UPDATE: FULL TEXT OF THE DECREE that abrogates Summorum for the FFI
Sandro Magister's latest column (For the First Time, Francis Contradicts Benedict) has the details.
The total ban on the Mass begins August 11th of this year.
HT Andrea & Creative Minority
My "home parish" (Guadalupe Shrine is not a parish) is staffed with the Friars who celebrate the Traditional Mass.
I have no idea what this means at this point. But if everything indicated is true, it appears that the fears of this pontificate were indeed well founded. Why he is "picking on" the Friars is unclear as well.
This comes on the heels of this: Cardinal Burke sees ‘perfect continuity’ between Popes Benedict, Francis in liturgical teaching
And this:
First EF Solemn Masses at Franciscan Friary in Griswold, Connecticut
especially this:
Readers may also be interested to know that the friars will be switching over to the usus antiquior beginning this Ash Wednesday as their primary form of the Roman liturgy.UPDATE: Fra. Angelo has thoughts on the matter.
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.UPDATE 2: Hmmmm... Rorate makes this note and I assume he means our dear Father Angelo
Rorate has learned from its own sources that the "internal dissidents" were led by an American member of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who was notable for his opposition and hostility to the any criticism of Vatican II, in direct contrast to the Italian friars of the FFI, many of whom adhered to the "Gherardini line" of loyal but unflinching criticism of at least some elements of the Conciliar documents.UPDATE 3: Fr. Z has comments on the situation
Friars of the Immaculate are these guys:
This is terrifying.
7 comments:
I agree that this is truly scary. I love the Franciscans of the Immaculate and am considering becoming an associate. I haven no idea what provoked this, but if this happens to all the traditional orders, I will be well nigh despair. This is a devastating blow.
Let's hit the brakes for a moment, shall we?
I don't view Rorate much differently from how I view the National Catholic Reporter. They've been looking for something to confirm their opposition to Pope Francis from day one, and apparently this is it. And if this goes away it will be something else tomorrow. I wish Rorate would go away.
Let's also remember that we have almost no information about what is transpiring here, and that Rorate has gotten it wrong before when claiming that Pope Francis opposed the Traditional Anglican Ordinariate. Of course Pope Francis soon expanded the Ordinariate.
We might look to Fr. Z, who wrote: "What we need to keep in mind is that this decree is more about a division in a religious community than it is about Summorum Pontificum."
I don't love everything Pope Francis does. At first glance, I don't love this. But let's take a breath here.
Don't be terrified, folks. Go over and read Fr. Z's excellent column on the subject. You might also consider that while the FFI's are at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe (SOLG), they are there as caretakers (chaplains to) of the Shrine as an institution, thus the Mass is ruled by the institution's rules (i.e. Cardinal Burke), and not the rules set forth governing their particular community. If the rules governing their community were to become incompatible with the mission of the Shrine, they would no longer be their. I would also caution that Steve Karlen is correct about Rorate. I read it but I usually take the (sometimes) over-the-top rhetoric and alarm raising for what it is.
FatherPaul Nicholson with some thoughts.
http://fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.com/2013/07/let-not-your-hearts-be-troubled.html
The article was actually posted by Sandro Magister, a Vatican reporter:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350567?eng=y
Rorate just picked up on it.
FFIs are the second largest order in the world to offer the TLM. Alot of people will have to find another place to go to Mass.
If this is just an internal affairs matter dealing with personnel, why the restriction of the TLM? If I'm reading the issue correctly, some priests of the (Traditional) Franciscan Friars are taking issue with their superior "imposing" the celebration of the Traditional Rites exclusively and/or ONE particular member being irritated by the majority who have legitimate problems with VCII. So why punish all of them by restricting the celebration of a Rite that apparently most prefer?
I'm not the only one to note how Rome always seems to act decisively & negatively when it comes to Traditionalist issues, but is slow moving & quite forgiving of people & issues that are heterodox.
First of all, I want to reiterate what I thought was an excellent article by Fr. Z and a great rallying cry for those who are working in many ways for the same things when it comes to Church governance and Liturgical beauty and experience (I know this word is problematic, but I think everyone knows what I mean). I also wan to reiterate that there does seem to be an air about the "Rorate Caeli" blog that is pretty reactionary and often divisive. Maybe it's just me personality.
Secondly (and for full disclosure I attend a very reverent, traditionally-minded Ordinary From Mass every week, but have deep love and respect for the Extraordinary Form), reflecting on the pope's/ Vatican's decision in this matter for which I admit to having extremely minimal knowledge, it seems to me that if there is indeed division over the celebration of the two Forms of the Roman Rite for whatever reason, and that division is leading to serious issues within a religious order that is doing great work for the Church, a) something should be done for the order and the faithful the order serves to insure it can move forward in its mission, but also, b) that the Ordinary Form would be the "fall-back" if I can use that term, because it is indeed the ORDINARY FORM. This doesn't disparage the EF at all, but if there is division in this Liturgical area that needs to be reconciled, of course it needs to be settled, and it seems to me that of course the choice of Form would be the OF. This is consistent with Benedict's teachings and public witness, and I would believe he likely would've come to the same conclusion, even in light of his own Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
Post a Comment