Fisher More college banned from celebrating EF

[ProVobis]

Would anything upset you?

Of course. And I wouldn’t be posting here at all if it weren’t for

Quattuor Abhinc Annos
Ecclesia Dei
Summorum Pontificum
Universae Ecclesiae
Veterum Sapientia
SC 36.1
Voluntati Obsequens
Canon 249

Just saying.

 

[landon13]

The Holy See permits the practice of the Extraordinary Form. The faithful have a RIGHT to receive the Eucharist and to practice the ad orientem rite of the mass.

This is one of the few places here in north Texas that Latin mass can be celebrated and I think it is RIDICULOUS that a bishop would restrict it for arbitrary reasons for “the care of the students” and the “soul” of the president of the college.

What good would Bishop Olson have in banning the celebration of the Extraordinary Form? It is permitted by the Holy See to be practiced. It was permitted by Vatican 2 to be celebrated.

I don’t attend the Latin Mass because there are very few parishes here that celebrate it and the nearest is over an hour and a half away. But I know that Pope Emeritus Benedixt XVI made it pretty clear in his Summorum Pontificum that the TLM should be permitted to be celebrated.

The bishop gave no reasons for his banning of the TLM whatsoever. Unless his reasoning would be against traditionalism. I don’t know.

I pray that this can be resolved soon and that these students will get the traditionalism that they strove for and the traditionalism that led them to attend Fisher More. At this point, I am not considering attending Fisher More for college because it doesn’t hold TLM anymore.

God bless!

 

[Brendan]

“not a part of their mission” does not equate to “incompatible”. As Pope Benedict would be the first to remind us, even those orders have to accept the validity of the OF, though they do not offer it.

“incompatable” was the term that Clem used, and I was simply quoting him

The term used by the college was that the EF was ‘essential’ to their mission.

And I would claim as the college is the one who defined their mission, they would be the resource to define what Catholic practices were essential to that mission, not any of us.

I for example, am aware of a Lay apostolate that promotes Divine Mercy. Thus the Divine Mercy chaplet is essential to their mission. It is at the essence of their mission.

The apostolate does not say, promote or even use the Liturgy of the Hours, for example, as it is not essential to their mission. The Liturgy of the Hours is not the essence of what they promote.

Does it mean that they claim the LotH is invalid, No. Does their lack of celebration of the Divine Office mean that their work or mission is somehow defective? No

What it DOES mean is that the essence of their work to promote the salvation of souls simply does not include that particular practice. They have chosen to focus on their work on a different means. One that they feel the world will be better off if the practice was more widespread?

Why is this any different?

 

[clem456]

I understand that, and they stopped when the bishop told them to do so. So where exactly is the disobedience?

Then why are we even having this discussion?

But as I have demonstrated, there certainly ARE Catholic Ministries that where the OF is clearly NOT a part of their mission. In fact for all three of those Orders, the EF is part of the essence (thus ‘essential’) to their mission.

Ok, but if they are told to celebrate one or the other, that shouldn’t detract from their mission.

 

[Stopslander]

Agree. This notice is posted on Fisher More’s website:

IOW, since the bishop suspended the EF, they will not offer the OF either. It deprives the students of celebrating the liturgy simply because they are not celebrated according to the EF. Sounds like blackmail to me.

Please stop the dramatics, consider why they might be suspending Daily Mass right now, to my knowledge they had been bringing in a FSSP priest, to say the EF, now that they can’t, they have 6/7 days of the week to fill, that’s not an easy task without a regular chaplain, and the FSSP don’t/can’t say the OF, so they have to find priests who are willing to say the OF, ad orientem, since their chapel was built with that in mind.

And I just ask for the people here to not generalize the students, I actually know some who attend and they are not sedevacantist/resistance sspx types by any means, many of the students come from FSSP, Diocesan TLM’s and conservative OF’s. and are loyal to the Church.

 

[steymard]

The key words here are “Catholic rite” - that is, either Latin or Eastern. I don’t think that canon was written specifically to give the SSPX an out.

No, but since the SSPX clearly celebrate a Catholic rite, a fortiori attendance fulfills the Sunday obligation according to canon 1248.

