Fisher More college banned from celebrating EF

[ProVobis]

If I post a link to a site on my own site, that’s a conscious choice.

Suppose I were the principal of a Catholic college, and placed a link to a Sedevacantist site, or “Maria Divine Mercy”, on my homepage, would it still be excused just because “the Internet is linked”?

Okay, then should the entire youtube be banned because someone provided those undesirable sites along the sides of another video you happen to be watching? We’re getting into some deep legal and moral issues when talking links here, it seems.

 

[clem456]

Perhaps more importantly the issue of what can be taught at an institution of higher learning is at stake too. I hope it doesn’t come down to that. Suppressing knowledge is not a good thing IMO. The Index of Forbidden Books was removed in 1965 for good reason.

The Church is not a democracy.
A Catholic institution must be obedient to the Church.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Brendan]

Ummm, wow…

Spirituality…which spirituality? Spirituality in a vague sense? Or Catholic spirituality?

The Church maintains a wide variety of spiritualties. Ignatian spirituality is distinct from Fransician, which is distict from Dominican.

Every Order and even every ministry maintains a unique spirituality, the mode by which the Holy Spirit operates with that endovor to bring about the salvation of souls.

I am quite surprised that you are unaware of the multitude of spiritualities that operate within the Church.

Catholic spirituality is always always always (did I say always?) in obedience to the Church.

To claim that celebrating the OF of the Mass is not compatible with a Catholic mission is just nonsense, as other posters have pointed out.

Why, there are several religious orders (all recognized by the Church) that do exactly that. The FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, and Canons Regular of St. John Cantius have as their part of their charism and spirituality to celebrant the EF as their normative Mass.

So your claim runs contrary to the understanding of the Church.

 

[clem456]

Why, there are two religious orders (both recognized by the Church) that do exactly that. The FSSP and Canons Regular of St. John Cantius have as their part of their charism and spirituality to celebrant the EF as their normative Mass.

So your claim runs contrary to the understanding of the Church.

Brendan…they have permission.
This college does not.


Catholic spirituality must be Catholic. Disobedience to the Church is not part of Catholic spirituality.
NOT VERY COMPLICATED.

 

[RPRPsych]

Okay, then should the entire youtube be banned because someone provided the similar sites along the sides of a video you happen to be watching?

No, YouTube is a secular site.

But as a Catholic educator, I would - out of prudence and obedience - not link such material to my website. That could lead to scandal.

 

[steymard]

Re the blue, you are entitled to express your opinion, but that does not make it correct and in fact, misleads others.

Re your misstatement on altar servers in the EF:

zenit.org/en/articles/female-servers-in-the-extraordinary-form

Point taken about altar servers - I am sorry. I was incorrect, but was not intending to mislead.

I still respectfully disagree on the meaning and application of “extraordinary” and “ordinary”; I think that even when you attribute the meaning of “frequency” to these terms, it applies to the Church as a whole and can only be understood that way. This is why in the diocese of Campos (i.e. the Apostolic Administration of St. John Marie Vianney), for example, the celebration of the extraordinary form is normative and yet the EF nonetheless remains “extraordinary” for the Church and the NO remains “ordinary”, and no directive of Pope Benedict XVI has been denied. This would also apply to religious orders who exclusively celebrate the extraordinary form. To claim that the word “extraordinary” means that these religious orders MUST make the NO their usual form would certainly, in my mind, read the term incorrectly, but that is what this particular interpretation seems to lead to.

Fisher More has a right to claim that part of its charism is celebration of the extraordinary form.

 

[Brooklyn]

Okay, then should the entire youtube be banned because someone provided the similar sites along the sides of a video you happen to be watching?

It’s almost not worth answering this, but youtube is not promoting an agenda. I’s just there for anyone to post just about anything.

But Fisher More is suppose to be promoting the Catholic Church and, as such, obedience to the Magesterium. To provide links to organizations that are at odds with the Magesterium is just wrong and disobedient. How would you feel if they had links to satanist cults? Would that upset you? Would anything upset you?

 

[digitalpapist]

Let’s post some links from the Remnant. I truly dislike doing this - it’s like touching pitch, and I feel defiled - but the truth must be told. (I didn’t touch CFN, so I’ll let those who brought it up handle that.)

