(Rome), the Franciscans of the Immaculate seem to have caught on after a first moment of shock. The Order has now responded with two official clarifications to a number of false reports that were apparently and deliberately circulated in connection with the decree of the Congregation of Religious. Both explanations are directed against Vatican Insider . The Order has precisely recognized, that this news platform are some Vaticanists, from which emanated the article with false reports. "They are lying and know that they are lying," said Messa in Latino about the behavior of some journalists. Unaudited reports were adopted by Catholic media and broadly disseminated. In recent days, it has been repeatedly claimed that it was not about the Old Mass in the whole thing. In reality, it is first and foremost on the Old Mass.Vatican Insider as a Smoke Screen against the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Old Mass
Even the report of the commissarate over the Order of Alessandro Speciale on July 30th was a smoke screen. Speciale reported on the actions of the Congregation of Religious, but also mixed a number of false reports in the article that were to serve to justify the extraordinary measures. For this purpose, he presented a supposed "spokesman of the Order," which he had cited in detail, thus giving the false impression that these were official statements. In reality, it was a leading representative of the "rebellious, progressive minority" (Roberto de Mattei). The statements of the alleged "speaker" was a single ignition out of smoke grenades, which were taken as stated by many Catholic media.
The supposed "spokesman" justified the Roman intervention allegedly because the order had been "exploited" as a "mediator" in the unification talks between the Holy See ands the SSPX (lie 1). He also described the ominous internal "poll" (lie 2) as the first in circulation, and even an "overwhelming majority" (lie 3) of the members of the order report that they would reject an "exclusive" celebration (lie 4) Tridentine Mass "especially in pastoral care in the parishes."
So it went on 2 August at Vatican Insider with the article about the unconvincing attempt by Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi to placate in the matter of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This time the article was no longer marked by name.
Slanderous allegations against the founder of the Order and the Old Mass
The statement by Father Lombardi was clearly then apparently much for the order. Franciscan Sister of the Immaculate contemplative branch . Now the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception have a first official clarification. That an order which is under provisional control, is not necessarily a given. The Order concluded with the statement that the only speaker of the order continues to be Father General Alessandro Apollonio alone. This is a finding which clearly goes against the false statements of the alleged "speaker" spread by the media.
In the declaration of the order states that the product of Vatican insider "includes defamatory statements against our Founding Father Stefano Maria Manelli, assertions that we must reject. The article also contains false or inaccurate information. "
The Premise for the Decision is "not the truth"
Vatican Insider claimed that the "decision of Pope Bergoglio" was justified by the fact that the "Father General Stefano Manelli has forced all communities of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to exclusively say the extraordinary form of the Roman rite in the liturgy."
In contrast, the official statement of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Conception says: "This is not true. It is our duty to respond to the best of our knowledge and belief, Father Stefano has never imposed exclusive use of the Old Rite on all communities. "Rather, he celebrates himself in both forms of the Roman rite. It is important to know that the official explanation that, before, during and after the Apostolic Visitation (July 2012-July 2013) as well as today, that the Old Mass was used following a promotion by the Father General with the General Council was "completely legitimate" and advanced "the Vetus Ordo in Respect to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007), in respect of the decisions of our General Chapter of 2008 and in respect of the instruction Universae Ecclesiae (2011)".
By letter dated 21 November 2011 (Protocol 77/2011) was transmitted by the Secretary-General on behalf of the General Council to all branches of the order some guidelines for use of Vetus Ordo (no rules, therefore they represented also no compulsion).
"Even after that some communities have preferred to continue the New Rite instead of the Old Rite. There was apparently therefore no compulsion exerted by Father Manelli. "Some brothers have, however, criticized the letter," said the order in its statement. "Some brothers" apparently already felt the possibility of celebration of the Old Rite went too far and were intriguing against Rome.
Ecclesia Dei Confirmed the Internal Promotion of the Old Mass in Accordance with Benedict XVI.
