A substantial religious order of mostly youthful-vocations (the friars alone numbered 300 plus 120 postulants as of 2008), all of whom (but for a handful of malcontents) responded with enthusiasm to the provisions Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, is being demolished by the Ancien Régime for failing to submit to the "spirit of Vatican II" and its "counter-syllabus" against anti-modernism, tarring them with the opprobrious reputation of being "more Catholic than the (current) Pope."
I just read the latest from The Eponymous Flower HERE. But there's also Adfero's post HERE, Augustinus' post HERE, New Catholic's post HERE and call to prayer on behalf of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate HERE.
In a day when the Church is imploding, it seems unconscionable that a handful of malcontents and partisans of the unmandated innovations that have gutted our churches and eviscerated our Catholic identity over the last several decades should be permitted to suppress a thriving religious order in this way. As Fr. Ray Blake suggests, it reflects poorly on those who should be minding the store.
- Fr. Pio Pace, "Special guest-post: 'What will the Church be like after Francis?'" (RC, June 8, 2014).
9 comments:
There is also the problem of interpretating Vatican Council II with the same irrtional inference as the SSPX
June 7, 2014
SSPX (GB) uses irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II so avoids saying Jews, Muslims, Protestants need to convert
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/sspx-gb-uses-irrational-interpretation.html#links
“have gutted our churches and eviscerated our Catholic identity”
Yes, it all seems difficult to believe, unless you consider the hypothesis that we are in the throes of a Modernist Reformation, and Relativists in the Vatican, suppressed during the time of St Jean Paul II and Benedict, are once more resurgent.
Tradition and Continuity are definitely under specific attack.
The Church as you say is imploding. So many, Kwasniewsky, Schneider, and many others are now openly talking of a split. Benedict and St John Paul II hinted at crisis and a smaller Church.
Why is the account by Vatican Insider so different than yours...especially page 2:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/tradizionalisti-traditionalists-tradicionalistas-27056//pag/1/
Bill,
You have to read the linked articles in detail to get past the Monday morning quarterbacks. One of the instigators of the problems has himself recently admitted to mendacity in what they initially communicated. They didn't get what they want from their superiors, and were a minority, so found friends in the Vatican unfriendly with the EF and eager to "help." Something a mite similar happened inside the FSSP around the year 2000, but they, at least, weathered the storm, probably because they were consitutionally committed to the EF from the outset.
Oh, and see the part about the FI in this post: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search/label/FFI%20under%20intervention
Best,
-- PP
A different (and to my mind more credible) perspective - "Those who appealed to the Holy See were not progressives or modernists. The Commissioner is not a Freemason. Summorum Pontificum is not under attack and half the friars are not asking to leave. But the narrative was set the day the leaks began, and the Holy See was never given the benefit of the doubt. The situation was sensationalized from the very first moment, by leakers and activists who have an agenda."
http://maryvictrix.com/2014/05/25/state-of-the-franciscan-friars-of-the-immaculate/
Sam,
Thanks for your link. If it was intended to allay our fears, however, it had the opposite effect on me. The whole tone of the piece (and I am referring to the SECOND piece, by the author, responding to the anonymous first) fills me with concern, from the slanderous false accusation against Dr. Mattei (to oppose the prudence of the recent canonizations is NOT to deny their validity) to the attribution of "Machiavellian" measures to his opponents and use of the term "traditionalist" as a smear. Good heavens! Where is the spirit of St. Francis in any of that?!
Since we are privy neither to divine counsel nor the minds of the principal agents involved in these matters, our only recourse is to construe what happened as we best can according to our own wits. Quite naturally, since we are likely going to trust variant sources, we are going to have some difference of opinion on the matter.
You don't have to agree with everything Fr. Angelo says (and he clarifies some of the issues you raise in the comments), but he raises some very important points.
My concern is that the claims made against what the Vatican is doing are all anonymous (and hence unverifiable). And Fr. Angelo cannot answer every claim because of discretion as to the internal workings of his order. So on many points he cannot refute the "grand narrative" being built up.
Although he was one of the members who petitioned the Vatican, his contention is that this is not about the traditional mass (after all he was among the first in his order to celebrate it - prior to 2007), but about members of his order leaning heavily towards an unacceptable form of traditionalism. If this is the case, then the Vatican is right to intervene in some way.
I don't think we are left completely to our own wits here. One on side we have the first hand account of the matter from a member of the order who loves the traditional mass. On the other, anonymous, unverifiable sources. Neither is perfect, but which do you think would have more credibility in a court of law?
Hard to say - given the kid glove treatment that progressive orders get compared to the gestapo like draconian measures meted out to traditional leaning orders, one has to wonder.
Post a Comment