It is, of course, entirely possible that Bishop Olson had to take the severe actions that he did. But the gravity of the action directed at the Extraordinary Form requires, in my estimation, a suitably thorough explanation of why this is the only reasonable remedy and plainly stating the authority for this action as it relates to Summorum Pontificum. These things matter.
By failing to publicly do so, at least in a timely manner, I think that the Bishop may have unnecessarily scandalized those in the Church attached to tradition. More concern should have been shown. Further, I think the Bishop may have opened himself up to criticism that may not be warranted, at least as it relates to the underlying cause for action.
This may be a grave situation where the validity/illicitness of the mass was in question and the Bishop had no choice. But then he should have just said so and avoided all the hubbub. I for one would have welcomed such an approach.
For me, this is not about Fisher More College. If they are off the reservation, then reel ’em back in and/or shut them down. For me, this is about the mass. I pray the Bishop speaks soon.
March 3, 2014 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, because no other Catholic Colleges or Universities are off the reservation, so let's take on the mom and pop operation with the TLM.
Maybe there is some sort of explanation. But if there is, my first questions is why start with this school at this spot (the mass)? There are things going on at Catholic colleges that are out and out horrific and in plain sight. Why pick on these people?
My sense of it all is that the Fisher-More folks will eventually obey, and the bishop knows that. The other places don't give a rat's behind about the Faith or obedience and would only flaunt their disobedience to any attempt to reel them in.
March 3, 2014 at 9:50 pm
"I think the Bishop may have opened himself up to criticism that may not be warranted."
If the criticism may not be warranted, perhaps it ought to be withheld.
I dunno. As I get older, I become more impatient with such armchair quaterbacking. We can't expect respect from outside the Church if we don't try harder to foster it within. And I'd expect the more traditionally minded to be the most reverent.
March 3, 2014 at 9:51 pm
beachcomber, those "other places" are not in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, TX. Maybe you ought to direct your concerns to the ordinaries that are actually responsible for whichever you have in mind.
March 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Thank you, Pat. That is it.
NC
Rotate caeli
March 3, 2014 at 10:10 pm
Oops, rorate! tablets!
March 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
March 3, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Bornacatholic
You are a foul and derisive person and no longer a welcome commenter.
March 3, 2014 at 10:25 pm
We have the best possible relationship with our respective bishops, thank you.
We have never received any complaints from our many friends in the FSSP. Only compliments and words of encouragement. As for Fr. Zuhlsdorf whatever he does or say, we wish him the best.
NC
March 4, 2014 at 12:25 am
Bottom line: you can't defend the traditional liturgy if the traditional doctrine with which the liturgy is associated is forbidden. If the doctrines taught by Leo and the Piuses are no longer welcome in the Vatican, then it will always be possible to tar latin mass communities as seed-beds of heresy.
March 4, 2014 at 1:38 am
But…but…wasn't this my week to be foul and derisive?
In truth, in sad truth, I wonder why the bishops hate the faithful and embrace the powerful.
March 4, 2014 at 1:45 am
This post seems way off to me. Is it really necessary to start putting ideas into people's heads without any reason?
We attend(ed) Mass at Fisher More and have done so for some months. We were going there when they were in their previous building. I liked it. I saw nothing wrong. I spoke to no one that I felt was "off the reservation". I was the fat bald guy in the red polo if you don't know me by name.
If anyone has any questions I can be reached by phone, find it at Tocci dot org. I was just an attendee to the Mass, can't say a word about anything else, but I can say the Mass was valid and without any hint of an issue. I attended with my wife and eight children.
I reached out to CMR at lunch today. I felt the earlier post was inappropriate. The college is an organization involved in trade that has used the name Catholic to describe itself. That means the bishop is their boss and they can either fulfill his wishes or take the name Catholic off the website. Something similar happened to RealCatholic.tv not that long ago.
Also, I think the tone is a bit excessive. Are we just trying to sell newspapers here? All of this is regrettable but we're fine. No animals were harmed. I think everyone who was attending the Mass there is going to be fine. I also think that the College is going to do what they need to do to be fine. And above all me and mine are fine with the actions of the bishop. I certainly don't feel he owes me an explanation so I'm a bit baffled that anyone else would think he does.
Peace, Justin Tocci
March 4, 2014 at 2:39 am
With respect, this is incoherent. Bishops are not dictators. Their rule is clearly circumscribed by the deposit of Faith, and the Natural Law (this goes for Popes too). Church teaching is clear on the traditional Mass – it cannot be arbitrarily prohibited, and the new Mass mandated in this way. No bishop may act arbitrarily or abuse his power.
March 4, 2014 at 1:50 am
Here's the thing. Bishops HAVE to be the direct linkage to the Apostles in order to exercise authority. When the challenges come from folks more out-of-touch-with-tradition, quasi-wicken nuns for example, a bishop can be chill. After all, no one thinks sister pants-suit is closer to the apostles than he, right? But when you have an order, or a college, or a lay group that postures itself as closer to AUTHENTIC Catholicism – Pius IX, Leo XIII, Trent – than the local ordinary, how is that a position he can abide by? "More Catholic than the Pope" used to be a joke. Heck, these days I'M likely more Catholic than the current occupant of the Throne of Saint Peter. It's just not that hard a trick anymore. So if you're the particular prelate who has to deal with folks constantly showing themselves in small and large ways to be more attentive to the sacraments, more knowledgable about Church history, more devoted to the Fathers, etc. than you…well, what do you do? For gosh sakes, you ware the funny hat and carry the crozier! The playbook is well-laid-out. You attack your critics as being Pharisaic or hypocritical. You criticize their financial management, or nepotism or some such thing. (Have you looked at the books of any major US metropolitan parish recently? Not pretty.) And of course, you talk about their affront to Christian unity and (if they celebrate the TLM) you suppress their Mass – in the name of UNITY! This is pretext, people. They hate not being the most Catholic guys in town, period. They've got nothing to blame but themselves. As for all the commentators who scurry to defend these guys…they hate not being the most Catholic guys, too. Katharine Jefferts Schori is pulling the same trick over at the we-used-to-pretend-we-were-catholics-too Episcopal/CofE/Agnglican thingy. Showing once and for all that women can be as bad at this as men. (Well, done, Kate!)
March 4, 2014 at 2:17 am
Justin
What tone are you talking about? I have made no assertions. I have asked for clarifications and addressed points of others. Don't read into thingss.
March 4, 2014 at 2:31 am
There can be no justification for the prohibition of the traditional Mass of the Church per se to a Catholic College by the local bishop. Moreover the link made by the bishop between the prohibition of the traditional Mass and "the good of your soul" is reprehensible, a disgraceful slur on the sacred Mass that all bishops are bound to honour and defend. That the bishop thought he could issue such a diktat in such a flagrantly penal mode – with impunity – illustrates the terrible crisis in the leadership of the Church. That there may be issues with the College that may need to be addressed by the proper authorities is irrelevant to the issue of the clear prohibition of the traditional Mass at a chapel included in SF. The attempt to draw in extraneous matters into this issue, which is a universal one, of importance to all Catholics, ought to be avoided.