God did not allow him to
know that there was a 1962 missal, then Padre Pio would not
have been allowed to know it.  

However, people were coming to him from all over the world,
to confess their sins and to seek his advice.  For a time, he
was forbidden to hear confessions, but I don't recall when
that was, and for a time he was forbidden to say Mass in
public, but I don't recall when that was, either.  So unless
he had been so kept away from his Faithful, his spiritual
children (as he used to call them), in 1962, it would seem to
be impossible for him not to know about the release of the
missal of John XXIII, or the new, changed calendar that got
rid of St. Christopher, St. Barbara and St. Philomena (among
others), or for that matter, the opening of the Second
Vatican Council on October 11th, the Feast of the Divine
Maternity of Mary.

He would have been, perhaps, kept sequestered from the
world during that time to keep him ignorant, and to
prevent his advice from getting in the way of "progress,"
but that's just speculation without knowing more facts.

There have been a number of books written about him and
his life, but most of them seem to be somewhat propaganda
works, inasmuch as they omit a lot of important details and
only give out what is tolerable for the movement to which
they subscribe, favorable to the aggiornamento, or
"updating" of Vat.II.

Now, I have a word of caution for you, and that is, that anyone
who endeavors to "research" this question -- of whether Padre
Pio adopted the use of the 1962 missal and rubrics, or if he
ever once did, for example, with the possibility that he later
returned to the pre-1954 missal or whatever -- would have
to keep in mind that a lot of disinformation was circulated about
Padre Pio.  There was a serious propaganda movement that
attempted to use movie film and photographs of his Masses to
"prove" that he was saying the so-called transitional rite, for
political purposes;  that is, the promoters of the Newmass
(which would not come out until a year after Padre Pio had
died) were hard at work preparing the way for it, and one of
the things they did was to start turning the altars around to
face the people, like Martin Luther had done over 400 years
previously.  IOW, for anyone with eyes to see, this was
nothing unprecedented.  What do you suppose Pope St. Pius
X would have had to say about a movement to turn the altar
around like Martin Luther had done?  "Sounds good to me?"
Well, that's pretty much the reaction of Paul VI of infelicitous
memory.

So they turned Padre Pio's altar around, to let the spectators
see his face while he celebrated Mass.  And Padre Pio did obey
this order, even though from reliable sources he was said to
have not been appreciative of having to make this change.  But
we also know that he spent a lifetime enduring unjust demands
of his superiors, which he obediently endured and offered it all
up to God as a penance for the salvation of souls, reparation for
sins, and for Holy Mother Church, and that sort of thing.  We
are left to wonder how much worse off the world would have
been without his voluntary self-sacrifice and atonement for sins
he did not commit, in true imitation of Our Lord crucified.  His
stigmata, obviously, was the same wounds that Our Lord
received in his crucifixion.  The parallel is undeniable for all time
and in eternity.

But there are those, even now, who attempt to deny it.  I have
met some who, out of ignorance, refuse to believe that Padre
Pio had the stigmata.  So I know this denial in fact exists in the
world.  

But there were those who promoted posters, actually, literal ad
posters, of Padre Pio saying Mass facing the people, to sell the
idea of turning the altar around and getting "up-to-date" with
the latest wave of changes coming out of Rome.  Along with the
use of such photographs came the message that this was
something that Padre Pio was happy to do and was enthusiastic
about.  But then we also have testimony of some who knew
him personally, who say that he only did it because he was
commanded to do it, and he suffered this oppression just as he
had suffered so many other things in his lifetime, offering it up
as a penance, mind you, penance for sins he had not committed,
penance for the sins of others, even penance for the sin of
commanding him to say Mass facing the people, committed by
his own religious superiors!! -- And, he offered it up in reparation
for sin, even for the sin he did not commit, of circulating posters
of him saying Mass facing the people connected to the lie that he
was doing so with joy and eagerness to participate in Rome's
agenda of aggiornamento of modernist Rome --like the
current eagerness of one Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.  BTW if real
Catholics today refer back to Pope Paul VI with INFELICITOUS
MEMORY, how do you suppose the next generation of real
Catholics will refer back to HEBF?  Will they choose to recall only
the propaganda agents of our time like so many do about the
great Padre Pio?  Or will they recall things that
the propagandists are trying to cover up?

