Fisher More college banned from celebrating EF

[TimothyH]

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?

Religious orders do not say that forms of the Mass are essential to their mission. What is essential to them is living gospel according to the rule of the founder (Benedict, Francis, etc.).

The public worship of the Church and celebration of the sacraments is a matter of canon law.

• Religious orders have their own ordinaries (superior) and are obedient to the superior of the community in matters of internal discipline, worship and celebration of the sacraments.
• Societies of Apostolic Life are responsible to their own leadership in matters of internal discipline but must submit to the bishop in matters of public worship and celebration of the sacraments.
• Secular diocesan priests must submit to the bishop in matters of discipline, worship and celebration of the sacraments.

Charism is not the same as mission. The mission of all priests is to get themselves to heaven and to drag as many of us with them as possible. Charism is a gift flowing from God which we bring to the Church.

-Tim-

 

[RedCaves]

What an utterly, foolish thing for that…bishop… to do what he did.

Unfortunately, he brought back to life the old stereotype that “Novus Ordo Bishops are inherently against the TLM”

I hope he gets reprimanded and forced to reverse his decision.

Here’s a funny line from his letter:

“I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More as well as for your own soul”

WTH!?

 

[digitalpapist]

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.

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”.

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. **

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.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

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

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.

1. Hardly; neo-ultramontanism is a fairly new phenomen. Dante could place Popes in Hell without raising much of an eyebrow.
2. What “resistance”? No one you are citing is affiliated with the SSPX resistance, or even the SSPX; Ferrara and Matt attend FSSP chapels. And again, historically speaking, the idea that the Pope is beyond earthly criticism is a new idea.
3. The SSPX is recognized as a Catholic organization with an irregular canonical status; their Masses are valid, and can be used to fulfill your Sunday obligation. It is ridiculous to compare them to an Evangelical service.
4. Re: Catholic Answers. Non-sequitur.
5. Anything can be used to preach disobedience. If there are underlying issues, then fix those. Taking away the Mass that has been celebrated for 1500 years by the Church as punishment is egregious; their is no valid for reason for it.

 

[RPRPsych]

What an utterly, foolish thing for that…bishop… to do what he did.

Unfortunately, he brought back to life the old stereotype that “Novus Ordo Bishops are inherently against the TLM”

I hope he gets reprimanded and forced to reverse his decision.

Here’s a funny line from his letter:

"I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More as well as for your own soul"

WTH!?

I can sympathize with your confusion, but as some of us have been saying, perhaps there’s something more to this story.

Note that this letter mentions a meeting. What was discussed during that meeting. I’m sure the Bishop didn’t do this for trifling reasons (if he did, then… ). We need a clear statement from the Bishop concerned about his reasons for this decision.

 

[TimothyH]

What an utterly, foolish thing for that…bishop… to do what he did.

Unfortunately, he brought back to life the old stereotype that “Novus Ordo Bishops are inherently against the TLM”

I hope he gets reprimanded and forced to reverse his decision.

Here’s a funny line from his letter:

"I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More as well as for your own soul"

WTH!?

What is unfortunate is that a private letter from a Bishop to a university president has been plastered all over the Internet.

-Tim-

 

[steymard]

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.

I can see we disagree quite a bit.

(the following is not a response to your post)

I maintain that the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the main body of faithful that attend this chapel - the students, who are part of “the College” and implicitly fall under attack when Fisher More as a whole is labelled. Yes, we should also extend the benefit of the doubt also to the motivations of the bishop and his person. It does not, however, contravene the law of charity to argue that his action itself was not lawful and does not fall under the limits of his jurisdiction as per Summorum Pontificum.

As someone who loves the EF and also loves the proper celebration of the OF, I am saddened when the claim that the EF is being “politicized” is used in a sweeping manner and also when it is used to justify the decision to withhold it. Yes, there are those for whom the EF represents their resistance against lawful church authority. But there are so many of us who dearly love the EF for its particular qualities (the OF has its own charms, don’t get me wrong) and just want to get along living with that treasure in our midst and minding our own business. Yes, there are some schismatically-minded people who attend the EF. But I think that the more the EF is allowed to simply go on, the more ordinary Catholics will occupy it and reduce its perceived threat and reduce the idea that it can even be something political. Pope Benedict XVI wanted these two forms of the liturgy to mutually enrich each other. The EF must exist in a stable form somewhere in order to enrich or be enriched. Summorum Pontificum gave the legislation that would allow this to happen spontaneously, wherever Catholic faithful and a willing priest are gathered.

 

[RedCaves]

What is unfortunate is that a private letter from a Bishop to a university president has been plastered all over the Internet.

-Tim-

Well, at least he won’t get away with shenanigans now that there is a record.

In the past, it was common for bishops to get away with this kind of thing. Not anymore.

 

[RPRPsych]

1. Hardly; neo-ultramontanism is a fairly new phenomen. Dante could place Popes in Hell without raising much of an eyebrow.

Dante was a poet; he wasn’t involved in forming souls. Besides, recent histories of the Papacy suggest that Boniface got a raw deal at the hands of both King Philip and his other critics. Besides, isn’t his Unam Sanctam one of the cornerstones of the traditional teaching Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus, which we all believe?

1. What “resistance”? No one you are citing is affiliated with the SSPX resistance, or even the SSPX; Ferrara and Matt attend FSSP chapels. And again, historically speaking, the idea that the Pope is beyond earthly criticism is a new idea.

I am referring to the “We Resist You To The Face” statement authored by Matt and three others, not the SSPX resistance. While the Pope is not beyond criticism, such criticism cannot be couched as yellow journalism.