In the official statement of the order it said, "For this reason we have asked the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei for clarification, in the letter of 14 April 2012, Prot 39/2911L, the compliance of the letter Prot 77/2011 with the "mens" of the Holy Father Benedict XVI. was confirmed in the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, No. 8."
The anonymous article from Vatican Insider also claimed that the Old Rite could be used only for orders and communities who have been in the "Lefebvrian schism", but were then returned to communion with Rome and placed under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
"In reality, it is necessary to clarify that according Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (No. 3) and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (No. 8a) the Vetus Ordo may be exclusive or 'primarily' may be used by religious institutions that are not of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and not dependent on coming from the Lefebvrian 'schism'". Besides that, it was never intended to come to an exclusive use by our founder," said the order in its statement.
It was argued further by the article in Vatican Insider: "The Franciscans of the Immaculate, however, are created after the Council and a survey of the brothers has shown that the majority of them wants the celebration in the ordinary rite."
The order took exception here as well: "The fact that we weren't created until after the Council, does not prohibit us of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, to accept the Old Rite or favor. Incidentally, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum applies (which was published after the Council) and the Institutes of Consecrated Life (without reference to their date) and also the instruction Universae Ecclesiae specifies that it is that goal 'of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum at No. 8, all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in usus antiquior offer because it is a valuable treasure that must be preserved."
Among 'all believers' is included also the religious."
There was never any "poll" for New Mass - assertion "unfounded"
Regarding the claim of the "survey" and an alleged "majority" of the brothers for the New Rite, (in explanation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception is also expressly mentioned by Speciale in the article from July 30th mentioned by Vatican Insider), according to the official statement of the order, there had been "no survey". "Therefore, the allegations of surveys by an alleged desire of a majority of the brothers is without foundation." Since the order was always bi-ritual, every priest of the order would "continue" to celebrate the New Rite, "as he has always done before." Without further explicitly addressing it, the order firmly asserts execute that there is no justification for the intervention of Rome against the Old Mass.". Regardless of our obedience to the instructions of the Holy See, it is our duty to provide clarity to avoid slander against our founder and hurdles for a peaceful course of the provisional administration."
Tornielli has set out with a hoax - Franciscans react immediately with the second explanation.
In the Declaration, the Congregation for Religious, stressed that their current term Decree was expressly brought by the approval of Pope Francis.
In defense of Vatican Insider it is to add that the first official clarification by the order was issued in full on Sunday.
The Congregation for Religious does not seem to have been concerned about the impact the decree has made decree on pastoral care.
Not only internal to the order, especially for the sister monasteries, but also for the numerous Mass locations in the Old Rite, which are managed by the order. Countless believers are deprived of the Old Mass on the 11th of August, to which they had been long accustomed. The resulting logistical problems and spiritual nature of these believers has not been addressed at all by the Congregation of Religious. Not a word of regret or of encouragement. If it goes against the tradition of the progressive parts of the Roman Curia, and so they behave like a bull in a china shop, and this against a worthy and entirely correctly celebrated liturgy and made the believers to orphans.
A small reconnaissance trip through the parishes in which members of the disobedient priest initiatives in the German speaking involved would suffice to create an abuse register that cries out for intervention. There is enough action. One does not have to look elsewhere for it.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Franciscans of the Immaculate
Trams: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMGD
34 comments:
I am sorry but the Franciscan Sisters who help Fr John Hartley at Sanderstead in Surrey, were ordered to leave the Parish by Headquarters following a definitive ruling by the then superior that the Old Rite had to be used by all priests supplying convents of the order even if they were not themselves members.. This was the case at Sanderstead. They were recalled to the Philippines. When that ordered was rescinded by the ruling in favour of New Rite they were allowed to stay on. That is the case as I know Fr Hartley and his Franciscan Sisters.I am a retired priest of the Diocese of Southwark, England and former diocesan Archivist.
Father, I'm not sure I understand your post, but I think this is a situation involving a Mass to be said for the benefit of the laity, yes?
