Yesterday, I came in from shoveling snow for the better part of two hours and checked my phone. I had several emails from a friend whose oldest child has been involved with Fisher More Academy/Fisher More College in Fort Worth, Texas.
The news was bleak. Bishop Olson of Fort Worth had ordered the school to stop offering the TLM. Completely. No exceptions.
The announcement of Mass cancellation as appears on the college website.
We had been considering FMA’s online courses as an alternative to homeschooling our oldest, who is a junior in high school. One of the most appealing aspect of Fisher More is that they offer the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments to their students, and in fact study and understand the traditional thought and teaching of the Church.
This approach is noteworthy to me. As someone who earned a theology degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville — a college with a brand name reputation for “dynamic orthodoxy” — I have grown troubled over the years to realize that with the exception of certain writings of the Church Fathers, I studied virtually nothing from the pre-conciliar Church. I certainly was exposed to none of the warnings in documents like Pascendi about the coming distortion of Church doctrine from within. I had no framework with which to even begin to approach the Church’s historical thought on the thorny issues of ecumenism and religious liberty, both of which are issues of significant contention among my peers in the “traditionalist” movement.
Fisher More has been a bubbling cauldron of controversy lately. I don’t know all the details, but I do know they’re under fire for being too traditionalist, whatever that means. And there’s a discussion to be had around that. It’s clearly affecting the administration, the student body, and the financial solvency of the institution.
But the issue in play right now is whether a Roman Catholic bishop can just up and on his own authority forbid the celebration of the TLM while still allowing the Novus Ordo. I say no. And I make my case in a guest post at Rorate Caeli today:
[T]hese issues, while important on their own and relevant to the future of Fisher More, are distractions from the larger — and dare I say, more dangerous — ecclesiastical action that took place, which sets a precedent for the larger Church. In the wake of the situation with the FFI, it is, in fact, strikingly inauspicious. Bishop Olson chose to target the Extraordinary Form — and onlythe Extraordinary Form — as an apparent disciplinary action in violation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
While I do not represent myself as an expert in such matters, the Canon Law Center has issued a canonical opinion on the matter that cuts to the quick:With the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, the diocesan bishop no longer has the discretion either to permit or restrict the celebration of Mass according to the usus antiquor, a prerogative he previously enjoyed. Thus, no bishop has the authority to arbitrarily restrict the celebration of Mass according to the traditional Roman Rite. While the diocesan bishop has “all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function” (CIC/83, c. 381, §1), his authority is not absolute.The faithful have a right, enshrined in ecclesiastical law, to have access to the Mass and sacraments celebrated according to the usus antiquior. Celebration of the traditional Roman liturgy is no longer a privilege extended to the faithful on an individual basis but rather a right that can be properly vindicated if requests for such celebrations are not satisfied (cf. SP, art. 7).[…]For several years following the promulgation of Summorum, the legal mechanisms for the vindication of rights relative to the proper implementation of the motu proprio left much to be desired. With the promulgation of the InstructionUniversae Ecclesiae of April 30, 2011, the universal law of Summorum was effectively given teeth: the process of hierarchical recourse may now be utilized by faithful who believe their rights have been violated by a decision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the motu proprio. (cf. UE, 10 § 1)The recent letter of Bishop Olson to Fisher-More College certainly appears to represent such a decision. Insofar as it has unlawfully restricted the rights of the faithful, the bishop’s administrative act can and ought to be challenged.The canonical opinion above validates my own understanding of the matter, namely: the authority for a bishop to forbid this Mass which was “never abrogated” (SP, art. 1) does not exist. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote in the accompanying letter toSummorum, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
Contrast these words with those of Bishop Olson, who wrote (after forbidding the Extraordinary Form and making provision only for celebration of the Ordinary Form), “I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More College as well as for your own soul.”
These words imply that continuing to offer the Traditional Latin Mass at Fisher More would be substantively harmful to the souls who attend it. Bishop Olson also makes the draconian threat that any violation of his proscription would result in “withdrawal of permission to celebrate the Eucharist in your chapel along with withdrawal of permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.”
What it seems Bishop Olson disregards is the critical phrase, “Never abrogated.” Had it been abrogated, no priest would licitly be able to celebrate it. Since it has not been abrogated, every priest of the Roman Rite has the *right* to say it. It is, in fact, a completely licit and authorized Mass of the rite in which he received his ordination. There is no legal suppression of one Mass in favor of the other. This is the very situation Summorum sought to address. A bishop has authority over sacramental jurisdiction, and can at his discretion order that no Masses be said in a certain chapel. What he does not have the authority to say is, “You may have only the Ordinary Form of Mass, but not the Extraordinary Form.” This creates a false dichotomy between the forms, and violates the rights and freedom of the faithful.
You can read the whole thing here.
The situation is appalling from my perspective, more so because the local traditionalists involved are chomping at the bit to excuse the bishop’s action as justified because of their apparent suffering at the hands of FMC’s president.
I am coming to understand that many Catholics have a preference for the Vetus Ordo Mass in the same way that other Catholics have a preference for the Novus Ordo Mass. It suits their sensibilities and their idea of worship, and little else. The deeper questions of how liturgy determines our temporal and eternal state are not really on their radar.