Given Abp. Muller’s recent comments about the canonical standing of the SSPX, I think we should be cautious here. Yes, in a case of dire emergency, perhaps attending such a Mass would be valid. But issuing that as a routine recommendation simply because one parish priest is heterodox is problematic. There will surely be other non-SSPX Masses in the situation described in that link.

I do think we should be cautious here, of course. I think the people who go to confession at SSPX chapels are in much, much more muddy ground. My opinion regarding Sunday obligation is shared by many faithful Catholics who do not condone the SSPX (for a publicly available example, see Fr. Z) and so I regard it as a not un-Catholic position, so to say.

 

[RPRPsych]

“incompatable” was the term that Clem used, and I was simply quoting him

The term used by the college was that the EF was ‘essential’ to their mission.

And I would claim as the college is the one who defined their mission, they would be the resource to define what Catholic practices were essential to that mission, not any of us.

I for example, am aware of a Lay apostolate that promotes Divine Mercy. Thus the Divine Mercy chaplet is essential to their mission. It is at the essence of their mission.

The apostolate does not say, promote or even use the Liturgy of the Hours, for example, as it is not essential to their mission. The Liturgy of the Hours is not the essence of what they promote.

Does it mean that they claim the LotH is invalid, No. Does their lack of celebration of the Divine Office mean that their work or mission is somehow defective? No

What it DOES mean is that the essence of their work to promote the salvation of souls simply does not include that particular practice. They have chosen to focus on their work on a different means. One that they feel the world will be better off if the practice was more widespread?

Why is this any different?

I agree with you. However, given the other issues raised in this thread, I don’t think it’s just the EF that’s the issue here. The issue is (to paraphrase Pope Francis) the politicization of the EF.

 

[Brendan]

This is what he actually said.

Claiming that celebration of a particular form of the one Sacrifice of the Mass is essential to core of their Catholic mission, while another form is not, over top of the wishes of the Church. We are either Catholic of we are not. New age spirituality does it’s own thing, Catholic spirituality does not.

And my claim is that there already ARE recognized Orders that make consider the EF to be the essence of their Catholic mission.

So, yes that is certainly permissible.

Review your own bolded words above. “faithful to the Holy See”.
Is a charism some sort of new age passion now in our modernist world, subject to personal whims? Or is it given by God through the Church?

And, as I have stated, they complied with the instructions of the local bishop, so where exactly have they departed from the Holy See?

If the Church says something else on appeal, great.

Excellent.

 

[clem456]

Religious orders are able to say that celebration of the EF is essential to the core of their Catholic mission. Why cannot a college do the same?

They did do the same.

The Church said different.

It ain’t very complicated.

 

[RPRPsych]

No, but since the SSPX clearly celebrate a Catholic rite, a fortiori attendance fulfills the Sunday obligation according to canon 1248.

I do think we should be cautious here, of course. I think the people who go to confession at SSPX chapels are in much, much more muddy ground. My opinion regarding Sunday obligation is shared by many faithful Catholics who do not condone the SSPX (for a publicly available example, see Fr. Z) and so I regard it as a not un-Catholic position, so to say.

Good point.

 

[ProVobis]

Please stop the dramatics, consider why they might be suspending Daily Mass right now, to my knowledge they had been bringing in a FSSP priest, to say the EF, now that they can’t, they have 6/7 days of the week to fill, that’s not an easy task without a regular chaplain, and the FSSP don’t/can’t say the OF, so they have to find priests who are willing to say the OF, ad orientem, since their chapel was built with that in mind.

And I just ask for the people here to not generalize the students, I actually know some who attend and they are not sedevacantist/resistance sspx types by any means, many of the students come from FSSP, Diocesan TLM’s and conservative OF’s. and are loyal to the Church.

Thank you for this post. I believe there is a moral code against branding of such kind. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[steymard]

Ok, but if they are told to celebrate one or the other, that shouldn’t detract from their mission.

If the EF is indeed essential to a group’s charism and mission, and that which is essential is forbidden, then it will detract from the essence of their mission.

I say this because (echoing the poster above):

If the Divine Mercy chaplet is essential to a group’s charism and mission, and the use of the Divine Mercy chaplet is forbidden, then it will detract from the essence of their mission.

This post is not meant to discuss or debate authority, just the question of charism and mission.