This is outright persecution of the FFI. I hope this unjust Decree will be rescinded as soon as possible, an apology made. The Faithful, the Bishops, etc. ought to be angry at this terrible injustice; it seems like nothing less than an attempt to destroy the orthodox, growing Order. I'm sure an appeal against this miscarriage of justice to the Holy See authorities will be successful.
from Bill Foley
There is another issue here, namely, adherence to the Second Vatican Council, fully supported by Blessed John Paul the Greatest, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis. I receive a publication put out by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, namely, Christ to the World. Nearly all of the articles are outstanding, BUT occasionally there is a text that supports the concept that Vatican II is a "rupture;" this goes against the declaration of the papal magisterium that this council is a "continuity."
It's a Pastoral Council. I'm not sure what adherence could reasonably be expected of it, especially since it's so full of murky ambiguities and in some cases, as in the case of Unitatis Redintegratio, is plainly out of date.
It very quickly grew out of touch with the time in which it was written, especially with respect to the Shangrila it seemed to expect with respect to relations with other religions.
Catholics are the most persecuted religion in the world. Why not talk about that in the face of what appear to be the ridiculously naive formulations of UR?
since the pastoral council the pasteurized Church is in a continuity of rupture.
Dear Mr; Foley. There is no continuity twixt V2 and The Catholic Church that preceded V2.
V2 was a revolutionary rocket that destroyed Tradition; it was a revolution within the form of Catholicism but one that emptied it of the content of Dogma and Doctrine; it was a successful conspiracy carried-out by modernists in union with the execrable Paul VI in an mutual alliance of destruction directed at the befuddled conservatives within the Curia and the CPI who were never (they still aren't) aware of the deadly threat posed by those who successfully marched through Holy Mother Church; they thought they could compromise with evil.
Had but ten of those conservative fathers marched out of the Council together and denounced the novelties and heresies of the modernist minority that has seized control of the council, God would not have permitted His Church to be destroyed but it has been destroyed to such a point that it is invisibilium and the weirder it gets the more insistent are the claims of continuity
The latest piece on Rorate Caeli seems to be downplaying Tornielli's role in this most unfortunate situation for the FFI. Why is that?
http://sspx-petition.blogspot.com/
Latter Day Jews changed the Catholic Church therein changed the Catholic Faith given to the Church and thereby to the world by Jesus Christ The King and his Apostles. It is absolutely shameful and in fact heretical that The Church has fallen in with Christ The King Deniers.
This is a terrible translation...Fr Allesandro is NOT the Father General...the only superior is Fr. Fidenzio Volpi at current and therefore he is the officail spokesman of the Order
Thanks for your input.
"BUT occasionally there is a text that supports the concept that Vatican II is a "rupture;" this goes against the declaration of the papal magisterium that this council is a "continuity.""
It's hard to know what to make of this.
Did the articles say that the entire Council was a rupture? or that certain passages in the texts of the Council were ruptures? Or that they were ambiguous enough that they were received as ruptures?
Probably because he was being played by Curial insiders along with the rest of us.
Tornielli (generally a decent, albeit certainly not ideal, Vatican journalist) is really beside the point: the agendas that must be sought out are within the Holy See (and the FI) itself.
"God would not have permitted his church to be destroyed". I like your comments generally but this is inaccurate. The visible Church on earth is the faithful. Our Lord's guarantee that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church is really a statement that there will always be faithful even if they are reduced to a remnant. Since there will always be faithful the Church will never be destroyed. What happened in VII is the Almighty allowed events to demonstrate that many religious and laity were of little faith and were easily led astray by a coalition of the evil, the well-intentioned but naive and foolish, and the orthodox but cowardly. In addition to the problem that many went along with VII, there were also many that left the Church in confusion/protest. At a time in the Church's history like the night before our Lord's crucifixion, many religious and laity abandoned the Church like our Lord's disciples abandoned Him, instead of staying in the Church and fighting the innovations. In any case, the fact that many were revealed to have little faith shouldn't really be surprising since the doctors of the Church have generally taught that (shudder) few will be saved. All have to work out their salvation in fear and trembling, praying that they not be put to the test and be shown incapable of perseverance.