The modernists within the Church have drawn a line, and it is this: V2 has, de facto, the force of dogma. Therefore, the subsequent innovations in the liturgical life of the Church also carry that force. If one does not agree with that, if one has the audacity to question even the nature of the Council, then one is banished to the outer limits of Catholicism.
The problem is not the Traditional Latin Mass. The problem is Modernism. I believe the hermenutic of continuity that so many wish to see in the Church is a chimera. The liturgical innovations that came out of V2 were a break with continuity. I see Pope Benedict XVI as one who attempted, like the King’s Men, to put Humpty Dumpty together again. It is proving unworkable, which points to the break with the Church’s tradition after V2.
The immediate future of the Church is bleak. The desire to reconnect with the Church’s tradition and history is lacking with most of our shepherds. The laity is largely ignorant and passive. So, like a Sixties septugenarian who still smokes weed, the Church lurches around on the beast of Innovation. Damn the TLM! Full speed ahead!
The College should have resisted the Bishops illegal suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass!They missed an opportunity to make a stand for justice!
I fully agree. This sort of servile compliance with the indefensible whims of a bishop should have disappeared at least in 2002, if not earlier. Laity and clerics alike have a responsibility to stand up for the faith, even and especially if that includes disobeying bishops who don’t have the wherewithal or inclination to explain nonsensical demands.
Amen.
“As someone who earned a theology degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville — a college with a brand name reputation for “dynamic orthodoxy” — I have grown troubled over the years to realize that with the exception of certain writings of the Church Fathers, I studied virtually nothing from the pre-conciliar Church.”
And now I can better understand what I see at The Personalist Project.
fwiw, Taylor Marshall — who has direct, firsthand information — posted on this situation on his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall/posts/400180263452671
Alas, Dr. Marshall’s “direct, firsthand information” (also known as gossip) does not pertain to the relevant issue, which is, why would a bishop explicitly state that a valid EF is a danger to anyone’s soul?
Okay, I’ll bite. I’m not going to touch the canonical question as there are already disputing experts on both sides. Instead, I’ll just say that Bp Olson’s action was the appropriate medicine. When you have professors teaching students that they should reject the entire Second Vatican Council, and thus the Novus Ordo by proxy (http://fishermore.edu/wp-content/uploads/Dudley-Faith-in-Europe.pdf), it seems wholly appropriate to ensure that, for the good of their souls, the entire college gets a steady diet of precisely those elements of Catholic Tradition they’re being dangerously encouraged to reject.
Here’s a choice quote with respect to VII and the Novus Ordo: “We need to be aware that the modern Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 is simply an implementation of the instructions laid down by the Second Vatican Council… There are so many passages that contradict traditional teaching that I would argue that it is of the greatest importance to entirely reject the II Vatican Council”.
Absolute rubbish and heresy. Here’s an appropriate disciplinary axiom for anyone Progessive or Traditional: If you reject a valid ecumenical council or form of mass, your practice of the faith should be restricted to those very forms and council documents until you repent of your error.
I finally got around to reading the speech. There’s nothing in it that warrants discipline whatsoever. I completely agree with his assessment of the council.
And that’s not heresy. There’s nothing in Vatican II that is binding except that which was re-stated from prior Church teaching. It’s a pastoral council. And it’s mostly the plaything of the most progressive elements in the Church. The effects are clear, and the statistics that Dr. Dudley laid out in his speech are just…staggering.
This in particular caught my attention:
“If we compare the situation before the Second Vatican Council we can note a great change. From 1914 until 1962 a total of 810 priests applied to the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith for laicisation, that is an average of 17 per year, and 61% of these applications were rejected. But from 1964 to 1988 a total of 44,890 priests applied for laicisation, that is an average of 1870 per year, and only 8% were rejected.”
The irony of someone slinging accusations of heresy while defending the council that contradicted so much of what came before it in ways that would have previously been considered exactly that — heresy — is too rich. I’m choking on it.
The Church before Vatican II and afterwards share a common thread, but they might as well be two different religions. And I’m tired of fighting to get people like you to see it. Take your modernist bullshit and run with it. I don’t care. But leave the people who love what made the Church beautiful and want to preserve it alone. Stop trying to force feed us this garbage. It’s not a remedy, and it’s certainly not, as you call it, “Tradition”. It’s poison.
Yes, the Eucharist in the Novus Ordo is valid, but if you lace a consecrated host with cyanide, it’ll still kill the recipient, even while delivering sanctifying grace.
Bravo! Especially the part about the rich irony. It really does boggle the mind.
As for the Eucharist in the Novus Ordo service, I share the SSPX position that it’s of doubtful validity. It may be valid, it may not be, depending on the extent to which the priest confecting it has been processed by the Hippie Council. And how can we know that extent? For this and other reasons, it’s therefore best to entirely avoid the Novus Ordo service.
I think the real problem is not intrinsic to the current state of Holy Orders, but rather with the intent of the priest.
When a friend of mine was attending Mt. St. Mary’s seminary, he would occasionally meet with seminarians from the Washington Archdiocese. There was a priest there, apparently — a professor of liturgy — who emphatically referred to the Eucharist as a “symbol.” The seminarians were astonished.
In a Novus Ordo, if the priest follows the form and matter of the sacrament and intends to consecrate, it’s consecrated. I don’t think there’s any substantive way to dispute that.
