Letter from the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate on the FFI intervention

[McCall1981]

Apparently their superior general gave them permission to celebrate the EF for the laity and for the local communities in which they live. He can do this. The law allows him to do it. What non of us Franciscans can do is to make the EF mass the norm in any house or parish. It must always be extraordinary.

Five friars complained to Pope Benedict XVI that their confreres were so enamored the EF that they started to celebrate it on a regular basis. When you do this, EF becomes the norm and the OF, which Pope Benedict clearly said is the norm for the Catholic Church becomes the exception.

It is against Franciscan tradition to make the exception the norm. Franciscans have always used whatever liturgy. was available. according to the missal waht was hande.

All it takes is one friar, not five, complain to the pope that that there are ,too many EF masses being celebrated or that they simply don’t want the EF in their house. If they don’t the EF dies there. The friars do not have the authority to introduce something like that. If Sumnorum Pontificum says that the EF is the extraordinary, then the friars are bound to treat it as extraordinary. YOu can’t divide you community, because many people wan what is extraordinary.

Another complain that Pope Benedict received was that the FI were becoming sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre. From what I have hard. This did not come from the superior, but from the ranks. The superior allowed it. He probably should have regulated it so that the celebration of the tridentine was not so frequent. This throws off the rhythm of the community… The two missals use different calendars. It really divides a house.

Pope Francis inherited the problem. He appointed Fr. Volip, a Capuchin Franciscan, to take over the order’s government for the time being and to bring it into harmony with the rest of the Franciscan family when it comes to liturgy.

It is also said that as Volpi went through papers and books, he also found that the finances were not in order. I have no idea what Father found in the books.

He also ordered that the seminary be closed and that the student friars go to universities to study philosophy and theology. This is a bone of contention with Trads, be they religious or lay. Trads want to see every religious community have seminaries. But seminaries are not part of Franciscan tradition. The seminary system was embraced by Franciscans around the 19th century in imitation of clerical orders. But Franciscans are not suppose to be clerical. One does not join the Franciscans to be a priest. One joins the Franciscans to be a son of St. Francis.

It seems as if the FI were ordaining too many priests. This is not where the Franciscan family wants to go. The target it to bring down the number of priests while maintaining the total number of friars in solemn vows in order to return the family to an order of religious brothers where priests disappear into the crowd of friars. The Capuchins and the Conventuals are very good at this, Their numbers have dropped, but no one is worried about it. The drop in numbers is because men who want a guarantee that they will be priests are not getting it from our Franciscan communities. So they join other communities or dioceses where they do get this guarantee. Eventually, the number of Franciscan men will be a fraction of what it was in 1960, but it will be closer to what it was in the13th century when the priests were few. Most friars were not priests. The idea of a seminary is a point of contention, because it does protect your men from the outside world, but it also encourages clericalism.

Finally, from what has been made public, every friar has to take an oath in which he swears that the OF of the mass is valid and licit. It is the ordinary form for the order, because the order follows the Church and that unless they have special permission, they will celebrate the OF. Pope Francis has said that for the time being they cannot use the EF, until they read an agreement on these pieces.

Some people are interpreting it to mean that he has revoked the permission for the EF mass. However, the pope has not said that.

In a nutshell, what did they do? Apparently a large enough number of men adopted the EF for celebration. As long as one person says that he wants the ordinary form of the mass, the EF cannot that ove.

I have heard all of these like everyone else, on the Internet. I did see a comment a long time ago from someone in a position of authority who asked that we who are not FI not comment, not write letter and not protest. There is a circular letter being passes around asking for the dismissal of Fr. Volpi. Will it happen? I doubt it.

The Council of Trent said that only the pope could suppress an institution. Only the pope can take out a superior. Fr. Volpi the pro-tem superior. On he pope can remove im or accept his resignation. No one else had a voice in the matter. People can certainly make their views known, but we can’t make demands on the affair of a religious community.

Remember, this can all be bits and pieces taken out of context. We’re not hearing it from the friars.

.

So how does the decision get made that the EF was celebrated “too much”, or that there are “too many” Priests coming from the order? Is it just a subjective judgement made by Fr. Volpi?

 

[Saints_Alive]

The suppression of the EF in spite of the Summorum Pontificum is sad.

 

[OraLabora]

The suppression of the EF in spite of the Summorum Pontificum is sad.

