MY COMMENTS FIRST: I truly appreciate this comment: "But the spokesman for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Alfonso Bruno, told CNA July 29 that “more than 80 percent of the friars appreciate the intervention of the Church.”
We are Catholics and as a Catholic priest I support our Holy Father, no matter who he is, in the areas of faith, morals, doctrine, dogma, theology, pastoral or otherwise, and his authority to legislate. The Reform of the Reform above all is to show respect and fidelity to the legitimate Magisterium of the Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, THE LIVING MAGISTERIUM.
We might not like this, that or the other about any given pope, bishop or priest, but as Catholics we show charity and respect. Otherwise, we drift back to ugly 1960's and the time of Humanae Vitae when so many clergy, including bishops and laity showed complete contempt for the authority of the Church and the Holy Father. Let's move beyond this kind of 1960's anti-authority, anti-dogma and forward with respect for this pope who is trying to revive Cathoiclicism
FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE AND EWTN: Franciscans of the Immaculate decree worries traditionalists
Rome, Italy, Jul 30, 2013 / 06:20 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican Congregation for Religious, with the approval of Pope Francis, has appointed a commissioner to oversee the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and has restricted their celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, touching off a storm of speculation about the reasons and broader implications.
The news of the decree was first reported by the veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister, who described the move as the first time that Pope Francis has contradicted his predecessor Benedict XVI.
“But what is most astonishing are the last five lines of the decree of July 11,” writes Magister.
The declaration’s final paragraph reads:
“In addition to the above, the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.”
“The astonishment stems from the fact that what is decreed contradicts the dispositions given by Benedict XVI, which for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite ‘sine populo’ demand no previous request for authorization whatsoever,” Magister explains.
The decree was signed by the Vatican congregation’s prefect, Cardinal Joao Braz de Viz, and its secretary, Archbishop José Rodrìguez Carballo. Capuchin Father Fidenzio Volpi was named in the declaration as the commissioner and he will be required to submit a written report every six months to the Vatican dicastery.
The reaction in the Catholic traditionalist blogosphere to the decree has been strong.
The blog Rorate Caeli, which focuses on the sacred liturgy, said in a four-point response that referenced Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum,” the papal document that allowed the pre-1962 Mass in Latin to be celebrated widely, that the new decree will impact one of the largest religious communities that celebrates the traditional Latin Mass.
“One justification now being raised,” the July 29 post says, “is that the FFI's application of Summorum Pontificum had caused discord in many communities and that the Traditional Latin Mass was ‘imposed’ brutally on priests who did not want it. On the contrary, we in Rorate, who have been closely observing the FFI since 2008, can affirm that the opposite is the case: Summorum was applied in a very gradual manner … .”
But the spokesman for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Alfonso Bruno, told CNA July 29 that “more than 80 percent of the friars appreciate the intervention of the Church.”
In his estimation, the “problem is not the Holy Mass usus antiquior,” which he described as “only the tip of the iceberg.”
Fr. Bruno pointed to a “small group in power” within the religious congregation that is being influenced by Mother Francesca Perillo, who is “very close” with Lefebvrist groups. He is worried that Mother Perillo, who is in charge of those sisters who live in hermitages, and her followers could fall into “heresy and disobedience.”
Mother Perillo could not be reached for comment before publication time.
Father Angelo M. Geiger, who is the General Delegate of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in the United States, said in a July 29 post on his Mary Victrix blog that Magister’s piece “is an unfortunate instance of an overeager journalist sensationalizing something he can only speculate about.”
“The restrictions on our community are specific to us and have been put in place for reasons specific to us,” Fr. Geiger remarked.
He also directly addressed the question of whether Pope Francis had contradicted his predecessor.
“Pope Francis has not contradicted Pope Benedict. The visitation of our community began under Pope Benedict and the Commission was recommended by Cardinal João Braz de Aviz who was appointed to the Congregation by Pope Benedict,” he wrote.
Fr. Geiger said that “what is being reported in the press and what has actually transpired within our community over the course of a number of years are two different things.”
Fathers Geiger and Bruno both finished their remarks by emphasizing their trust in the Church and in Pope Francis.
“We are in peace because we are in the hands of our mother Church, by a Pope that we love and appreciate so much,” Fr. Bruno said.
24 comments:
Be that as it may, only Pope Francis can override the provisions of SP in this case, and why should the activities of some dissident friars in the United States, who took their complaints to the Vatican, deprive the faithful in Italy or England of the Traditional Mass?
