Note: I am not jumping to any conclusions regarding the reasons for actions taken by Bishop Olson, since they are unknowable until he tells us. The questions posed below can be summed up thusly. How is this a banning of a legitimate rite of the Church a legitimate remedy to a legitimate problem? I believe it is incumbent upon the Bishop to publicly share this critical information.
In a shocking, largely unexplained, and possibly canonically illegitimate move, and just over three weeks into his tenure, the Bishop of Fort Worth has banned the daily Traditional Mass at Fisher More College. The only reason offered for the startling action that seemingly flies in the face of the rights established in Summorum Pontificum is that such a ban is “for the sake of your own soul.”
I wrote last week, about which there was some controversy, that traditional Catholics within the Church are feeling more and more marginalized. This is not going to help.
In a stunning and breathtaking letter, the Most Rev. Michael Olson, the newly-ordained bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese and the second-youngest bishop in the United States, has fully and totally banned the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel of Fisher More College, where it has been offered for the last three years on a daily basis by chaplains all approved by his predecessor bishop according to the college. This blow comes after the students of the college raised $300,000 in about a week to keep the school open for the spring semester (see here).
Rorate has exclusively obtained — through a source who has requested anonymity — a copy of the letter sent last week by the bishop after a personal meeting with the college’s president, Michael King. Even more striking, the letter from Bishop Olson states that he’s doing this “for your own soul,” addressing Mr. King, apparently saying in some twisted way the offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a danger to Mr.King’s soul.
When asked by Rorate for a response to the letter from Bishop Olson, the school declined to comment.
February 24, 2014
Mr. Michael King
Fisher-More College
801 West Shaw Street
Fort Worth, Texas 761 l0Dear Mister King:
Thank you for your visit today. I am writing you to state formally what I told you during our
meeting. These norms take effect immediately.1. You do not have permission to have the public celebration of the Extraordinary Form of
the Mass at the Chapel of Fisher More College. This includes Sundays and weekdays.
The weekly celebration of the Extraordinary Form is available to the faithful every
Sunday at St. Mary of the Assumption Catholic Church in Fort Worth2. You may only have the celebration of fire Mass in the Ordinary Form by priests who
explicitly have faculties for such celebration as granted by me as the Bishop of Fort
Worth.3. Failure to comply with the above-stated norms will result in my withdrawal of permission
to celebrate the Eucharist in your chapel along with withdrawal of permission to reserve
the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.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. I urge you to comply with them. Please convey to your
students my gratitude for their glfi of the spiritual bouquet. Please assure them of their presence
in my prayers.I remain,
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Michael F4 Olson, STD
Bishop of Fort Worth
This move is made all the more shocking for the lack of justification. As if the daily offering of the TLM, by itself, could be the cause of injury to anyone’s soul. What he offers as a substitute is the one TLM in the entire diocese a few miles away at 5:30pm on Sundays only.
Rorate includes a letter from the Canon Law Centre which suggests that this action of the Bishop is beyond his authority and should be challenged.
I will also note that the Bishop made this decision just over 3 weeks into his tenure in the Diocese. Hardly enough time to address any underlying issues fairly with the college. As such, this seems directed at the TLM only.
Whether beyond his authority under Summorum Pontificum or not, this serious action with minimal justification directed at something so ancient and sacred, reverberates far beyond the confines of campus. This is reminiscent of other recent actions directed against the TLM with minimal justification and will likely be seen as very chilling by traditionalists within the Church, increasing that very dangerous sense of isolation.
Update: It is entirely possible that there are other legitimate issues with FMC, I do not discount that possibility. But how is canonically suspect banning the TLM supposed to address any other issue? If there are underlying issues, deal with them. The TLM is not the source of anyone’s problems. To use it as a punishment or a threat is wholly inappropriate. I would suggest that the Bishop owes the faithful a fuller explanation of the situation.
March 3, 2014 at 5:44 pm
And if the bishop "suspended" the ordinary form in your diocese? Would it be an adequate response to say "people are carrying on as if the community will no longer have access to the Eucharist, and is it that difficult to attend an extraordinary form mass until the dust settles?" What is revealed is the bishop's cast of mind. And this is precisely why for years we're going to have to look with suspicion on the bishops appointed during what we all surely hope is a short—mercifully-short—pontificate.
March 3, 2014 at 5:49 pm
Hoping for the pope to die soon… Yes, I'm all warm and fuzzy now.
March 3, 2014 at 5:51 pm
FMC is imploding in an ugly way. The Bishop is doing his thankless job by trying to limit the damage to his diocese. Bishops often think that the TLM draws crazy people to it like moths to a flame. I agree. It does. Come to my chapel on Sunday, I'll show them to you.
Maybe he is outside his authority to do this. If so, he ought to reverse it, no one is above the law. On the other hand, I am not going to judge his strategy for dealing with this ugly weird thing that was dropped in his lap.
As for this blog, it seems to repeat and repost every unsubstantiated and unwise thing Rorate Caeli reports. If I wanted that, I'd simply subscribe to RC, which I do.