What’s sad is that how SP really applies to religious communities is so misunderstood, creating expectations among the laity.

It’s an internal community matter, a case of “mind your own beeswax” for the rest of us.

It’s not up to us to decide what works for a religious community according to their Rule and constitutions. A conventual Mass is not a parish Mass. It’s not directed to the needs of the laity, even if the Laity are welcome to attend.

Brother JR explains it very well.

 

[OraLabora]

For the benefit of readers, here’s the relevant part of SP that applies in this case:

Art. 3. If communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the conventual or community Mass in their own oratories according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, they are permitted to do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to have such celebrations frequently, habitually or permanently, the matter is to be decided by the Major Superiors according to the norm of law and their particular laws and statutes.

My bold. In other words it is entirely a matter for the community to decide, in humble obedience. SP sets out the conditions for a diocesan EF Mass, in which case the laity do have the opportunity to request it under those conditions. We have no right though, to expect it of a religious order. It’s entirely an internal matter. And it cannot be done without permission of the superior. For instance in a Benedictine house, nothing can be done without the abbot’s consent.

 

[JReducation]

So how does the decision get made that the EF was celebrated “too much”, or that there are “too many” Priests coming from the order? Is it just a subjective judgement made by Fr. Volpi?

In the monastic tradition and mendicant traditions, the superior decides who and when the EF is celebrated. This is his canonical right, because he’s an ordinary. His decisions must be in keeping with Canon Law and particular law. The faithful lay who attend mass at a parish, chapel or oratory run by one of these orders are subordinate to the superior’s wishes on liturgical matters. In the case of a parish, not even a bishop can dictate to a superior what he can or cannot allow his men to celebrate.

If the bishop finds that this is an inconvenience, he can negotiate with the superior. If need be, the parish can be returned to the bishop. I have seen this happen.

As to the number of priests, in the Franciscan tradition there should never be so many priests that your order is reclassified as a clerical institute. The Congregation for Consecrated Life makes this determination. The important thing is to remember why Franciscans don’t want to be a clerical community.

If Franciscan communities are clerical, then according to canon law only priests can vote, govern, receive advanced education and all apostolic work has to be priestly. In simple language someone like St. Francis could not run his own order, preach, do spiritual direction, teach theology or vote in his community.

The suppression of the EF in spite of the Summorum Pontificum is sad.

The EF has not been suppressed. SP very clearly states that the major superior and the particular law of the order dictate whether the EF can be celebrated.

The blanket permission in SP only applies to priests who are secular. Even then, they can make use of it as long as it does not create an inconvenience for a parish.

Going back to religious, if one religious objects to the EF, the EF may not be celebrated in that house. The rule of law is that which is ordinary is a right. That which is extraordinary is a privilege. Rights trump privileges.

To make the EF a right in a religious community, you would need to hold a general chapter. To hold a general chapter, you need permission from the Holy See, unless it’s a ordinary general chapter, such as an electoral chapter that takes place at fixed intervals. But to hold a chapter to change particular law requires permission from the Holy Father.

Then comes the hard part. The general chapter can only make law what’s consistent with the mind of the father of the community. In this case, it would be the mind of St. Francis. The mind of St. Francis is very clearly stated in his writings. The liturgy is to be simple, without chant. Franciscan tradition has always been to follow the local bishops and those small differences that are particular to Franciscans are always approved by the Holy See.

In this case, since the EF is not mandated by the Holy See and since the way in which it is celebrated in the missal of 1962 is not how Francis and Clare established, it cannot be mandated by particular law. Only the pope can overrule Francis and Clare. Franciscan superiors have full power of discretion to allow, prohibit or regulate as long as they do not overrule Francis and Clare.

This leads to the last point, which is very important. In Franciscan tradition, unless you are commanded to sin, once the superior says that the conversation is over, it’s over. If one feels that the law has been violated, one can appeal to the pope himself.

 

[Saints_Alive]

What’s sad is that how SP really applies to religious communities is so misunderstood, creating expectations among the laity.

It’s an internal community matter, a case of “mind your own beeswax” for the rest of us.

It’s not up to us to decide what works for a religious community according to their Rule and constitutions. A conventual Mass is not a parish Mass. It’s not directed to the needs of the laity, even if the Laity are welcome to attend.