The decree says they can request to celebrate the EF from the proper authorities. I suspect that will be granted for the pastoral situations you know of.
If we read with care Article 3 of Summorum Pontificum, I do not see that this is an override of that worthy letter. As has been detailed elsewhere, it is an intercession in the affairs of an order in which there was a level of disagreement which apparently distracted from their purpose.
As to the media pundits, it is again much ado about nothing.
And I think the provision that, in religious communities, the permission of the superior was required for the celebration of the EF was ALREADY explicit in Summorum Pontificum, no?
Why should it be the case that those wishing to offer the Mass of the Ages must get special permission, but those wishing to offer the Novus Ordo do not? It is clear this order was turning Traditional, a fact that was causing their huge growth. The leaders of these orders have authority to determine the spirituality, which was tied in this case to the Immemorial Mass.
Yet, the dissidents seeking the modern hold sway. This is try even though prior instances of unrest due to the imposition of the Novus Ordo went in favor of the Novus Ordo.
In other words, there is a double standard against the Tradition here. And it is violative of Summorum Pontificum.
Just because the Pope makes a decision doesn't make it a good decision... This is a bad decision. It's funny that the supposed cause of unity in the Church (i.e., the papacy) can lead to such division.
Summorum Pontificum Article 3: "Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues."
SP grants Superiors the authority to be the "decider" for their communities.
July 11 Decree: ""In addition to the above, the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.”
The "competent authorities" are the religious Superiors who are, as with SP, granted the authority to make decisions for their own communities.
Marc,
"Just because the Pope makes a decision doesn't make it a good decision..." Yes, and since this decision directly contradicts the earlier decision of the Holy Father's predecessor, the faithful are left confused again, just as before BXVI.
Pater Ignotus
Article 3 Of SP refers to the "habitual" or "permanent" use of the EF at the conventual Mass. Article 2 gives all priests of the Latin Rite, "whether regular or secular" a choice of the OF and EF at private (i.e. unscheduled or non-conventual) Masses without requiring permission from higher authority, and it is this which has seemingly been overridden in this instance.
Thank you John Nolan for pointing out the critical part of this.
I can imagine the anguish in the heart of a holy priest who isn't even allowed to celebrate the EF when he is ALONE!..and THAT gives MY heart anguish.
I may have just lost a bit of respect for our current Holy Father, whom I was growing to admire for his spirituality.
Is he more Jesuit than Catholic?
~SL
I don't think people of the Faith should turn, wriggle or contort on every Papal utterance or decision.
Every Pope is his own man with a different style of governance.
Yes,we should all pray for the Holy father (and bishops and priests also)
His style leans to spontenaity and extemperaneousness which makes things interesting.
John - I think Art 3 makes a change to the "universal" application, specifying what is to happen in religious communities.
"Often, habitually, or permanently" is, I think, subject to the Major Superior in those cases.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. Our Lady of LaSalette
PI, you don't make a universal provision in one article and rescind it in the next. Article 2 clearly says "regular or secular". Article 3 clearly refers to the conventual Mass, not private Masses. In a bi-ritual community the conventual Mass would probably be concelebrated and therefore in the Novus Ordo. But a priest wishing to say his own Mass has a choice of Missal.
John - It is entirely possibly to state a universal principle in one place in a decree, then adjust, restrict, or in some other way, alter the APPLICATION of that principle later in the document.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There's the universal principle stated clearly. However, that universal right is, by further legislation, altered. Felons cannot legally own firearms. Those judged to be mentally ill cannot legally own firearms.
Yes, a universal principle can be stated, then later altered by law.
And if Pope Francis wants to alter Summorum Pontificum, a motu proprio, he is entirely within his rights to do so.
Ah, more "living document" gun-grabbing obfuscation and liturgy de-construction from Ignotus.
Pin/Gene - The obfuscation is yours and this has nothing to do with grabbing guns.
You don't want felons or the mentally ill to own guns any more than I do.
Here is a news story that only 6 out of the 800 Friars wanted the Novus Ordo. This is less than 1%.
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/the-complaints-of-less-than-1-of-franciscans-of-the-immaculate-led-to-the-disciplinary-action/
From the Franciscan's website:
It was reported in the Catholic online press today that our religious community, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, has been assigned an Apostolic Commissioner by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated life. Pope Francis has ordered the decree which goes into effect on August 12.
Pope Francis has also severely restricted our use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and this has been reported by a major Italian journalist as a “contradiction” of Pope Benedict’s permission granted in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. This is an unfortunate instance of an overeager journalist sensationalizing something he can only speculate about.