March 3, 2014 at 5:52 pm
And yes, of course, that would be an adequate response! I'll go where the Lord is. At least, I'd like to believe so. But it's you all who now have exactly that opportunity to demonstrate your fidelity.
March 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm
"FMC is imploding in an ugly way. The Bishop is doing his thankless job by trying to limit the damage to his diocese. Bishops often think that the TLM draws crazy people to it like moths to a flame. I agree. It does. Come to my chapel on Sunday, I'll show them to you."
Sweet, lovely, kind.
If you've got facts about FMC, pray tell share them. Otherwise the "all your kind do this, than and the other thing" kind of went out of fashion with the Jim Crow laws.
March 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm
An awful lot of people carrying on as if the community there will no longer have access to the Eucharist. Is it *that* difficult to attend an ordinary form mass until the dust settles?
Well, in view of how the Ordinary Form is typically celebrated around there…yes, it could be a cross to bear. Bear in mind that most traditionalists today started out worshiping exclusively in the N.O. – they had no choice, typically, and ended up being driven out by abuses, heterodoxies, and bad pastoral leadership.
It is true that some trads can take their exclusive emphasis on the TLM as making a dangerous judgment not only on the Missal of Paul VI (as not merely impoverished, but illicit), but on people who frequent it. Such people do, alas, exist. But I often think that such attitudes are intensified when any preference for traditional liturgy is treated as equivalent to fascism by their prelates and clergy. This can be a vicious circle.
I expect that pretty much all of the F-M community will end up satisfying their worship needs at St. Mary the Assumption, or over in Dallas at Mater Dei. They'll just have to give up on daily Mass, if they feel their spiritual needs are best met that way.
It is fair to ask as well why the TLM is virtually nonexistent in the Diocese of FW (and daily Mass *is* nonexistent), despite the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and some sizable interest in the traditional liturgy; but that is a question best posed to Bishop Olson's predecessor.
March 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm
"And yes, of course, that would be an adequate response! I'll go where the Lord is. At least, I'd like to believe so. But it's you all who now have exactly that opportunity to demonstrate your fidelity."
Fidelity to what? An unlawful exercise of non-authority? Self-righteous much?
March 3, 2014 at 6:06 pm
A bishop's authority is limited by canon and liturgical law (as well as Divine law). There is nothing inherently wrong about asking (in a respectful manner) whether an action falls within the scope of that authority. Summorum Pontificum greatly limited the ability of bishops to forbid celebration according to the Extra-ordinary Form, either publicly or privately. In particular, see article 5. http://www.institute-christ-king.org/uploads/main/pdf/summorum-pontificum.pdf
March 3, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Hello adamant,
Bishops often think that the TLM draws crazy people to it like moths to a flame. I agree. It does. Come to my chapel on Sunday, I'll show them to you.
Let's posit that as true. If so, might I not suggest that our bishops, clergy and lay leaders bear some very considerable responsibility for this state of affairs? By working to marginalize Tradition as much as possible, they have also, regrettably, left traditional communities in some places to be disproportionately dominated and influenced by more extreme and unbalanced individuals (or the SSPX). If you treat people like social lepers, do not be surprised if they start to act that way.
As Pope Benedict himself said in God and the World in 2002: "Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understand why so any of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church.”
And for what? For Catholics who simply want to re-engage their own tradition? To worship as countless forebears did? Why is this so criminal? Why is the 1970 missal (and more to the point, certain *ways* of celebrating the 1970 missal) being treated as so dogmatic?
And yet we can also see what happens when bishops are generous to those with such needs. Traditionalism comes out of the shadows, and into the mainstream of the Church again. The spirituality becomes healthier, less prone to dysfunctions and extremes. The contrast in the traditional movement with, say, ten, let alone twenty years ago is something to behold. Look the growth in solid scholarship, and lay groups like Juventutem.
Yet in my experience, worshiping in TLM communities in a number of cities in the U.S. and Europe, the kooks are not as common as some people think. Perhaps they're too common at Fisher-More. But if that's true, it may be a problem that requires a more far-reaching solution. And if Bishop Olson wants to reduce kookery or extremism (assuming that really is going on here) at TLM's, he might try the kind of generosity in making available the Extraordinary Form much more widely in his diocese, through the offices of good clergy he trusts.
March 3, 2014 at 6:28 pm
ngIbLH80lIuQtRsnDfOw98XM_4N3MpRQ.55w.qGjm.f6b0igN2I said: "…
if the majority of the comments here are indicative of the moverment within the RCC in support of the TLM, i fail to see how having two forms of the Mass available to RCs is beneficial…if these comments are the fruits of allowing the celebration of the Mass in its extraordinary form, i would support prohibiting its usage everywhere."
Now just imagine yourself as a 'regular' Catholic in 1970 when the Mass (now known as the Vetus Ordo) was suddenly prohibited and a different form of the Roman Rite was almost universally instituted. Would ya still agree that the bishop(s) shoulda done what they did?
The unkind and uncharitable comments about others betrays projected anger.