How frequently a priest actually intends that is another question. But trying to discern this is a sure path to madness. I think that when one is forced to be in such a situation, the principle of “Ecclesia Supplet” (or some derivation thereof) would have to be what we rely on, unless there is serious reason to doubt intention.
Completely agreed. I was indeed referring to the intent of the priest. Anyone in his right mind, and who has studied Vatican II and its “new springtime,” has to question whether any particular Novus Ordo priest intends to transubstantiate. The very fact that he’s willing to commit the fabricated, banal, on-the-spot committee product (even according to its strict rubrics and in Latin) known as the Novus Ordo service – or in Orwellian newspeak, the “Ordinary Form” – places this intent legitimately in question.
Until you guys learn to stop treating your professed “love” for one aspect of Sacred Tradition as an excuse to viciously attack other aspects of Sacred Tradition, you’re going to continue to invite the much deserved censure of your Mother.
Let’s see, the Novus Ordo is a sham, like cyanide, and damaging to the faith of children, and the Second Vatican Council is a betrayal of tradition which, but for the sake of optics, you don’t object to calling a Judas Council. Lord have mercy.
It isn’t just one aspect among many. It’s the most pivotal aspect.
And the Novus Ordo has hardly had enough time to become part of Sacred Tradition. For goodness sake, we only just got an accurate translation. The thing is barely out of beta.
As for the rest, what is sacred can’t be censured. I stand by every term I used to describe the Novus Ordo, and the statistics (just have a look at the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators or the results of the survey that went out in advance of the Synon on Marriage & The Family) paint a clear picture: the Catholic faith has been completely decimated since the 1960s.
Instead of making a show of being upset, perhaps you could propose a refutation of the argument that what came from the council did more harm than good. Or even that as a pastoral council, there’s some reason why we need to treat it as obligatory, rather than something which can be set aside as a failure, like other such councils in the past.
You also said in part: “The irony of someone slinging accusations of heresy while defending the council that contradicted so much of what came before it in ways that would have previously been considered exactly that — heresy — is too rich. I’m choking on it.”
Here’s the rub, Steve. It’s not for you to decide that our ecclesiastical forebears would accuse their successors of heresy. You’re not authorized to interpret Sacred Tradition. That’s the charism of the Magisterium, and when it comes to Vatican II they say, “continuity”. So where, precisely, does that leave those who instead say “betrayal”? There were a number of noteworthy individuals who once, on their own initiative, tried to mine the Church’s theological past so as to condemn her present; John Calvin comes to mind.
“Here’s the rub, Steve. It’s not for you to decide that our ecclesiastical forebears would accuse their successors of heresy.”
This is a tired argument. Have you read Sources of Catholic Dogma, the Syllabus of Errors, etc.? There are anathemas laid out there. When things being taught today conflict with prior anathemas, you have a pretty safe bet you know they would have been called heresy back then.
Of course, I can’t formally denounce anyone as a heretic, but context is king. I’m asserting that I believe these things would have been considered heresy. And I’m doing so in as authoritative a forum as a…wait for it…BLOG COMMENT BOX. Yes, this is my opinion. But it’s fairly easy to verify, even if it carries no ecclesiastical weight.
Again, because irony is amusing, you said that Dr. Dudley’s comments on Vatican II are “Absolute rubbish and heresy.” So apparently, you don’t suffer from the the same lack of authorization “to interpret Sacred Tradition” that you accuse me of. Fascinating.
If the pope called green grass gray, or told me that two and two are five, I wouldn’t bend my knee and say “credo”. Sorry. When betrayal and discontinuity are manifest — and the rupture is really quite evident to anyone who looks at the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church side by side — to not be intellectually honest about that isn’t something people should be repackaging and selling as a virtue.
“to not be intellectually honest about that isn’t something people should be repackaging and selling as a virtue.” — let alone get in high dudgeon about it . Wow, the moral preening is a bit hard to take.
And lest you think I’m a TLM hater or something like that, I gave a substantial sum to the FMC fundraising drive before I knew about this kind of gross rejection of Church teaching.
This situation has pretty much decimated any remaining respect I had for Rorate Caeli and its companion commentators. I am not at liberty to discuss the details of this situation, however I can say I personally watched these events unfold first hand. Rorate and similar blogs that are using this situation to stoke the fire of trad paranoia makes my stomach turn. All of you are *very* far removed from the realities on the ground. As someone who knows the whole story and someone who is very devoted to the Traditional Mass, I can say with unwavering confidence any attack against Bishop Olson is completely unwarranted. You are simply seeing the unfortunate ending to a very unfortunate story that has been a long time in the making.
Your particular knowledge of events on the ground should not absolve the bishop of writing an offensively clumsy letter, which description is generous. Even if Bishop Olson is entirely in the right, he simply cannot be permitted to communicate as he did in his letter without incurring some serious pushback. Suggesting that any form of mass is a danger to anyone’s soul is nothing less than absurd. His flock is entitled to much better, and bishops must be held to a higher standard than your average legal secretary. I would add that the continuous bashing of Rorate is getting old.