The restrictions on our community are specific to us and have been put in place for reasons specific to us. Pope Francis has not contradicted Pope Benedict. The visitation of our community began under Pope Benedict and the Commission was recommended by Cardinal João Braz de Aviz who was appointed to the Congregation by Pope Benedict.
PI, I'm losing patience here. Why don't you just read the bloody thing? Article 2 and article 3 are not talking about the same thing -article 2 gives ALL priests the choice of missal in private Masses, whereas article 3 is about the conventual Mass as celebrated in religious communities.
Of course Pope Francis can alter or replace Benedict's motu proprio, and if he wants to be a recruiting sergeant for the SSPX then this would certainly serve his purpose.
Pater and John Nolan: Here's my lawyerly legalistic analysis, based on reason and language (and therefore in Pater's view utterly without merit, except for the fact that by quoting the Second Amendment, he is practicing law without a license). analysis.
SP Article 2, taken in isolation, gives all Latin Rite priests unrestricted and unqualified permission to say the Tridentine Mass (as amended up to 1962).
The first sentence of SP Article 3, taken in isolation, is therefore redundant, granting no rights in addition to those granted in Article 2. Given its freestanding redundancy, it must thus be read in light of the second sentence of Article 3 in order to have any meaning. The second sentence does indeed carve out an exception to Article 2, the exception being the case of a) "habitual[] or permanent[]" celebration of the Tridentine Mass by b) either an individual community or an entire society, for which the permission of the "superior[] major" is required. Occasional celebration, therefore is allowed.
To put this another way, Article 2 establishes the general rule; Article 3 sentence 2 establishes an exception to the general rule; and Article 3 sentence 1 establishes an exception to the exception.
The July 11 decree states that explicit permission from the "competent authorities" is required to celebrate a conventual Tridentine Mass, with no qualification as to occasional, habitual, or permanent. Thus, under the decree, what was allowed under SP Article 3 (occasional celebration without permission of Superior Major) is no longer allowed. This is assuming that "Superior Major" = "competent authorities."
If "Superior Major" <> "competent authorities," then the July 11 decree has also contravened SP Article 3, as well as Article 2, in that priests celebrating a conventual Mass are no longer free to do say a conventual Tridentine under any circumstance, even occasionally, without obtaining explicit permission, which was not necessary under Article 3.
Ergo, the permission granted by SP has been limited.
Pater: Your Second Amendment analogy is flawed. The Second Amendment speaks to a collective or corporate right of "the people," unlike amendments such as the Fifth and Sixth, which speak to individual or personal rights. It is quite possible for the people to possess a right that individual persons do not. Moreover, the authority that modifies constitutional rights, i.e. the judiciary, is not the same as the authority that established the Constitution ("the people"), thus raising concerns as to the legitimacy of such limitation. This is quite apart from the prudential aspects of the question about felons owning guns.
Anon 5 - No, I don't think your analysis of this or other matters is "utterly without merit," just non-magisterial. In fact, I much prefer to discuss things with a person who thinks rather than reacts.
I concur with your conclusion - SP has been limited.
I understand that there is a difference between individual rights and corporate rights. My point was to show that although a right may be considered universal and so presented in a legal statement of those rights, it is perfectly reasonable, nay necessary in most cases, to limit those rights by subsequent legislation, either within the same statement of law (as Art 2 and Art 3 of SP do), or in later amendments to said law.
If the original legislation (the Constitution) establishes the process of amendment (Two Thirds vote of the States), then the later action of the States cannot be understood properly to be the cause of legitimate concerns.
A person may not like the later action, but the process is fully legitimate.
One of the things I forgot and I think many others are forgetting is that Pope Benedict when he issued his SP decree also stated at the time, and I don't know where to find it, if it was the circular letter to bishops, that there would be an evaluation of its implementation after three years. This implies I think that things could be adjusted as the current Holy Father is doing for a particular group where there are some divisive issues concerning the EF and OF. I don't know.
But Pope Benedict indicated that adjustments would be made based upon consultation with bishops. We haven't heard that this took place, but I'm sure many have had concerns and Pope Francis, who is the supreme legislator of the Church and in continuity with what Pope Benedict indicated to begin with, evaluated and adjusted SP for this particular group. Why is anyone shocked?
Pater: 3/4 of the states, actually, but that process is different from the one to which you originally alluded.
3/4 - I stand corrected. Thank you.
Post a Comment