Sad Christmas for Franciscans of the Immaculate

The Eponymous Flower ^ | December 27, 2013 | Giuseppe Nardi

[ebb tide]

Rome) The joy of Christmas 2013 has brought another sad note for the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Shortly before the Solemnity, the Apostolic Commissioner, Father Fidenzio Volpi OFM Cap has closed up three more branches of the Order. Many Traditional Mass locations in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite were connected to the closings. The faithful were faced with this fact just before the holidays, that they would be without priests and Mass locations for Christmas.

Of the convents that were closed, one held two Marian shrines, that of Our Lady della Rovere in San Bartolomeo al Mare on the Italian Riviera and that of Our Lady of Pontelungo in Albenga and at the Church of Saint Leonard of Porto Maurizio in Imperia. The reason used by the Apostolic Commissioner was that the Franciscans of the Immaculate have a missionary charism, which is why they should also be active in the mission and is displacing the brothers to the Third World countries. The papal commissioner has already directed the closure of other convents and the exile of leading religious representatives (see separate reports After Rebuilding the Desolation Follows - Commissioner Disbands Convents of the Franciscans of the Immaculate on and The Road to Exile - Purge of Franciscans of the Immaculata ).

All three branches and Mass sites were located in the diocese of Albenga-Imperia in Liguria. The diocese is led by Bishop Mario Oliveri, a traditional diocesan bishop, like Bishop Dominique Rey in the nearby French Diocese of Frejus-Toulon on the Cote d'Azur, who promotes the establishment of old and biritual communities and gives them the task of the care of souls. The closure of the three religious houses by the papal commissioner came after Bishop Oliveri gave permission for the brothers to live in his diocese, also supporting them in continuing to be able to celebrate in the traditional Rite. The Bishop drew particular attention to the pastoral care of the faithful at the three Mass sites. "Messa in Latino" refers to a "retaliatory action" against the bishop, if he "had dared to defend the Franciscans of the Immaculate."

Bishop Oliveri in 2008 was the world's first diocesan bishop, after the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, of Pope Benedict XVI to celebrate a Pontifical Mass from the throne. Seven Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate took their solemn profession in the Co-Cathedral of Imperia before the bishop. "The Commissioner and some brothers collaborating with him, have imposed a climate of intimidation and fear in the Order," says a Catholic from Albenga in a letter to Libertà e Persona . "In dealing with the Franciscans of the Immaculate itself, there is little sense of 'mercy' and 'justice' and even less 'brotherly love'. And what can we ordinary believers do? We pray. But we should also write Pope Francis write personal, because only he can put an end to this destruction of this thriving Order ".

[ebb tide]

Full title:Sad Christmas for Franciscans of the Immaculate -- Three More Mass Locations Closed Down Just Before Christmas

[iowamark]

It is completely inappropriate for laypersons to make malicious comments on the internal management of a religious order.

[FredZarguna]

Could you please cite where in this article there is evidence of malice? Looks like a very straightforward account to my eyes.

[ebb tide]

It's no longer internal management. The Pope has booted the internal management and has appointed a political commissioner.

[Balding_Eagle]

I can’t see any malice either, would you be so kind as to point it out?

[CTrent1564]

This issue with the Franciscans of the Immaculate (FOTI) and the Pope’s commissioner, Fr. Volpi, just doesn’t totally pass the smell test. If, as some are stating, the Pope is trying to suppress the Traditional Roman Rite, then why are we not hearing any issues with the Institute of Christ the King and Society of Saint Peter, both canonically approved by Pope John Paul II to celebrate the Liturgy according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Thus, if what I stated is accurate, and I have seen no evidence that Pope Francis is trying to suppress those two groups {Institute of Christ the King and Society of St. Peter}, then I am wondering whether there is something else going on inside the FOTI that we laity are not privy to.

So, some basic questions: 1)Were the Franciscans of the Immaculate canonically set up to celebrate the Roman Rite of the Liturgy according to the Extraordinary Form, exclusively?? Is the answer to that question is No, then

2) Is it possible that some members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate are imposing their Liturgical views on the entire Order and claiming that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the only Rite the Order is to celebrate? and furthermore,

3) Are there members of the Order making claims that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not a valid Liturgy?

If 1 are 3 are true, then is it possible and plausible that some members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate are aligning themselves to some degree with the SSPX and Bishop Fellay.

Again, given the lack of issues between Pope Francis and the Society of St. Peter and Institute of CHrist the King, both canonically set up to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, it seems to me there is more here with respect to the Franciscans of the Immaculate than just the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite Liturgy.

[ebb tide]

Rorate-caeli had already addressed your questions in numerous posts.