1. Contempt towards the late Pope Paul VI, and questioning the miracle that leads to his beatification:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/305-vatican-congregation-declares-novus-ordo-miracle-for-canonization-of-paul-vi

1. Questioning the validity of Benedict XVI’s abdication and showing contempt for Pope Francis, despite the words of Pope Benedict XVI to the contrary:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/274-latest-updates-from-socci-the-papal-games

1. Outright rejection of Pope Benedict’s teaching on the hermeneutic of continuity, which has been endorsed by Pope Francis:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/221-the-hermeneutic-of-continuity-or-adventures-in-bluffing

1. Encouraging readers to visit the schismatic SSPX and stay away from the Church:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/233-what-would-jesus-do-with-the-sspx

1. Creating a false division and accusing all those who disagree with them of being “neo-Catholic”:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/108-the-trad-bash

1. Wilful denigration and misrepresentation of another Catholic apostolate:

remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/94-a-catholic-answer-to-catholic-answers

If a Baptist or Pentecostal site posted this trash, they’d be immediately called out for anti-Catholicism. These guys don’t get a free pass simply because they throw the words Latin Mass, Fatima and Pius X out at the latest opportunity. St. Pius X would weep to see this digital buffoonery.

Oh please. If I’m the principal of a Catholic college, charged with forming their souls, and I recommend schismatic junk to them, do you think it’ll have no impact on them whatsoever? If I linked to Veronica Lueken or Call to Action, would you excuse me saying that “students aren’t going to be impacted anyway?”

It could be. Even if it isn’t, there is a serious case to be answered.

Calumny? They are convicted out of their own mouths.

1. Paul VI hasn’t been raised to the altars yet; it is legitimate to criticize aspects of the cause so far.
2. The article was printed before Benedict made the denunciation, and is a translation of the Sochi article.
3. One is not obliged to accept the hermeneutic of continuity; the FSSP does not take a position on this, for example, and neither was there a condition for the SSPX to accept such a hermeneutic in the doctrinal preamble. And yes, I actually do accept the hermeneutic of continuity.
4. If your choice is a parish with a Mass riddled with liturgical abuses, priests preaching heresy, and a gay and lesbian ministry, then yes, I would tell people to fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel too.
5. You really don’t see how many Catholics, who are generally orthodox, absolutely malign those traditionalists who believe in the EF, the Social Kingship of Christ, etc?
6. That article was in a response where Catholic Answers premiered a two hour program which engaged in, your words, “Wilful denigration and misrepresentation of another Catholic apostolate”. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Furthermore, and here’s the rub: How is banning the TLM a solution to any of these problems. Why not ban links to the Remnant on the website, or have the faculty make clear their beliefs on the matter? Why ban the Mass?

Why is that the course of action?

 

[digitalpapist]

It’s almost not worth answering this, but youtube is not promoting an agenda. I’s just there for anyone to post just about anything.

But Fisher More is suppose to be promoting the Catholic Church and, as such, obedience to the Magesterium. To provide links to organizations that are at odds with the Magesterium is just wrong and disobedient. How would you feel if they had links to satanist cults? Would that upset you? Would anything upset you?

Are you seriously comparing the Remnant to satanic cults?

 

[ProVobis]

The Church is not a democracy.
A Catholic institution must be obedient to the Church.

Then the issue becomes whether the institution can call itself Catholic or not. Is that it? I’d be careful of that argument as many times even asking for state subsidies can compromise that position. I know as I went to such a university for my masters in business in classrooms of priests.

 

[steymard]

Brendan…they have permission.
This college does not.


Catholic spirituality must be Catholic. Disobedience to the Church is not part of Catholic spirituality.
NOT VERY COMPLICATED.

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 mentioned permission. Permission is granted by Summorum Pontificum. There are several religious institutes that make use of that permission without any further granting of permission from Ecclesia Dei or the local bishop. This is, ultimately, the issue at stake in the situation in Fort Worth and will hopefully be resolved soon by appeal to the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei.

 

[RPRPsych]

1. Paul VI hasn’t been raised to the altars yet; it is legitimate to criticize aspects of the cause so far.

By calling it a “Novus Ordo Miracle”? That’s contemptible. In the good old days that these “traditionals” paradoxically yearn for, men would have been arrested and censured for less.

1. The article was printed before Benedict made the denunciation, and is a translation of the Sochi article.

That does not give them the right to indulge in prurient speculation. They are no better than the liberal rags who claim Benedict resigned because he had dementia, or was going to be tried at the UN for “crimes against humanity”.

1. One is not obliged to accept the hermeneutic of continuity; the FSSP does not take a position on this, for example, and neither was there a condition for the SSPX to accept such a hermeneutic in the doctrinal preamble. And yes, I actually do accept the hermeneutic of continuity.

