Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Minority within Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate wanted to scrap the Old Mass

From Vatican Insider (La Stampa, August 6, 2013): Andrea Tornielli interviews the Procurator General of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Institute of the Holy See recently placed under the supervision of a commissioner. Key excerpts:
To what extent did the issue of the use of the old missal influence the decision to send an apostolic visitor?

“It had a big influence on the decision because the group of friars I mentioned before accused the founding Father of imposing the Vetus Ordo on the whole Institute. Although the accusation is completely unfounded, people believed it and our attempts to prove it was false proved futile. This false accusation has spread like an oil slick, with various newspapers and news agencies passing it on. This has seriously harmed the good name of the Institute’s founding Father.”

Traditionalist blogs and websites have reacted to this news – and to the decision that prior authorisation will have to be obtained before the Institute can celebrate Mass according to the Old Rite – by saying that these decisions disavow Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio. Do you agree with this interpretation? What can you say about these decisions?

“Fr. Lombardi has clearly stated that the decisions taken regarding our Institute are not a disavowal of the Motu Proprio. However, we are still waiting for an authentic interpretation of the Holy See’s liturgical provisions for our Institute. For example, it is still unclear who exactly the “competent authorities” who will give the aforementioned authorization, are. Will it be the commissioner, the Congregation for Religious, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the local ordinary, one of these or all of these? We hope this is just a temporary disciplinary provision and that we will soon be given authorisation to celebrate according to the Vetus Ordo also, as we have always done. Without all the current restrictions which – unless a better reason can be given – deprive us of the universal right granted to us in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.”

Have any members of your Institute played a role in spreading the above interpretation?


When you have asked for clarifications regarding some of our articles, you have always stressed that you did not only use the old missal and that all decisions were taken bearing in mind the provisions of the Motu Proprio. Is it true that before the apostolic visit, the “Ecclesia Dei” commission had cautioned the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to be prudent in their use of the old missal?

“Yes, we tried to be as prudent and discreet as possible in exercising our special right which gives the General Chapter in session “supreme authority in the Institute”, in accordance with the Constitutions (§ 81). The last General Chapter held in 2008, established that the General Council (that is, Fr. Stefano M. Manelli and his five advisors) was to draft a protocol for the Vetus Ordo to be introduced in our communities. This was done in the form of a letter sent on 21 November 2011. The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” considered this letter carefully, taking account Benedict XVI’s thinking, but this official judgement was not taken into consideration during the developments in our case. We do not understand why and are greatly saddened by this. We entrust our cause to Our Lady Queen of the Seraphic Order.” (Emphasis added by Fr. Z on his post about this)


Anonymous said...

I wasn't sure where to post this. I could be posted on any number of threads.

For those who are tempted to jump Peter’s barque for the SSPX may I suggest a book to read

THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0006AXLQO/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&sr=&qid=

And also some reminders that I find myself reading many times lately.

A: Jeremi'ah 23:11“Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their wickedness, says the LORD. 12Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall; for I will bring evil upon them in the year of their punishment, says the LORD.
B: IANS In another thread IANSpartacus wrote “Frankly, we all ought be thanking God that He has not punished the Catholic Church more than He has. And make no mistake about it, we are being punished for the sins of our Fathers.”
St. John Eudes:
“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict on the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return, O ye revolting children... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’ [Jer. 3:12-15]. Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.” name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
We are told what to do in 2 Chronicles 7:14 If My people who are called by My Name name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

"The Devil always sends errors into the world in pairs - pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity


Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Donna. As far as I can determine, the SSPX, although confined to the Poop Deck, is onboard The Barque ever since the then Barque Captain, Benedict XVI, untethered the anchors from their ankles and allowed the four excommunicated Bishops back onboard.

Anonymous said...

Dear IANS, I have posted the evidence that says the contrary on this blog a few moons ago. I will try to find the information and post it ASAP Lord willing.


Anonymous said...

Please read the information below.

The Vatican has demanded that Bishop Richard Williamson repudiate his public statements questioning the severity of the Holocaust.

In an unsigned statement released on February 4 from the Secretariat of State, the Vatican explained the Pope's decision to lift the excommunications of four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The clarification, released nearly two weeks after the Pope's decision was announced, came in the midst of an international furor provoked by the comments of Bishop Williamson, one of those SSPX leaders.

By lifting the excommunications, the Secretariat of State explained, the Pope "wished to remove an impediment" to the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See. The Pope's gesture "has not changed the legal situation" of the traditionalist group, which still "does not have any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church," the Vatican statement noted. The SSPX bishops, while no longer excommunicated, remain suspended from public ministry.