March 3, 2014 at 6:36 pm
"Bishops often think that the TLM draws crazy people to it like moths to a flame. I agree."
This doesn't do it for me anymore. Who cares? The world things a lot of things are crazy that aren't. I hear TLM women incessantly mocked for their out-of-style,"frumpy" dressing, as if that were just as big a sin as immodesty. I'm tired of mocking the crazies. This is what the NT say to me about that critique:
"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."
"For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God."
March 3, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Holy people have been persecuted by the Church throughout our history. St. Teresa of Avila comes immediately to mind. Francis of Assisi does as well. St. Gerard Majella, falsely accused of rape, went for a year without the sacraments, refusing to defend himself against his accuser out of obedience to his vows. It would do anyone well, when they feel persecuted by the Church they love so dearly, to embrace this cross, to pray for resolution and peace, to humble themselves, and to let the Lord work it out. The EF was suppressed for 50 years. The Lord saw fit to use Benedict XVI to bring it back in the Lord's time. It's being suppressed at this college in Fort Worth. The Lord will lift these restrictions in His own time."Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for men so persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Mt. 5:12)
March 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm
I'm curious if there are situations out there in OF parishes where the pastoral solution would be to impose the EF Mass upon them. ?
March 3, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Fisher-More denied ability to offer TLM
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/fisher-more-denied-ability-to-offer-tlm/
It seems as if there was the TLM there with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus 'ideology'.
Vatican Council II interpreted with the dead man walking theory was accepted . With the dead-saved are visible interpretation the Council opposes the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So the college rejected the Council.
Instead it followed Tradition associated with the TLM and affirmed the dogma on salvation.
On the other hand if the FMC had accepted Vatican Council II without the dead man walking premise, the students could still affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition associated with the TLM.
There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church to do away with Tradition and especially the dogma on salvation.However we see this being done after Vatican Council II since the Council is interpreted with an irrationality. Even Archbishop Lefebvre and other traditionalists made this objective error.
So now the powers that be can end the TLM and claim they are doing so in the name of Vatican Council II.The traditionalists in ignorance just accept this.
March 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm
This week as part of a drama unit I am teaching my students A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. Since my little college is a public college, the local bishop cannot ban it.
As St. Thomas More is said to have said (at least per agnostic Robert Bolt), "I have no window to look into another man's conscience." And neither do we, but we can suggest to the bishop, as did Alice More (again, per Robert Bolt) that he "make a statement now."
St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, ora pro nos.
March 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA" SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Notice his third sentence…
News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion.
The more things change.
I'd like to know why it is the Bishop owes Mr Archbold an explanation.
That aside, the Pope was at pains to note the Local Ordinary does have authority to control and manage the Liturgy in his Diocese.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”)
March 3, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Is there, can there, be a problem of legalism when it comes to Canon Law? Has that been observed by anyone? Thanks.
March 3, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Pope Benedict XVI also, repeatedly, wrote and spoke about these truths..
It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite….
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. 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. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
but suffused within the soi disant traditionalist movement are not only attitudes and ideas opposed to these truths but expressed personal opinions in opposition to same that can be found at any blog that came into being during the time on The Rise of the online Trad Machine.
Either the Rise of the Online Trad Machine is right that that there are two rites – one of which is evil according to Bishop Fellay – and that there has been a grave rupture which means that several Popes have been lying thorough their teeth and fingers as they state the opposite in authentic audiences and authoritative documents or the Rise of the Online Trad Machine is an infamously untrustworthy source of information.
That is, we are to hear His Catholic Church, right?
Well, when they who occupy the high offices created by Divinely-Constituted authority repeatedly teach one thing, why do so many choose to follow those who are directly opposed to those who occupy those Divinely-Constituted authority?
You know, Rev Anthony Cekada was right when he eviscerated the pretensions of the Recognise and Resist traditionalists.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70#_ednref7
March 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Well, when they who occupy the high offices created by Divinely-Constituted authority repeatedly teach one thing, why do so many choose to follow those who are directly opposed to those who occupy those Divinely-Constituted authority…
authority was intended to be, offices
March 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm
I think what no one realizes here is that a place like FMC is dabbling with serious schism on a variety of issues. Just because most Trad chapels are also dabbling in it doesn't make it 'OK'. Geocentrism, dogmatic creationism, the equation of ecumenism with indifferentism…all of these are serious issues that will, taken to the conclusion so many trad priests want them taken to, usher people right out of the Church. I think so, and it seems the Bishops agree. This blog (because not much actual research appears to go on here) and Rorate Caeli (because they are exactly the 'neo pelagians' the Pope is banging on about) shout loudly that it's all about the Mass, while remaining blissfully unaware of all the baggage attached to the TLM in the real world. I used to agree, then I spent time in actual Traditional chapels and around the TLM, and now I think the solution to anyone's problems is not there. They're all a lot closer to schismatic (even the FSSP chapels) than anyone cares to admit.
“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)
“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)
“It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all […] let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church […] he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Trallians; Chs 2-3, 7)