You are reading that statement entirely out of context. The reaction of everyone across the trad world only brings one passage to mind:
“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”
You all want to be right more than you want to accept the truth or facts. This is all one big train wreck that has been a long time in the making. So many people could grow in holiness from it, but they choose instead to use it as another feather in their paranoid caps:
“Pope Francis and the Masons are after us all!! AGGGHHHHH!!!”
I once defended Rorate and all of you to the death. Today you all just make me embarrassed to call myself traditional in any sense.
I am reading the bishop’s statement in the context he provided. So is everyone else who isn’t privy to every single relevant detail that dances in the bishop’s head, i.e. probably every student, every parent of every student, 99% of faculty etc. The bishop is at fault here for poor communication at the very least. Especially after 2002, I am not obliged to presume that he has the best of intentions and pipe down. The bishop has to keep up his end of the bargain by a) communicating effectively, b) defining the transgression before issuing the punishment and c) avoiding the suggestion that any form of a valid mass can endanger anyone’s soul. Meanwhile, the fact “you are embarrassed to call yourself tradition in any sense” says a lot more about you than it does about me or Rorate.
Your obstinate pride is palpable. The stiff-necked response of the entire traditional blogosphere says plenty about those who want to bend this situation to fit their “under siege” agenda. Your bit about Dr. Marshall’s “gossip” is also particularly enjoyable. Yes, he is “gossiping”, as opposed to what you’re doing here…this doesn’t constitute gossip because you agree with it, right?
I also appreciate your insinuating that reading his status this morning is the extent of my experience in this matter. I thought traditionalists were against black magic … Or are you using something besides a crystal ball and taro cards to look into my life history?
Huh? I insinuated no such thing, I have no idea what you are talking about… As far as my “palpable obstinate pride”, I fear that’s actually your own realization that you have nothing to counter my argument besides ad hominem and random, fanciful accusations.
Right again!
I’m seeing lots of heat and not much light, guys. I wrote a substantive critique of this action citing the opinion of the Canon Law Center and my own reading of Summorum Pontificum.
I’d like to hear more about why you disagree with my assessment than vague ad hominem attacks against traditionalists.
I’m afraid some who are close to the situation are failing to see the forest for the trees. The issue is not Mr. King, regardless of any theological sins and actions with the college. It is understandable when jobs have been lost, emotions are at a fever pitch and so forth, to want the ‘truth’ about FMC and its president to come out.
However, the issue, at core, is that a bishop has suppressed the Vetus Ordo, a centuries-honored Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, as a form of punishment or correction. It is a breathtaking action, one which has caused the storm we are now witnessing.
If, as is averred by some who have first-hand knowledge, the college is mere months from closure; indeed, no TLMs are being said as all priests have fled the sinking ship, then what possible advantage is there to suppress the TLM? What pastoral playbook did that come from? How would that possibly serve to evince a state of sorrow and penance in those attached to the Vetus Ordo? No, rather it speaks to the break in tradition and continuity with the universal Roman Catholic Church that happened decades ago. Indeed, by suppressing the TLM, the bishop is confirming the division in the Church and I would even say, widening it.
This is precisely the problem. And it’s not being addressed. The issues at the college are serving as a smokescreen for a dangerous overstep of canonical authority on the part of a bishop – one that will surely be imitated in other dioceses by less well-meaning bishops if there are no consequences.
Yes, and unfortunately the bishop is all too eager to presume that the EF is being used as a cudgel promoting ideological division, as if there can be no other good reason for celebrating it. This speaks volumes about the bishop’s attitude toward the EF and its devotees. A Catholic bishop should have, and demonstrate, more respect for the mass that sustained my ancestors for generations. How dare he?
Regarding the “Extraordinary Form” (actual traditionalists would never dream of adopting this Orwellian, Conciliarist newspeak), see:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0808-tofari-ordinary-form.htm
I don’t like using the term, but it’s difficult when attempting to communicate with people who only know it that way.
Kind of like I don’t like saying “traditionalist.” We’re Catholic. There’s nothing more Catholic than Tradition.
But for internet warriors, there’s always the shorthand.
The difficulty many seem to be having with Bishop Olson’s medicine is this: How can the removal categorical good (i.e. the TLM) ever be beneficial for souls – especially souls so endeared to the venerable rite?
With respect to FMC, the answer to this question can be summed up as follows; namely, that prominent individuals at that institution had begun abusing the TLM and were teaching their students to do the same. That is to say, they had begun ascribing to the TLM an inordinate prominence, which went beyond mere criticism of the Novus Ordo, to the point of calling for the outright rejection of a valid Ecumenical Council and all of its fruits (i.e. the Mass of Paul VI).
It’s really not that complicated. Summorum Pontificum was issued, not only to make clear that the TLM had never been abrogated, but also to foster a mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms of the Mass. As such, when professors and keynote speakers undermine this project of mutual enrichment, and instead – in their zeal to “exalt” the TLM – wind up following heretics into an ideology in which they, not the Church, begin deciding what Councils and which forms of the Mass are valid; when this occurs, those individuals have shown that they are not being faithful to the fullness Sacred Tradition; instead, they carve out one piece of that Tradition (i.e. the TLM) for the purpose of attacking another (i.e. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo).
And what this demonstrates is that they categorically misunderstand the fundamental purpose of very aspect of Tradition they claim to love. True admiration of the TLM will always enrich the faith, and will never be used as a platform from which to issue heretical condemnations. But sadly, this is precisely what happened at FMC, and as such Bishop Olson was both just and prudent to refuse the venerable rite to those who would use it for such a slanderous purpose.