The answers are:

1) No

2) No

3) No

My personal opinion is that the FOTI is an easier target, than either ICK of FSSP, for Pope Francis because of the very issue you brought up in your Question #1.

It is obvious that Pope Francis is not a big fan of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

well, I don’t frequent that blog any longer. There is a little bit too much elitism over there and anger. I am sympathetic to the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy and think Pope Benedicts Moto was a good thing. The problem is it seems some Traditionalist can go over board with their criticisms. I like the Ordinary Roman Rite celebrated in accordance with the style of Emeritus Pope Benedict and to be fair, I thought the Christmas Nativity Mass celebrated by Pope Francis was done very well.

Has Rorate-caeli addressed it with their intuition or can they verify their answers to questions 2 and 3 from multiple sources. So what this boils down to is, per your own opinion, question 1, that is the Franciscans of the Immaculate were not canonically set up to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. So again, did it does suggest their is something other than just “the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”. Did some priests decide they were going to start celebrating the Traditional Rite in parishes exclusively without those said parishes forming viable communities who requested this form of the Roman Rite.

So I don’t think FOTI is a target. It seems from the outside that there are 2 camps in this Order, those who want to celebrate the older Form of the Roman Rite and those the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It still looks like to me there is an internal struggle between these 2 groups and my guess is when all the facts are out, this is what will be the case. While I think Rorate-caeli is reporting what they heard from their sources, I don’t think Rorate-caeli has all the facts as my guess is their sources are those who in principle reject the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, while not necessarily calling it an invalid Rite, which many over at that site do in fact state.

[ebb tide]

Please, if you don’t bother to frequent the blog, don’t ask me to spoon feed it to you.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

I am not looking for spoon feeding. Rorate-caeli at times hints at SSPX ideology, which is the reason I stopped going over there. I would much prefer to read about this issue on Fr. Z’s blog “What does Prayer Really say” as he has hinted that “Traditionalist” can be their own worse enemies with their frowns and labeling anyone who does not attend a Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite as a modernist or neo con Catholic or even worse, a heretic.

And yes, I know there are dissidents promoting watered down nonsense from the, using a political term, “left”. However, I have not seen Pope Francis call back the CDF’s investigation of the US Nuns who have gone off the railroad tracks on numerous issues. An Australian priest promoting woman’s ordination among other things was excommunicated. Fr. Roy Bourgeois of the Mary Knoll has not had his excommunication lifted by Pope Francis for promoting woman’s ordination as well.

So I am not ready to join the Pope Francis does not like Traditionalist parade just yet. I think however, as he recently stated that on deep matters of Theology, he would prefer the CDF to handle it. I made the recommendation here a few weeks ago. Francis should just do what he does naturally is preach by example and humility and when technical areas of theology are needed, have the CDF vet it first before writing anything or saying anything. I don’t have the quote in front of me but it relates to a discussion between Francis and someone at the CDF.

[ebb tide]

I think however, as he recently stated that on deep matters of Theology, he would prefer the CDF to handle it.

As I've said before, when a Pope leaves theological questions up to the CDF; it reminds me of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. It is not Mueller, nor his CDF, which is infallible on matter of faith and morals.

Secondly, if you consider Fr. Z a more reliable source than Rorate-caeli, we have nothing more to discuss as far I'm concerned.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Fair enough, and if you have problems with Fr. Z, then that is your problem. And the role of the CDF is to handle theology. Not every Pope is a trained theologian. Pope John Paul II left the hard theological questions to Ratizinger, for good reason, Ratzinger was a better theologian that John Paul II. That did not, mean, that John Paul II was less of a Pope. That is your reading your views into what the Papacy is or what you want it to be.

Francis is not a trained Theologian, his Graduate Work is in Philosophy, similar to Pope John Paul II. For the record, when Pope Benedict issued the Moto in 2007, Francis was one of the first Cardinals to set up a parish in his diocese to regularly celebrate the Extraodinary Form of the Roman Rite. I have also heard a Greek Catholic Metropolitan publicly state that then Cardinal Bergoglio respected the Liturgical tradition of the Byzantine Catholics in Buenos Aires. So I have not found Francis to be hostile to the various Catholic Rites in the past. Can you find evidence of that?

And back for the record, what makes Rorate Caeli more reliable than Fr. Z. Fr. Z is no dissident priest like the excommunicated Roy Bourgeois or any of the priests that regularly write for the National catholic [lower case on purpose] Reporter.

[ebb tide]

For the record, when Pope Benedict issued the Moto in 2007, Francis was one of the first Cardinals to set up a parish in his diocese to regularly celebrate the Extraodinary Form of the Roman Rite.

I don't believe the above assertion for one second. Care to back it up with sources so I can I refute them?

