Fisher More college banned from celebrating EF

The only comment I will offer is Pope Benedict XVI’s comment in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

“Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”

The news was reported by Rorate Caeli - you can find the story there.

I don’t wish this thread to bash anyone, certainly not the Bishop. All I ask are prayers for this situation. Thanks.

It sounds like an ill-advised decision, sure. But let’s hear more facts about the case before leaping to judgment. :slight_smile:

I don’t know much about this college, but I do know that the president, Michael King, seems to be very friendly with and giving interviews to publications such as Catholic Family News and Remnant Newspaper. Both of these publications seem to specialize in criticism of the Catholic hierarchy. Michael Matt of Remnant just did a video with Chris Ferrara in which he questions whether Pope Benedict XVI was pushed out of the papacy, despite BXVI’s statement that he left the papacy voluntarily. CFN and Remnant Newspaper are ultra right wing publications, exemplified by the fact that they both embrace and support the SSPX.

We are known by the company we keep, so one has to wonder what is really going on at Fisher More. Plus, I don’t trust Rorate Caeli at all. They too specialize in criticism of the Catholic hierarchy.

If I am not mistaken, they had the TLM daily for at least 3 years in a row. The students that attend there are obviously attached to it. And it is probably a reason for going to College there. What happens if you do not have transportation to go elsewhere… I have not read the article, but I will keep the College, students in my prayers. I hope, pray that whatever it is gets resolved. :highprayer::signofcross::byzsoc:

Edit: I just read a bit of the article. The previous Bishop had no issues with the TLM there. The new Bishop is the one who issued the letter. What could have happened? If everything was Ok before, and now it is not :confused: I thought that SP allowed the Mass without having to get permission. This is so confusing. Well, either way, we do not know what is going on. Prayers for all involved. God bless.
Thanks for letting us know.

If this is true, it’s a serious issue. (But “being friendly” or giving interviews is not necessarily an endorsement; Rush Limbaugh asked Elton John to play at his wedding, IIRC, but he hasn’t turned pro-gay. :p)

The Remnant is spiritually dangerous material. Its editor is a member of the Resistance movement, whose authors embrace an intellectually dishonest “no, we’re not sedevacantists, but we think all the Popes since Bl. John XXIII are in error”. Among this movement’s most hateful acts is their bashing of Mother Teresa - a soon-to-be saint who is deceased and cannot defend herself. They also promote Fatima conspiracy theories and photoshop pictures of Benedict XVI to make him look “Hitler-like” or “demonic”. (No links - I am not cooperating materially with this venom.)

However, we have to be careful with guilt-by-association. If King has endorsed the Resistance position, I applaud this Bishop. But if the decision has been made on shaky grounds (“I heard that your student said that the Remnant is great!”), it was ill-judged and ill-timed.

Also, consistency is always a good thing. If the Bishop is also taking actions against Catholics who support abortion, gay “marriage”, Dignity USA and Call to Action, then good for him. If he’s only targeting the more outlandish traditionalists and sparing them, that’s unfair.

Both of these publications seem to specialize in criticism of the Catholic hierarchy. Michael Matt of Remnant just did a video with Chris Ferrara in which he questions whether Pope Benedict XVI was pushed out of the papacy, despite BXVI’s statement that he left the papacy voluntarily.

Christopher Ferrara is equally dangerous. His Fatima conspiracy theories have spread confusion among hundreds of Catholics.

CFN and Remnant Newspaper are ultra right wing publications, exemplified by the fact that they both embrace and support the SSPX.

Whoa there.

They’re not “ultra-right-wing” - they’re Sedevacantists sine Sedevacantism. Their slogan is “We resist you to the face”. There are a lot of good conservative Catholic groups out there, including several who embrace the Latin Mass. Right / left language is unhelpful in characterizing them. There’s “in good standing” and not; orthodox and heterodox; schismatic and in communion; obedient and disobedient. I find those terms more useful.

We are known by the company we keep, so one has to wonder what is really going on at Fisher More. Plus, I don’t trust Rorate Caeli at all. They too specialize in criticism of the Catholic hierarchy.