If you give your son a hammer so that he can build a dollhouse for his little sister, but then come to find that he is using it – not to bestow a gift upon her – but rather to smash her dolls because he thinks they’re stupid, the wise and prudent father takes the hammer away, and disciplines his son; and the discipline remains in place until his son learns three things; namely, how to truly love his sister, how to appreciate the things she holds dear, and ultimately how to properly use the hammer to build these things up rather than tear them down.
Ergo my statement: “It seems wholly appropriate to ensure that, for the good of their souls, the entire college gets a steady diet of precisely those elements of Catholic Tradition they’re being dangerously encouraged to reject.”
Another comparable analogy, which applies to progressives in the Church, can be observed in the following complaint: How can the removal categorical good (i.e. Holy Communion) ever be beneficial for souls – especially souls endeared to the Blessed Sacrament? In this instance, the progressive wants to illegitimately exalt Holy Communion at the expense of the Sacrament of Penance. As such, when a Bishop denies the Blessed Sacrament to someone in an objective state of mortal sin, the progressive begins to wail about how unjust and imprudent such an action is – how unpastoral!
But the reality is, for the good of the sinner’s soul, the Bishop withholds a categorical good (i.e. Holy Communion) until the person learns, not only the proper way to approach the Eucharist, but also that, a “love for Holy Communion” is no true love at all if it neglects or disparages the Sacrament of Penance. Thus, the traditionalist whose “love” for the TLM leads him to outrightly reject Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, is no different than the progressive whose “love” for Holy Communion leads him to reject the need for the Sacrament of Penance. And in both instances, the proper course of remediation is to withhold the good that’s being misused until the individual learns to appreciate the good that’s being illegitimately despised.
Bravo Bishop Olson!
So your solution to what you consider to be an undue “exaltation” of the TLM is to unduly exalt the OF in retribution?
Seems legit.
Who is the bishop to psychically intuit that the entire community is in an “objective state of mortal sin” when they attend the TLM? or that “they categorically misunderstand the fundamental purpose of very aspect of Tradition they claim to love”? What possible evidence could exist for that? Did the bishop interview every member of the community? Did he assume the President of the college knows the hearts and minds of every member of the community?…absurd.
To clarify, meerk… do you think Marshall’s post constitutes the sin of gossip?
As to your question… I have no idea. Nor does it matter to the salvation of my soul, nor of my family’s, etc. etc.
It’s not my problem to determine whether it is the sin of gossip. What he says has all the earmarks of gossip. Is there bad intent behind his sharing this information? quite possibly. Is he lying? quite possibly. Is he exaggerating or being unfair? quite possibly. … The rest of your comment I simply don’t understand.
Here was your earlier comment: “Alas, Dr. Marshall’s “direct, firsthand information” (also known as gossip) does not pertain to the relevant issue, which is, why would a bishop explicitly state that a valid EF is a danger to anyone’s soul?”
So, I have no idea why the bishop wrote what he wrote, and I don’t need to know, because my salvation does not depend on my knowing that piece of information..
“So, I have no idea why the bishop wrote what he wrote.” Nor do any of us. That’s the problem. Does your salvation depend upon competent leadership by bishops? Uh, kinda, yeah. That’s why I “need to know” why he banned a valid mass.
“Does your salvation depend upon competent leadership by bishops? Uh, kinda, yeah.”
No it doesn’t. The efficacy of the Church works despite the sinfulness of her members, including her leadership.
As long as valid sacraments are available, we’re good. We’ve got the documents of the Church and we’ve got our own daily prayer, and that’s sufficient for salvation.
NB: obviously competent leadership is necessary for the Church to grow and thrive, but my focus here is on the fact that I am responsible for my own soul and that of my family’s, and I’m not going to blame others for that.
so in that case, how can the bishop forbid a TLM, which is a valid sacrament? we only need that, not the bishop, after all…thank you for making my point.
“so in that case, how can the bishop forbid a TLM,”
Because he’s the duly appointed authority, the diocesan ordinary, unlike either of us.
fwiw, prayers for the bishop are probably the most effective course of action for either of us.
his authority stops at the point where it is exercised at the expense of a valid sacrament
Steve, re: your degree, I know that at least *one* of your profs exposed you to pre-Vatican II teaching… 🙂
But more generally… who cares when the assigned texts were written? Church teaching is Church teaching. I imagine that many theology profs assign more recent texts in part because they are in print and readily available, and perhaps because of a presumption that the style in which they are written makes their assimilation easier.
But again, it’s an undergrad degree… I’d be more concerned if a grad program was more narrowly restrictive, but from my recollection of the grad program at FUS, that’s not an issue.
You absolutely provided a great overview of Church history, but I don’t remember reading any of the Church documents — from the Syllabus of Errors to Pascendi to Mediator Dei to Mortalium Animos — that most expressly warned of and/or contradicted much of what the Church is doing today.
And the problem with only highlighting post-conciliar teaching is that it’s an entirely different ecclesiology than what came before. We’re looking at Catholicism through a progressive lens, not the much longer view of the historical Church.
Like the TLM and the OF, seeing the teachings side by side make the contrast incredibly clear.