[ebb tide]

Never mind, Trent. I couldn't wait to prove your Fr Z full of hot air.

How Summorum Pontificum was blocked and trampled on in Buenos Aires: facts, not fantasy and disinformation

[ebb tide]

And the role of the CDF is to handle theology.

And the current head of the CDF has questioned the physical virginity of the Blessed Mother; in spite of the four Marian dogmas!

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

You obviously have your issues with Pope Francis. He is the Pope. Period. Here are 3 sites that are linked to blogs that I read, and one of them quotes Cardinal Hoyos

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-francis-and-tridentine-mass.html

http://maryvictrix.com/2013/11/12/pope-francis-on-the-use-of-the-extraordinary-form/

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-liturgy/

Do you get commissions from Rorate-Caeli. Are they infallible? Why is it their reporting is “orthodox truth” to you? Again, among Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis, Pope Benedict is the one that I most identified with, largely because I appreciated his theological writings and books, and I own many of his works. that does not mean I respected and now respect each of them as Pope. They are different men with different strengths. I am not interested in what the SSPX or the Sedevacantists say. If you are, well then, oh well

[Salvation]

excellent links. Thanks.

[ebb tide]

Do you get commissions from Rorate-Caeli.

That's a joke, right? Rorate-Caeli asks for no money; your Fr. Z does and he accepts all major credit cards.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

No I don’t think he rejected it, what he was I think examining was the question of Mary’s virginity during birth in terms of whether she experienced any pain or not, etc. as it relates to Mary’s perpetual virginity. While affirming the Virgin Birth, which he did affirm, that is that Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit was Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became Man, what he was dealing with was whether Mary experienced same thing all other woman experience when giving Birth and her hymen was broken or not. He in no way denied 1) The Virgin Birth [the fundamental doctrine as expressed in the Nicene Creed], nor the 2) Perpetual Virginity of Mary in that Mary did not engage in relations with St. Joseph and the brothers and sisters of the Lord are cousins or children of St. Joseph from an earlier Wife as St. Jerome details in his Writing against Helvidius.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church to be honest is not clear on this point. What the Church has always taught is that Mary was a virgin before, through and after the Birth of Christ. However, the prophet Isaiah does state “Before she comes into Labor, she gives birth, before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child” (cf Isaiah 66:7). Thus, if one applies this prefiguration to Mary, one can make a case she experienced no pain if one wants to associate all pain with original sin. However, while the Church teaches, and I accept, the Immaculate Conception, that Mary by a singular Grace of God was saved in an extraordinary way, the NT does also allude that Mary would also experience the pain and sorrow of all other human beings, which does not contradict that she was preserved free from original sin and saved by God’s Grace from the moment of her conception. St. Luke states “and you yourself a sword will pierce: (cf. Luke 2:35) and later in Luke in the passage on the Finding in the Temple St Luke states “Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety” (Luke 2:48).

So my take is that as a theologian, the head of the CDF was only looking at all the Biblical texts and posing the question whether Mary experienced the pains and trials of all other humans, including what all woman go thru. Now if you want to draw the connection of Genesis 3:15 that because of Eve’s Sin, woman have child bearing pains and thus the Immaculate Conception would come into conflict with making a statement that Mary experienced pain in Child birth, then an appeal to Isaiah 66:7 could be applied to Mary in this context.

To my knowledge, the Church has “Never definitively taught” that Mary did not suffer in Childbirth or did suffer. One would think given that the Son of God suffered on the Cross, Mary also experienced suffering as St. Luke’s Gospel indicates and that she united her suffering to CHrist, which St.Paul calls all of us to do (cf. Colossians 1:24).

In closing, I do not see where your charges against the head of the CDF are accurate and I think show a misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches. Again, the Church has never defined authoritatively on Mary’s virginity during childbirth and of course one should tread lightly when dealing with this question. There are various opinions on this among the Western Fathers and Eastern Fathers but none of their views have been taught definitively.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Sort of a joke, yes. Still, you only seem to cite the folks at Rorate-Caeli as if they are the only ones “in the know” so to speak. So I don’t take what they write as “Gospel” I prefer to read as many Catholic sources as possible on the matter before jumping to the conclusion that Pope Francis is going to suppress everyone and everybody attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

So are you saying that Cardinal Hoyos is lying, is he incorrect, or misquoted, or is what he was quoted as saying accurate regarding Pope Francis and the Traditional Roman Rite. If, what Cardinal Hoyos was quoted as saying is in fact and accurate quote of what he said, then that leads me to believe that the issues regarding the Franciscans of the Immaculate are not an indication that the Pope wants to suppress the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and there are issues internal in that Order broader than just the Traditional Roman Rite.