As someone who’s often criticized Rorate here, I must say that they are generally much more even-handed, far more obedient, and certainly never as hysterical as the Resistance gang. Let’s not conflate them. :wink:

I encourage everyone to email the school and offer prayers and support. I hope and pray that the school challenges this decision, and doesn’t just accept it. It seems to be an abuse of power.

I have heard that Fisher-More is not loyal to the Pope? Does anyone know if this is true? If it is, that would be one reason the Bishop made this decision. :confused:

A few points worth repeating.

However, the Pope is also quite clear that the Mass of 1962 is not to replace the Mass we celebrate today, which remains the ordinary and usual form of the liturgy. The 1962 Mass is seen as “extraordinary”—that is, an exceptional, form of the Mass. This also means that any person or community that wishes to make use of the provisions in the Apostolic Letter must accept the validity of the Vatican II Mass—since the issue foremost in the Pope’s mind is the communion of the Church.

The Pope’s Apostolic Letter does not give priests blanket permission to celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to the 1962 Missal. First, the priest must know how to celebrate the Mass using that Missal and must be able to speak the Latin appropriately. Otherwise, he is “impeded” from celebrating according to the 1962 rite. Second, the Vatican II Mass must remain the ordinary form of celebrating the liturgy in a parish. Therefore, the 1962 Mass can only be celebrated on weekdays (and never so often that it becomes “ordinary” in the parish) and only once on Sundays and feast days. It follows that if there is only one Sunday Mass, the Vatican II Missal must be used since it is the ordinary form.

Most importantly, the Holy Father has made it clear that the bishop of the diocese remains the “moderator of the liturgy” in his diocese, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the Apostolic Letter is appropriately implemented and that the celebration of the Eucharist is made available to as many people as possible under the ordinary form (see 20Q #10).

Source

:thumbsup: Please, let’s do.

Uh, Fisher More is in Forth Worth, TX, why should the policies of Davenport apply there?

Did you miss the point that the OF is the norm, or that the F.M. College has exclusively replaced the norm with the extraordinary? The Bishop of Davenport is not developing his own policy, but is implementing the thought of Pope Benedict in union with the College of Bishops. To hint that there is an independent spirit in this bishop or the bishop of Fort Worth is reprehensible.

:thumbsup:

And while we await those clarifications, would you care for some :popcorn:? It’s fun to have some during sporting events. :wink:

I have heard that Fisher-More is not loyal to the Pope? Does anyone know if this is true? If it is, that would be one reason the bishop made this decision.

As RPRPsych said, please let’s wait to hear more facts about the case before leaping to judgement. Fisher More has not been known to be anything but faithful to the Pope and friendly with the previous local Bishops.

Lay persons (male or female) may exercise the ministries of server and reader, if competent to do so.
a.The issues of female altar servers and lay readers are disciplinary matters (c.230); therefore UE 27 applies.
b.In a private reply, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei answered that female altar servers are not permitted in the extraordinary form. However, as a private response, it only binds the one to whom it was addressed. In the Diocese of Davenport, female altar servers are permitted.

Source

I quoted another portion of the letter from the diocese of Davenport. This section points to UE 27, which refers disciplinary matters to the new code of canon law. However, it fails to mention Universae Ecclesiae 28, which says:

“28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.”

So: that portion of law which came after 1962 and which conflicts with the 1962 books simply does not apply to the use of those books. This means that according to law, use of female altar servers and lay lectors is not permitted in the use of the 1962 missal. I find that the letter from the diocese of Davenport, in this respect, does not faithfully reflect the universal legislation of Benedict XVI. I feel no need, then, to believe that its interpretation of “extraordinary” and “ordinary” reflects the mind of Benedict XVI either.

Great point. :thumbsup: We are always so quick to judge the bishops, and much of that comes from listening to bloggers such as Rorate Caeli. We should always be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those placed over us by the Holy Spirit.

Fisher More college states that their mission is to form perfect Christians.

The mission of the College is to “cooperate with divine grace in forming the true and perfect Christian, that is, to form Christ Himself.”