“it’s an entirely different ecclesiology than what came before”
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point, but I don’t think that’s possible, if one holds to the infallibility of the Church and the Magisterium.
You’re right, I should have said “almost” entirely different. Looking at them side by side, they appear to be different religions.
From the Church’s liturgical praxis to the rejection of ecumenism of return to the overemphasis on primacy of conscience (contrast Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with All Good Atheists Can Go To Heaven) to an emphasis that the Jewish covenant remains salvific to the Catholic embrace of syncretistic prayer to the now growing movement to allow communion to the divorced and remarried…it’s exhausting to try to keep track. There are so many more things I have probably not thought of just now.
If someone were to create a venn diagram of Catholicism and Novusordoism (again, shorthand) there would be a slim overlapping center that features things like saints, Marian doctrines, sacraments, and apostolic authority.
Even the understanding of the papacy, its role, its responsibilities, and the limitation on its powers has changed.
What pope have you heard echo, for example, the condemnations of modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies” made by Pius X? Did this heresy just evaporate and go away, or did it infiltrate the Church in just the way that Pius warned, or that Leo XIII envisioned when he composed the St. Michael prayer?
The telltale signs of the divergence are clear: the faith has been decimated. The majority of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence, in Church teaching on homosexuality, in the proscription against artificial contraception, in the absolute moral depravity of abortion, etc. I’m not sure what they believe in anymore. Some of the early surveys that came back in preparation for the October synod were showing results of 95% of the people not agreeing with Church teaching.
Can we stop lying to ourselves? The post-conciliar Church is barely a shadow of its former self. The decline in vocations was matched by a corresponding increase in vocations before the council. Everything is going to shit, and we’re all running around trying to plug the leaks and tell everyone how fine it is.
Stop. The. Madness.
The Church has always had problems, yes. But in this instance, the wound has been self-inflicted, and it appears to be critical.
To be a Catholic today is to teeter on the edge of the Cliffs of Insanity. Thanks for a sane place to discuss things.
1.Fortunately, we know that the wound *can’t* be critical in the formal sense.
2. The post-conciliar crisis highlights the need for renewal: if the pre-conciliar practice of the faith was as vibrant as some believe, how could it have collapsed so quickly?
I imagine that SP 19 is relevant to the situation at hand:
“19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”
Sorry, the quote above isn’t SP 19, but from the Ecclesia Dei document on the application of SP. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
So is there a similar litmus test for those who want the OF? Do they have to prove that they don’t believe the Church should have done away with the EF, or that those who adhere to it are schismatic or whacky or “addicted to a fashion”?
Because the prejudice here is striking.
I’ll always argue that Quo Primum has more weight than SP or Ecclesia Dei. As will any sort of common sense understanding of what weight a rite that was considered sacred for over 1500 years should have vs. our “banal, on the spot product” only half a century old.
That such conditions would be placed on granting permission for the old rite – and it is arguable whether they apply here since the speech that made waves is *not* the official position of FMC – makes me realize how far we have still to go.
I’m pretty much a Ratzingerian on matters liturgical: from time to time reform is necessary, SC was fine, but the implementation of SC was mechanical, etc. etc.
So I’m not going to say that the OF is perfect. But I don’t think that it’s the disaster that some think, nor that the widespread return of the EF/TLM would solve many — let alone all — of our problems.
fwiw.
You might want to do an indepth comparison between the VO and the NO. It is quite enlightening. Additionally, the last NO I attended (a few months ago) was more like a Pentecostal tent revival meeting than a Mass. Unfortunately, one never knows what one will find at a NO Mass. I say this as a Catholic of six years who has attended NO Masses for the majority of that time, in places as diverse as New York, Virginia and Texas. The ‘variety’ with the NO Mass does not lend itself to a universal Church. If I may say so, the NO Mass is quite Protestant. Said as a former Protesant of a certain age. 😉
This actually sheds some light on the interpretation of #19. It’s a lot less restrictive than some would like it to be:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/08/important-pced-response-to-two-dubia-about-legitimacy-in-universae-ecclesiae/
You know how I consider it Steve. What about you? Do you consider it problematic if a person’s professed devotion to the TLM leads them to outrightly reject the entire second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo? People who do this aren’t honoring the TLM, they’re abusing it.
Those of us who speak against the Judas Council Revolution and its “new springtime” sometimes fail to specify that we reject only its errors, ambiguities, and novelties. We embrace anything in it that’s consistent with the perennial faith.
For various resources fleshing this out, I recommend seeing the list in the “Show more” box in the “About” section of the first video on the crisis in the Church featured on my linked channel.
It is true that someone who regularly attends the TLM will most likely see the council and the New Mass as a sham. The contrast is too stark. It’s why the progressives in the Church have fought so hard against the return of the Church’s age-old liturgy.
And I would argue that the new Mass is a sham – licit, valid, and a sham. It is “a thing that is not what it is purported to be.” It is not sacred, though ensconced in its shabby midst is a sacred mystery. That’s the tragedy of it: it undermines the faith through its core validity. We can’t just throw it out. But the trappings, the externals, the aesthetics, the anthropology of worship, the prayers, the omissions – they all serve to undermine what we have always believed and make our liturgy far more acceptable to Protestants. Rather than drawing them in by being special, we make them feel good by being the same.