As the FI now have a new superior, replacing the entire general counsel and government, does anyone know, perhaps with a knowledge of canon law, if the spokesman of the FI has any authority to speak on behalf of all the friars? It is the second time I have seen the word spokesman used but referring to different priests.
The so called survey, the existance of which was denied by Fr Appollonio, was obviously part of the questionare sent to all friars during their apostolic visitation.
That the texts constitute a novel departure from Catholic traditional teachings on religious liberty, for example, is indisputable.
Even the Society agrees that most of it can harmonize with the Church's teaching, but considering the nature of the documents, that they are Pastoral, isn't it a bit gratuitous to attempt to give them the weight of Vatican I, for example?
Yes, he's the Procurator General and
The confusion regarding the spokesman stems from some PR on the part of a small minority of the Friars who hate Tradition, some of whom who have already been expelled. Of course, neither Tornielli nor Speciale, who are no friends of Tradition, didn't help by citing this source
Then who were the FFI referring to when they stated that "They knowingly lie?" I'll have to go back and read it again, but I think it was Tornielli (VAtican Isider) to whom they were mainly referring. And "knowingly" means the same thing as "intentionaly, " IMO. Why is it that no one seems to be concerned about Tornielli intentionally lieing? Rorate Caeli and Fr. Z both hold him up as a reliable source of information for traditionalists. Therefore, it's disturbing that this has not been addressed.
Ill have to revise this. My 2nd draft got saved imstead if the final, but Missa in Latina is accusing Speciale and some of the FI progressives of lying. He wants to give Tornieilli the benefit of the doubt, I think, but he's no friend of Tradition.
On their latest piece regarding the situation with the FFI, Rorate Caeli states that the FFI will be just fine and grow stronger as a result of this situation. [really? They can only for the most part, celebrate the Novus Ordo, so how will they be just fine and grow stronger?].
Rorate Caeli also congratulates the progressive friars who originally complained to Rome, which resulted in the visitation. Also, Rorate Caeli continues to use Tornielli as a source of information. And lastly, they are not saying anything about Prof. De Mattei's petition of protest. So who's side is Rorate really on? I don't think it's the side of tradition and the TLM. IMO.
This action by the Pope is long over due. This order is a renegade, separtist,schismatic sect that has needed reeling in for a long time.
The enemies of the Church seem to think so.
The more I read about the circumstances of the Franciscan Friars of The Immaculate, the more it becomes confusing. (Perhaps it's my inability to grasp it.) Why Rome would come down on them with a forbidding of the Tridentine Mass seems a bit harsh but nothing written seems to delineate what actually happened to bring about this punitive action.
Another point to this is why the Tridentine Mass was forbidden except for "expressed permission" just because a few "didn't like it." Okay, let Rome tell a few wacko communities they are forbidden to say the Novus Ordo with out expressed permission because a few in that community doesn't like the Novus Ordo. Another case of a two-faced Church.
Matt
Like you would really know!
Plenty of evidence of that. LCWR gets a pass for being Pro-Abort lesbinuns, but if FI wants to say the Mass, well...
No disrespect intended father but I have always wondered what a "retired" priest does. It's not like being a bus driver retiring after 30 years on the job. Do you still celebrate mass and hear confessions, baptisms etc? I would think a priest would only "retire" when he could no longer raise himself out of the bed.
Please stop with the whining, the FI are a disorganized, renegade sect, sorely lacking in leadership and has needed reeling in for a long time. This issue much more complicated than the Latin Mass. The FI speak out of both sides of their mouth. They claim to obedient and loyal to Rome, but their teaching and preaching tell a different story. The discipline is long over due.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate might very well be the laziest group men I have ever known.
Sounds like a personal problem. Have you checked under your own hood lately?
Wow , this post sure brought out some of the demons we were talking about.
Heh, we were one of the first blogs to notice Tornielli shifting in the wind. I don’t hesistate to quote him, but citation does not imply agreement.
Post a Comment