1. The SSPX is recognized as a Catholic organization with an irregular canonical status; their Masses are valid, and can be used to fulfill your Sunday obligation. It is ridiculous to compare them to an Evangelical service.

“Can be used” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good. Our actions must build up the Church, not create divisions. If we create those divisions (as when Fellay calls Pope Francis “a Modernist”) he is descending to the level of the Evangelical.

1. Re: Catholic Answers. Non-sequitur.

All right. CAF are big boys, I’ll leave it to them to defend themselves.

1. Anything can be used to preach disobedience. If there are underlying issues, then fix those. Taking away the Mass that has been celebrated for 1500 years by the Church as punishment is egregious; their is no valid for reason for it.

Facts, facts. Without knowing why the Bishop acted this way, all this discussion is just speculation. It’s hard to believe that he acted out of motiveless malignity. Before deciding if a punishment is egregious or not, let us know the offence.

 

[Veritas1994]

This truly is sad that the bishop of Fort Worth has banned this college from celebrating the Extraordinary form of the Mass.

This truly touches me, as I have thought about entering this college. I have been enthusiastic about the start of the college not too long ago. One of the biggest draws to this college was specifically the fact that Mass was celebrated in the Latin form. I known many might not make a big deal about this, but it does to me. I hope the bishop reverses his decision and that the college may be able to continue offering the Mass the way they have been doing.

This is what the bishop’s letter itself told the faculty of Fisher More College

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I3Y7c__yHqM/UxH566h7oaI/AAAAAAAAA6M/bXUWcMh0pNc/s1600/img011.jpg

sorry if the image is too big, I don’t know how to make it smaller.

A couple of people I know have been working on sending letters to different people including the bishop. I truly hope that this gets resolved. I will be praying for both the faculty of Fisher More College, the students, and of course the bishop as well.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, at least he won’t get away with shenanigans now that there is a record.

In the past, it was common for bishops to get away with this kind of thing. Not anymore.

I hate to tell you but there is nothing for the bishop to get away with. He is doing his job and is well within his rights. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the bishop is and is not allowed to do.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

Well, at least he won’t get away with shenanigans now that there is a record.

In the past, it was common for bishops to get away with this kind of thing. Not anymore.

Get away with what?
Shepherding their flock with the authority handed down from Jesus Christ himself, for the benefit of the souls in their care?
What are you talking about exactly?

 

[clem456]

I believe the forum rules prohibit publishing private documents, or at least documents involving third parties that have phone numbers, etc…who have not consented to have them published. I dunno, such a sad state of affairs.

 

[Veritas1994]

I hate to tell you but there is nothing for the bishop to get away with. He is doing his job and is well within his rights. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the bishop is and is not allowed to do.

-Tim-

He is violating Summorum Pontificum and I am pretty sure that Rome will make him reverse his decision

 

[Veritas1994]

Here is what Summorum Pontificum states for those who have not read it

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

 

[RPRPsych]

I believe the forum rules prohibit publishing private documents, or at least documents involving third parties that have phone numbers, etc…who have not consented to have them published. I dunno, such a sad state of affairs.

Whoever leaked this letter and splashed it all over the Internet is also culpable.

 

[agnes_therese]

He is violating Summorum Pontificum and I am pretty sure that Rome will make him reverse his decision

Then you must know details of the meeting and discussions between the Bishop and the college, that the rest of us don’t.

 

[steymard]

I maintain that the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the main body of faithful that attend this chapel - the students, who are part of “the College” and implicitly fall under attack when Fisher More as a whole is labelled. Yes, we should also extend the benefit of the doubt also to the motivations of the bishop and his person. It does not, however, contravene the law of charity to argue that his action itself was not lawful and does not fall under the limits of his jurisdiction as per Summorum Pontificum.

As someone who loves the EF and also loves the proper celebration of the OF, I am saddened when the claim that the EF is being “politicized” is used in a sweeping manner and also when it is used to justify the decision to withhold it. Yes, there are those for whom the EF represents their resistance against lawful church authority. But there are so many of us who dearly love the EF for its particular qualities (the OF has its own charms, don’t get me wrong) and just want to get along living with that treasure in our midst and minding our own business. Yes, there are some schismatically-minded people who attend the EF. But I think that the more the EF is allowed to simply go on, the more ordinary Catholics will occupy it and reduce its perceived threat and reduce the idea that it can even be something political. Pope Benedict XVI wanted these two forms of the liturgy to mutually enrich each other. The EF must exist in a stable form somewhere in order to enrich or be enriched. Summorum Pontificum gave the legislation that would allow this to happen spontaneously, wherever Catholic faithful and a willing priest are gathered.

I add that the frustration of many faithful who love the EF is because of this:

1. EF is restricted because of radicalized supporters

1. Radicalized elements are then more concentrated in low amount of EF parishes because of restriction

1. Non-radicalized elements who request EF are denied because of high concentration of radicalization

1. Repeat

What can you do? Bl. John Paul II called a desire for the EF a “legitimate aspiration” of the faithful.

 

[janeway529]

Just a little reminder about using the instruction for Summorum Pontificum, Universae Ecclesiae, which the good Bishop already knows.

1. 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.

Fisher More College can be seen to have violated this, especially if the Bishop made his decision after meeting with the college’s administration.

 

[clem456]

Here is what Summorum Pontificum states for those who have not read it

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Do you think the Bishop has read this and understands it?

 

[clem456]

The frustration of many faithful who love the EF is because of this:

1. EF is restricted because of radicalized supporters

You can accept that Christ gives us the Eucharist as the source and summit of life, and you can attend Mass to worship him and receive him.