The college further states that they cannot achieve that mission without the Tridentine Mass.

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.

That’s just plain nonsense. There are many holy souls being formed without the Tridentine Mass. No, there is something else going on here. We only have one side of the story on from the traditionalist blog sites.

The Chancellor and a professor resigned in early 2012 over a some statements questioning the validity of the Second Vatican Council. There is more going on here than meets the eye.

The things being said about Pope Francis and the Bishop of Fort Worth are unconscionable.

-Tim-

The point was there was nothing in S.P. that prevents a chapel from using the EF as their primary Mass, if there is a stable community requesting it and the good of the faithful requires it.

What you quoted was Diocesan guidelines, nothing that was actually IN S.P.

I’m sure that Fisher-More wasn’t using the Extraordinary Form any more so than other parishes in the diocese are using Extraordinary Ministers :rolleyes:

I agree that the bishop certainly has the AUTHORITY to do so, but Sirach’s premise was that it would be against the instructions given in S.P. for the bishop to even give permission for a chapel to use the Extraordinary Form exclusively.

He could still have chosen a heterosexual performer. :stuck_out_tongue: (Okay, I’m being facetious here.)

No arguments here. I’m not saying that just talking to Michael Matt or John Vennari makes the president of Fisher More guilty. But you have to wonder why he would do this. He has to know the reputations of these publications. That’s why I bring it up.

Sadly, it’s worse: Fisher More College posts links to this trash on their official website. (A friend just brought this to my notice.) I can imagine how it would go down if I’d post, say, “Let India be given back to the British” stuff on my hospital’s website. Private opinions are one thing, but public endorsement in this case amounts to scandal. Link below:

fishermore.edu/welcome/

Again, I hear what you are saying, and I agree. But I can’t help but take notice that ALL sedevacantist groups and “resistance” groups are “traditionalists”.

Or rather, they claim to be. The real traditionalists are people like Pope Benedict XVI, the FSSP, etc. These “resistance” groups are Protestants in Catholic garb. (Note the semantic similarity between “resist” and “protest”.) And as far as making immoral allegations about the Papacy is concerned, they rival Luther. :mad:

If I was a bishop, I would always be very alert when I start seeing groups becoming militantly traditionalist. Those who are on the other end of the spectrum such as you mention absolutely need to be disciplined as well, but as dangerous as they are, I don’t think they are as dangerous because they are so obviously against Catholic teaching. Those in resistance groups are in some ways more dangerous because they “look Catholic” when in actuality they are in total rebellion against Church hierarchy.

That’s true. They’re more likely to suck in (and win over) a devout, but disturbed, soul. :frowning:

Point taken. But I do not consider embracing the Latin Mass of and by itself to be “ultra right wing.” I personally love the Latin Mass, but I do reject those who take it to extremes and use it to rebel against the hierarchy of the Church, such as CFN or the Remnant, or even SSPX. I guess this is a matter of semantics.

I just find right / left confusing, simply because in my country, “right wing” is Hindu nationalism and “Vedic values”; “left wing” is a moderate socialism or even liberal democracy. But your point is taken as well. :thumbsup:

I have had real problems with Rorate ever since election of Pope Francis when their headline was “worst choice possible.”

Did they really say that? Anathema sit. :mad:

As far as I’m concerned, they have no credibility whatsoever. I actually do put them in with the “resistance gang” as you call them.

I’d put them more in the “SSPX / rumour mill” gang, but again, my perspective is that of an outsider. And some of their material is certainly problematic, especially their use of their own in-house theologians to form a “parallel magisterium”. Hmm, who else did that? :stuck_out_tongue:

Quattuor Abinc Annos, Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum, and Universae Ecclesiae say otherwise.

Oh, and let’s not forget the “spirit” behind those documents. :frowning:

There are many holy souls being formed without the Tridentine Mass.

But one would think that colleges weren’t set up to stifle learning of any kind. Wouldn’t you transfer to a different school if they suddenly prohibited the teaching of the history of the Church or parts of the Bible, for example?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.