As for the council? There’s nothing in it that requires assent that wasn’t already a part of Church teaching. It’s a pastoral council. It carries no weight.
Even Sacrosanctum Concilium, arguably the centerpiece of the council, should have been applied to the existing liturgy, not used as an excuse to fabricate a new one out of whole cloth.
Considering how the whole Church rejected the liturgy that had nourished it for so many centuries, I don’t want to hear any carping about a handful of people rejecting the Novus Ordo. I reject it. I try not to have anything to do with it unless necessity demands it. I think it’s bad. I think it will damage the faith of my children. I wish it had never happened.
But even though I think these things; even if I thought more, and worse, I wouldn’t be abusing the TLM by finding it superior. You could argue that I am abusing the NO by finding it inferior, but never that I am abusing something legitimate for finding it beautiful and worthy and knowing that pretty much every saint in the canon and hundreds of popes besides did as well.
Meerk: I’m not going to respond to your first question as it makes no sense in light of anything I wrote. However, with respect to your second, professors at the college, out of a misguided attempt to defend the TLM and Sacred Tradition, claimed that the second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo should be entirely rejected. And in so doing, yes, they were categorically misunderstanding the fundamental purpose for which the TLM and Sacred Tradition exist; again, that purpose is to enrich the faith and sanctify the faithful. But instead, these individuals were attacking the faith and causing a danger to souls. And since this was taking place on the college at large, it was appropriate for the Bishop to censure the college at large. It also makes sense out of why he would make the TLM available to the faithful at a nearby parish; namely, because he knows the TLM is beneficial to souls when professed love for the rite is not being used as a smokescreen to attack a valid Ecumenical Council.
You’re not going to respond to my first question because you can’t. No one can. With respect to my second question, which professors, when, what exactly did they say? how do you know? where is the evidence? did these mystery professors argue Vat II should be entirely rejected for the sake of argument, or were they exhorting others to flee the church? There is a huge difference. Were they all saying the exact same thing? how many professors? what percentage of the faculty? 60%? 2%? those “in the know” seem to say one or two guys max were offenders. And even assuming the worst of “professors at the college” of unknown quantity and identity, how in turn does eliminating the TLM for the *entire community* solve this problem? … Wow. I had erroneously believed after 2002 catholics would be a little more curious and a little less passive.
Alphonsus, Dr. Dudley didn’t fail to specify anything. As quoted about he advocated that it was of GREATEST IMPORTANCE to reject the ENTIRE second Vatican Council:
“We need to be aware that the modern Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 is simply an implementation of the instructions laid down by the Second Vatican Council… There are so many passages that contradict traditional teaching that I would argue that it is of the greatest importance to entirely reject the II Vatican Council”.
The suppression of the VO is the core issue. If you believe that it is indeed a valid method to bring an individual(s) to a proper Catholic state then you must believe it was quite correct for bishops the world over to suppress it after V2, too. So how did that work out? Yeah.
Indeed. A single drop of poison spoils the whole soup.
Yeah, that’s what God says about me. oh wait
Many are baffled that a bishop would do this. They don’t understand that a war is raging.
Bishops and priests processed by the Judas Council have long recognized that the traditional Mass is a grave threat to the success of the Judas Council Revolution. Thus they’ve rabidly sought to destroy it. This predator bishop in Fort Worth has acted according to a long line of precedent since the Judas Council, and now having Pope Francis at the vanguard of the Judas Council Revolution, he’s full of confidence.
The question now is whether Fisher More will cave in. Unfortunately, there are certain indications that they’re merely “conservatives” rather than traditionalists or counter-revolutionaries (e.g., they readily use Orwellian, Conciliar newspeak such as “Extraordinary Form” to refer to the traditional Mass). As has become painfully clear, “conservatives” are actually the best friends of Judas Council revolutionaries. This is because, cloaked with a sheen of sanctity, they be counted on to roll over in slavish obedience to every atrocity committed by predator bishops and priests formed by the Judas Council Revolution. Let’s hope Fisher More turns out to be a traditionalist and counter-revolutionary outfit. In other words, let’s hope they turn out to be Catholic.
“At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm.”
-Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Prologue to his book, Spiritual Journey
Alphonsus, I too believe a war is raging. I still think it’s better for trads to remain in the church and infiltrate from within — like the modernists have — “infiltrate back”, if you will. I am, however, losing patience with fellow “conservative” catholics who insist on rolling over time and time again. It’s our obligation to make things difficult for bishops like Olson, who have such explicit antipathy for our concerns.
Traditionalists have never left the Church. Search for this essay:
Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara
Great, neither have I.
Meerk: I cited the source on my first post on this thread from 4 March, 2014 at 3:18 pm. Here it is again:
http://fishermore.edu/wp-content/uploads/Dudley-Faith-in-Europe.pdf
I have also, in two posts now, quoted the FMC professor Dr. Dudley advocating for the rejection of the entire second Vatican Council.
I don’t have time to read it now, but I’d have to be persuaded that he wasn’t merely undertaking an intellectual exercise. Plus, that’s one professor. One guy. Shut down the whole community’s reason for being because of one professor?