True. But as the authoritative opinion of a Pontiff, it must be debated respectfully - not dismissed as “bluffing”. Again, in the good old days, such speech simply couldn’t have flown. **This is the paradox of the “resistance” gang: they use the liberals’ freedom of speech, and the Protestants’ tactics, in the service of their own version of Catholicism. **

1. If your choice is a parish with a Mass riddled with liturgical abuses, priests preaching heresy, and a gay and lesbian ministry, then yes, I would tell people to fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel too.

Why not a Sedevacantist chapel while we’re about it? Or an Evangelical Protestant chapel which denounces gay marriage? This sort of thinking leads one down a rabbit hole.

1. You really don’t see how many Catholics, who are generally orthodox, absolutely malign those traditionalists who believe in the EF, the Social Kingship of Christ, etc?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

1. That article was in a response where Catholic Answers premiered a two hour program which engaged in, your words, “Wilful denigration and misrepresentation of another Catholic apostolate”. Pot, Kettle, Black.

I’ll take Catholic Answers over any crypto-Protestant “resistance” movement any day, thank you.

Furthermore, and here’s the rub: How is banning the TLM a solution to any of these problems. Why not ban links to the Remnant on the website, or have the faculty make clear their beliefs on the matter? Why ban the Mass?

Why is that the course of action?

Well, let’s hear some more facts before we assume the Bishop was wrong. Perhaps those Masses were used as bully pulpits to preach “resistance” values. And besides, by the historical standards of the Holy Office (which the “resistance” crowd idolizes) this is a very light punishment.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan…they have permission.
This college does not.


Catholic spirituality must be Catholic. Disobedience to the Church is not part of Catholic spirituality.
NOT VERY COMPLICATED.

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

To claim that celebrating the OF of the Mass is not compatible with a Catholic mission is just nonsense, as other posters have pointed out.

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.

 

[Brendan]

I
You mentioned permission. Permission is granted by Summorum Pontificum. There are several religious institutes that make use of that permission without any further granting of permission from Ecclesia Dei or the local bishop. This is, ultimately, the issue at stake in the situation in Fort Worth and will hopefully be resolved soon by appeal to the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei.

In all fairness, Religious Orders are not generally subject to the local bishop, unless they are of Diocesan Right ( established by the bishop himself)

A Religious Order is responsible to the their Religious Superior in such matters. If the Religious Superior grants exclusive use of the EF, the local bishop has no authority to say otherwise. That is clear from both S.P. and the normative practices of the Church.

Such is not true for the a chapel at a Catholic university. Those are, in fact subject to the bishop.

 

[RPRPsych]

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

Point well made.

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.

“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.

 

[steymard]

Why not a Sedevacantist chapel while we’re about it? Or an Evangelical Protestant chapel which denounces gay marriage? This sort of thinking leads one down a rabbit hole.

Attendance at an SSPX chapel (not reception of the sacrament of Penance or Marriage, mind you) licitly fulfills one’s Sunday obligation according to Canon 1248.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

I do not intend to promote the SSPX, and adhering to them out of a schismatic mentality is dangerous and should be discouraged. But fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation there can legitimately be defended according to canon law, and attending SSPX chapels on Sunday does not necessarily make you a person with a schismatic mentality.

 

[clem456]

I think he was talking about

This is what he actually said.

Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
The question IS, what is the charism of the college? Each spirituality has it’s own calling by which souls are to be formed.
The FSSP and CRoSJC both have a charism to form souls via the Extraordinary Form. And that charism is recognized by the Church.

So I would say that you are in error, it IS reasonable for a Traditional Catholic movement to claim that the EF is essential (core to the essence of) their mission

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.

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 mentioned permission. Permission is granted by Summorum Pontificum. There are several religious institutes that make use of that permission without any further granting of permission from Ecclesia Dei or the local bishop. This is, ultimately, the issue at stake in the situation in Fort Worth and will hopefully be resolved soon by appeal to the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei.

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?

If the Church says something else on appeal, great.

 

[RPRPsych]

Attendance at an SSPX chapel (not reception of the sacrament of Penance or Marriage, mind you) licitly fulfills one’s Sunday obligation according to Canon 1248.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

I do not intend to promote the SSPX, and adhering to them out of a schismatic mentality is dangerous and should be discouraged. But fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation can legitimately be defended according to canon law, and attending SSPX chapels on Sunday does not necessarily make you a person with a schismatic mentality.

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.

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.

 

[steymard]

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.

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?

If the Church says something else on appeal, great.

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?

 

[Cider]

How can they legally be banned from celebrating the EF, after SP? Ok I see the article on Rorate on it. So the Bishop banned the EF. I don’t think he has the power to do that, according to SP.