 

[Cider]

My point is that there is more to this than meets the eye. The Chancellor resigned two years ago over statements about the validity of the Second Vatican Council. The school clearly has issues.

Personally, I’ll be happy when this divisive Summorum Pontificum nonsense ends and we have one Mass for everyone.

-Tim-

Well thanks for finally posting that, and making it clear.

 

[Sirach2]

Steymard:

I think he was talking about charism. To make the celebration of the EF as part of one’s charism is perfectly legitimate and is **practiced in several orders **faithful to the Holy See. It is perplexing when what can be a charism of a religious order cannot somehow be a charism of a university. Wherein lies the difference?

You cannot equate a religious order or dedicated ministry to the church, such as St. John Cantius or FSSP, whose very purpose is liturgy and religious life, with a public college.

Here is where this gets dicey. There is a principle in law. Anything that is extraordinary ceases to be an obligation. That much is clear. If it is not an obligation, it is an option. In other words, the Church allows it, but she does not require it. Something that the Church allows, but does not require is not the same as a right. It begs the question. If it is not a right, then what is it?

The students may choose to attend the EF, but cannot be obligated to do so since the OF is presently denied to them. I suspect this is at the root of the Bishop’s decision, especially since the college refused to offer the OF after the suspension was issued. Their public statement appears to limit the students’ choice to the administration’s own belief and choice of traditionalism. If this is made clear upon their registration, then only traditionalist students can register - - the college becomes rigidly exclusionary, and that may be why it is failing.

Why the Traditional Liturgy is essential to the mission of the College:
Lex Orandi – We pray the Traditional Latin Mass and the associated rich Sacred Liturgy that has been passed down to us through the ages. We are certain that fidelity to the usus antiquior is essential to achieving our mission. [which is *what?]

TimothyH:

The Chancellor resigned two years ago over statements about the validity of the Second Vatican Council. The school clearly has issues.

This is very telling, Tim. One of our members was banned for his wrongful views on V-II, and he happens to be an administrator at F.M. College.

 

[Cider]

I think we, who have disagreed in the past, are on the same page here. There is much distrust. Christ prayed for unity in John 17. This is not it.

I would not only give my assent but would embrace whatever the Church proposed for the salvation of my soul.

-Tim-

Then assent and embrace summorium pontificum after all it was promulgated by Pope Benedict.

 

[steymard]

They did do the same.

The Church said different.

It ain’t very complicated.

All right. I brought it up because the very concept of the the EF being essential to the college’s mission was attacked previously (I forget who did so) and I wanted to push back against that particular idea.

 

[clem456]

All right. I brought it up because the very concept of the the EF being essential to the college’s mission was attacked previously (I forget who did so) and I wanted to push back against that particular idea.

For an institution to value the EF as part of their mission is wonderful.
For the same institution to be knocked off mission by following the Church’s directive to celebrate the same Mass in a different form…that says something about the authenticity of the leadership’s charism, and their commitment to Catholic tradition.

 

[steymard]

You cannot equate a religious order or dedicated ministry to the church, such as St. John Cantius or FSSP, whose very purpose is liturgy and religious life, with a public college.

It is a stretch, in my opinion, to say that a particular liturgy cannot have a place in the charism of a college. Liturgies educate. Fisher More had chosen to be educated and taught by the EF.

 

[steymard]

For an institution to value the EF as part of their mission is wonderful.
For the same institution to be knocked off mission by following the Church’s directive to celebrate the same Mass in a different form…that says something about the authenticity of the leadership’s charism, and their commitment to Catholic tradition.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you said. What do you mean by “knocked off mission”?

 

[Sirach2]

It is a stretch, in my opinion, to say that a particular liturgy cannot have a place in the charism of a college. Liturgies educate. Fisher More had chosen to be educated and taught by the EF.

This is becoming rather circular. But, is it a lawful charism worthy of a public institution? Again, this is not a religious order. Can a public college limit itself to adhering only to traditionalism, to the sole exclusion of the norm (OF)? We will see how this bishop considers this issue. It may turn out to be another situation like the FFI wherein Pope Francis intervened to curtail abuses. We are simply not privy to the inter-workings of this matter, yet some have faulted the Bishop, as if the College has every right to do as they please.