In order to be fully reconciled, the statement said, the SSPX bishops will be required to demonstrate "total adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church." Without explicitly mentioning the public "reservations" expressed by SSPX leaders about some teachings of Vatican II, the statement strongly suggested that the Holy See will not compromise on support for conciliar teachings.

Regarding the controversy roused by Bishop Williamson, the Secretariat of State said that the bishop's public statement are "totally unacceptable and strongly rejected" by the Pope.

In order to be restored to public ministry in the Catholic Church, the Vatican statement said, Bishop Williamson will be obligated to "absolutely, unambiguously, and publicly distance himself from his position on the Holocaust." The statement insists that Pope Benedict was unaware of Williamson's views at the time he lifted the excommunications.


Anonymous said...

I meant to add if you have later information please let me know.


Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Donna. Watching the Bishops dance to the instructions of an infamous sodomite was less sickening than to read a Pope demanding one of his Bishops repudiate his personal opinions about World War Two war crimes before he can be considered in communion for that is but a confession that politics have entered the realm of Doctrine.

What about Bishops who deny the Armenian Genocide, who deny the genocide visited upon the Irish by Perfidious Albion, who deny the genocide of Communist Russia visited upon the Christians of Ukraine?

Is it only the suffering of the racial supremacists which count as the new political category within Catholic Doctrine?

That demand is outrageous and has not one whit to do with Catholic Doctrine and certainly not one whit to do even with the documents of V2.

As for the idea that a Pope can ex-excommunicate Bishops without them being in communion with the Church empties communication of any meaning as far as i can see.

I can certainly understand what ex communication means but when I hear that one who has had his excommunication canceled and yet is not in communion makes no sense to me apart from politics - ad extra or in extra.


I would write that the SSPX are on the Poop Deck of the Barque but are forbidden to feed the passageners or to lighten their spiritual load (suspended a divinis with no faculties to forgive sins or perform marriages) and this is obviously unjust.

However (In my mind I always hear and see myself as Prof. Irwin Corey when I use that word) because I am not Pope, I am unable to understand the demand that four particular Bishops must submit to the totality of the V2 Documents especially in light of the commentary of Prelates confessing that the V2 Documents were purposely written as a compromise and, even more so, in light of the fact that ENTIRE Conferences of Bishops (Germany) have walked the plank off the Barque vis a vis the abortion pill and while the head of that crummy conference,The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, publicly stated that Jesus did not die for the sins of the people and the response of the Pope to these public heresies was like what was left after Totie Fields had stormed through an all-you-can-eat-buffet – nothing.

So, it is, apparently, partial communion (novelties of novelties and all is novelty in the epoch of V2) for those who pass on Tradition in its entireity (SSPX) whereas it is full communion for those, like the German COB, who Pass on Tradition.

And all of that is just another way of writing that this is more about politics than it is about Catholic Doctrine for we are told that V2 was a Pastoral Council that created no new doctrine and the SSPX teaches the entireity of Catholic Doctine from Pentecost up to and including today and it is the one body that is collectively crucified.

Fear of the Jews and fear of Tradition is the engine of guilt that keeps the revolution running but it is running out of fuel as more and more men are waking-up to what is going on.

Like the Velveteen Rabbit, this situation is fluffy, not solid; but unlike The Velveteen Rabbit, it will never be quickend and come to life because it is devoid of light and life due to the absence of love for Tradition.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

I forgot to add that I accept that the SSPX Bishops were validly excommunicated and I also accept the traditional understanding re the authority's right to to dictate the conditions to be met by those whose excommunication was remitted but the conditions ought to correspond to the offense committed and the sspx is not teaching heresy.

But Consecration of Bishops is not the whole ball of wax, there is also Jurisdiction and during V2 Lefevbre his own self argued in favor of the Catholic Tradition; No Jurisdiction, no Ministry.

Cath Enycy:

It may be noted at once that the principal effect of absolution from excommunication may be acquired without the excommunicated person's being wholly reinstated in his former position. Thus, an ecclesiastic might not necessarily recover the benefice which he had lost; indeed he might be admitted to lay communion only. Ecclesiastical authority has the right to posit certain conditions for the return of the culprit, and every absolution from excommunication calls for the fulfilment of certain conditions which vary in severity, according to the case.

But I reject the putative justice of an imposition having to do with forcing any Bishop to accept questionable judgments about secular history and those who do accept that imposition should be able to cite where that has ever been done by any Pope in history.

Such an action is a noxious novelty.

O, and a final note - I am not one who was throwing-in with the sspx but I am one who will go to their Masses once the FSSP caves to the Pope's punishment of those Pelagians who love the Gregorian Rite