There is one excellent movie about Padre Pio, the best ever made,
directed by Carlo Carlei, who I met at its only screening in America
in Hollywood in the year 2000 if I recall correctly, and in this film,
Padre Pio is shown emerging from the shadows of a street fair
at San Giovanni Rotundo in those troubled times before Vat.II,
and he went forth smashing the displays of the local merchants
who were selling little statues of him, and pictures of him and
copies of personal effects and so forth, and watching this scene,
one is reminded of the Scripture when Our Lord chased the
money changers from the Temple with righteous indignation.
That had happened years before his image saying Mass facing the
people was being distributed, for by then, he was too old and in
too much physical pain, to go out fighting the abuse of his images
as this scene in the superb "Miracle Man" so well depicts him doing.

Therefore, if we today would imitate Padre Pio, we would endure
the sinful demands of our legitimate superiors and offer up our
obedience as a penance in reparation for those same sinful
demands.  However, at some point, one must stop.  And Padre
Pio did stop at one point.  For him it was inescapable because the
physical pain he endured increased to such a degree that he was
unable to continue obeying the unjust and sinful command of his
superior, that is, to say the so-called transitional rite (the version
of Mass that came just before the Novus Ordo would come out).  
But for us, it might not be so obvious.  For us, we could be only
held responsible for stopping our would-be obedience when it
becomes evident to us that ours would be FALSE obedience to
continue, or when our obedience would put our Faith in danger,
or, as far as that goes, would unnecessarily endanger the faith of
others.

Because, as Fr. Hewko said in a recent sermon (July 7th) we have
no right to put our Faith in danger by adopting religious practices
that carry the odor of heresy or the taint of rejection of sacred
Tradition.  We only have the right to defend our Faith, to guard it,
to put the one true Faith on a lampstand where it illuminates with
truth, and to make this our rule of life for all to see.

As the Holy Medal of St. Benedict says, "Let the Cross be my light,
and let the dragon not be my guide (or leader)."

P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.[/quote]

The "original" typical edition of the 1962 missal kept the canon unchanged.  It was in its first modification (in the same year 1962) when the name of St. Joseph was introduced in the canon.

P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.

The "original" typical edition of the 1962 missal kept the canon unchanged.  It was in its first modification (in the same year 1962) when the name of St. Joseph was introduced in the canon.
[/quote]

Yes, and there were three editions of the 1962 missal, is what I understand. One came out near the beginning of the year, one near the middle and one near the end.

This is what is so confusing about people saying they're using the 1962 missal because there are 3 editions of that missal for that year.

Any missal before that (even following the 1955 changes) stay the same except for holy week, and there is absolutely no difference.

If you go back to 1951, there is only one change during Holy Week for Holy Saturday.

If you have a 1950 missal, that's the exact same missal (except for the added feasts that were totally normal to change, as those are the changeable parts of the Mass) that was used since 1570, with absolutely no changes outside of the added feasts.

It's not hard to follow, even if you look on wikipedia.

There were a couple of times they had to put out new typical editions because of some corrections that needed to be made, in 1604, and then in 1634, but these were not to the ordinary of the Mass.

Benedict XV put one out standardizing the changes made to the missal by Pius X where he added feasts to the calendar.

The first major changes occurred in 1951, and weren't fully implemented until 1955 by Pius XII.

There hasn't been any changes whatever to the Ordinary (unchangeable parts) of the Mass since Quo Primum up until the addition of Saint Joseph by John XXIII. None. Whatever.

Father Hannifin never used the 1962 missal.