He rejects the entire Judas Council in the same way that an entire bowl of soup must be rejected if it has even one drop of poison. In doing so, he’s rejecting the poison, not anything healthy that must be tossed along with it in order to get rid of the poison.
The many drops of poison in the Judas Council (e.g., ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, reconception of the priesthood, anthropocentrism….) necessitate tossing aside the entire Judas Council. This doesn’t mean, however, that we reject anything of the Faith, as this was of course in place before the Judas Council. What we reject are the errors, ambiguities, and novelties of this Judas Council and its blasted “new springtime.”
Some essential reading on these errors, ambiguities, and novelties:
http://angeluspress.org/Catechism-of-the-Crisis
&
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page56/errors_of_vatican_ii.html
Look, I’m all for traditional polemics where effective, but calling it “The Judas Council” just sounds hyperbolic and silly. Can we call it what it was called, and simply make the case that it was the betrayal of tradition?
Okay (on your blog). But there’s nothing hyperbolic about it.
“At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm.”
-Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Prologue to his book, Spiritual Journey
St. Benedict’s Thistle: I do not believe that the suppression of the TLM after the second Vatican Council was correct as it is not at all analogous to the situation at FMC. Again, at FMC the TLM itself was being abused, inasmuch as professed affection for the venerable rite was being used as a platform to reject the entire second Vatican Council as well as the Novus Ordo. This is a terrible and abusive way to use the TLM. As such it was appropriate for the Bishop to remove it from the hands of the abusers. In the case of the suppression of the TLM after the second Vatican Council, since no one was at that time abusing the TLM – as they were at FMC – I think the suppression was a terrible thing to do.
Brian, unless you have inside knowledge that the TLM was a “platform to reject the entire second Vatican Council…” you are purely speculating.
To suggest it surely invites further speculation that instituting the NO Mass was a platform to reject the TLM and Church tradition before V2, right?
I’d be very amazed if even 5% of the parsehionirs live within the parish boundaries. The area used to be heavily populated with Poles, but then practically the whole neighborhood was industrialized, the Kennedy expressway came through destroying much of the housing, people moved out to the suburbs, etc. Until Fr. Philipps took over, the church had practically no raison d’etre.About fifteen years ago a friend took me to a Tridentine Mass in the early stages of Fr. Philip’s tenure. It was very thinly attended, the liturgy was wooden, and the schola was nigh unbearable. However, he persisted and the results are wonderful. In fact, he has founded a new order based at the church with no shortage of vocations. They have a satellite parish at St. Peter’s in Volo, another lovely, lovely church, in the far northern, rural reaches of the archdiocese, also with the TLM and the NO Mass in Latin.One delightful irony is that, since the Church is not far from center city, the expressway system the devastated the parish in the mid fifties now carries practically the entire population of the parish to the church from all corners of the metropolitan area. Even from 25 miles out it is only 25 minutes away on a Sunday morning.
Ugh. This… well, it just plain sucks. I think many, if not all, of us who follow Schuyler’s story have believed (hoped?) that with her anything is possible, and that she would beat the odds on this front too. You guys went into battle to find the best solutions for everything she has faced before and succeeded tremendously. Dust off those rubber swords, and keep us posted.
Effectively written write-up, Glad I’m able to locate a web site with some understanding plus a fantastic writing style. You maintain publishing and I will contiune to keep browsing.
Thanks for explaining that… I just started blogging again after about a year. I was not fully understanding the whole link party deal… Every time I ask someone I never really get an answer, so I appreciate your post greatly!Bristol
SHE WASNT SURE ABOUT CATS I HAVE ONE ..PLEASE MAKE SURE THEY TAKE CARE OF DARTMOUTH HE SHOULD HAVE A LOVING HOME I STILL MISS MY DOG PAL HE LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE DARTMOUTH ,HE ALSO DIED AT 13YEARS .
Älskar din blogg! Men bli sjukt besviken på pälsjackan..med din populära blogg borde du ta ställning MOT pälsindusstrin inte FÖR! Hoppas på skärpning, annars förlorar du iaf mig som läsare..Kram Emma
I wish I was a fly on the wall for that conversation HA! [ .fqkj{position:absolute;clip:rect(445px,auto,auto,488px);}approval ] .fqkj{position:absolute;clip:rect(445px,auto,auto,488px);}approval Reply:March 4th, 2011 at 1:03 pmMe too! Why am I always alone when these things happen? [ .fqkj{position:absolute;clip:rect(445px,auto,auto,488px);}approval ] .fqkj{position:absolute;clip:rect(445px,auto,auto,488px);}approval Reply:March 4th, 2011 at 1:03 pmMe too! Why am I always alone when these things happen? [ .fqkj{position:absolute;clip:rect(445px,auto,auto,488px);}approval ]
Just like all other HBO productions, 24/7 is only available to watch if one has an HBO subscription, assuming you do, you can visit HBO.com to get the full Pacquiao Bradley 24/7 schedule. If for some reason you
Interesting. Sort of a modernized, pre-farkled TW200. Looks like those tires are even Teedub sizes.Funny how at first glance, I thought, “WTF is that thing? Fugly!” But after looking at it for a bit, I’ve started to kind of like it.
I was extremely pleased to find this site. I sought to say thanks to you for your free time, for this excellent read!! I am undoubtedly loving every little of information and I have you saved as a favorite to check out new stuff you post.