Brother JR explains it very well.

Explains it away very well you mean

With all the talk of obedience and a need to prevent division, those who initiated the fuss seem to have been both disobedient and divisive.

We hear of this reminder that the EF is just that, EF, not the norm, yet this group has been told to stop praying the EF period, and had their seminary closed. This has become news and one would have to fairly arrogant to dictate that discussion of it won’t take place.

Before I go, did you intend to dictate the topic not be discussed before I posted, or did your anger at seeing one of my posts demand a reply ?

Can you be honest ? If you admit it, I can respect that. I suppose we’ll see

If nothing else you can laugh at me taking the bait

 

[Saints_Alive]

The fact is, a handful of members here do not want me posting and are upset that a the mod who banned me let me come back.

My posts are removed on a regular basis, but I’m still here. Why ? Because I didn’t break rules. Which makes for a very ugly policy.

What purpose does it serve to allow someone that’s not allowed to post his/her opinion to remain a member ?

I think discussing mod actions on the forum is a no-no, so consider this a Christmas present ora, pooh bear, and the rest.

signed,

the hater maker

 

[JReducation]

Explains it away very well you mean

With all the talk of obedience and a need to prevent division, those who initiated the fuss seem to have been both disobedient and divisive.

Slow down. They’re not disobedient. There was never a law in place that made the Tridentine form the norm. If they felt that it was becoming the norm and they were uncomfortable with this, the law allows them to present their complaint to the superior and then to the pope.

Remember what I said. If something is not the norm, one person is enough to ask that it be stopped.

We hear of this reminder that the EF is just that, EF, not the norm, yet this group has been told to stop praying the EF period,

That was not what the Holy Father said. He said that they had to ask for special permission to use the EF. The rule is very clear. Franciscans do not question the pope. I’m not sure why you’re questioning the pope on behalf of the FI when the FI has explicitly stated that it does not want outsiders involved.

and had their seminary closed.

As I explained above. A seminary is not part of Franciscan tradition. Why would you want a religious community to operate outside of its tradition?

The seminary is closed, but the student friars have been assigned to universities where they will continue their studies, like student friars around the world.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Brother JR, I’ve lost interest in discussing anything here. I’m open to someone explaining how I could be wrong in a charitable manner as you have just done, but ever since I was allowed back here, these haters lie in waiting to bait me any chance they get. It’s rude, it’s gotten old.

I get told by mods I’m rude at times, and I have been. But baiting me is fair game. That’s not only rude, but seeing as though it’s allowed, it reveals a double standard on the part of this forum’s moderation team.

I apologize for anything I’ve said here and on another forum about you. You don’t deserve it.

Please pray for me to find the middle ground and remain orthodox. that’s all I can ask. I’ll pray for your well being as well.

God Bless

 

[OraLabora]

Before I go, did you intend to dictate the topic not be discussed before I posted, or did your anger at seeing one of my posts demand a reply ?

Can you be honest ? If you admit it, I can respect that. I suppose we’ll see

If nothing else you can laugh at me taking the bait

Frankly I have no idea about what others feel about you as a poster and had no idea that you’d been, from what I can gather from you other posts on this thread, suspended.

I saw something factually incorrect, and tried to correct it. Did I feel anger? Not at all. Just sadness at how misunderstanding SP created expectations, in this particular case among laity for whom it should not have created expectations, but perhaps had gotten used to the community doing things in the way they did. This is not the same situation as a “stable group” being rebuffed by an allegedly obstinate bishop looking for every loophole in SP. It’s a community that works by an entirely different set of rules, and the situation is, or rather should be, an internal matter for the community to sort out with the best interests of the community in mind. SP is quite clear, it seems to me, on this point.

If the abbot of the monastery I’m associated with decided tomorrow morning that Gregorian chant was out and modern French singing was in, in spite of what Sacrosanctum Concilium says about Gregorian chant having “pride of place” as liturgical music(and my dislike for most of the French body of liturgical music), I would of course be saddened. But I would still owe him my obedience and it wouldn’t change the attachment I feel to that community; I’m sure I’d commiserate privately with the monks that I know who love chant, and they might vent their frustrations in private discussions with me (it has happened, but on other matters), after all we’re only human. But we would, at the end of the day, have no choice but to live with the abbot’s decision.