Author Topic: Fisher More College banned by bishop from saying Latin Mass (Read 11362 times)

Geremia · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2014, 11:30:21 PM »

Honestly, how can people defend this ravening wolf?

TKGS · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2014, 07:34:11 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: ultrarigorist
I wonder what they're gonna do with their FSSP chaplain?
He left months ago. There're rumors an SSPX priest has filled-in since then, which would explain why the ravening wolf Olson took such extreme measures as using Holy Mass as a form of punishment.

I would like to note that I just reviewed the college's website and the college absolutely denies that any Mass has been celebrated by any priest who did not have permission to do so from the Diocese of Fort Worth:

Quote from: Fisher More College

No public Mass of any Form has ever been offered in the College chapel by a priest lacking regular faculties. Over the past three years, the College has been privileged to host priests as overnight visitors to our campus, many of whom used the Chapel to offer private Masses, including priests from the Friars of the Immaculate, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.

soulguard · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2014, 12:57:54 PM »

Can someone explain how Benedict XVI's moto proprio declaration granting the "Indult" does not apply to the priests who said mass at this college? Is the indult cancelled now?

claudel · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2014, 01:31:48 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I would like to note that I just reviewed the college's website and the college absolutely denies that any Mass has been celebrated by any priest who did not have permission to do so from the Diocese of Fort Worth:

Quote from: Fisher More College
No public Mass of any Form has ever been offered in the College chapel by a priest lacking regular faculties. Over the past three years, the College has been privileged to host priests as overnight visitors to our campus, many of whom used the Chapel to offer private Masses, including priests from the Friars of the Immaculate, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.

Just so. This is a situation where one side has been doing its damnedest to play strictly by Newchurch rules and the other side—the side holding all the marbles as well as the exclusive right to write and rewrite the rules at will—laughs loudly at the first side's cluelessness.

As you, Geremia, and others have clearly done, I too read the linked material provided by Petertherock. What a depressing way to spend half an hour! The tipoff that one is in the land of the legally deaf and blind is the suggestion by the moderator (seconded quickly by some commenters) that the Rorate Caeli crowd is made up of weird Traditionalist eccentrics and dangerous flakes. I can't recall the last time I felt sympathy for "New Catholic," but his evident frustration at not being able to get the herd to look at what was relevant to the situation, let alone address it, ought to give him a sense of how real Trads react to him and his website (it won't, though).

The commenters at first looked like mere sycophants, but upon reflection it seems wiser to conclude that they are just very, very stupid. Even back in preconciliar days, Catholics understood that by no means all bishops and priests consistently acted for the best or even with consistently good intentions (I am old enough, alas, to remember that). Yet the commenters on that silly thread can barely entertain the idea that Newbishop Olson is made of flesh and bone. I'm sure they would treat his views about used cars and toothpaste with the same uncritical assent and obedience that they have accorded his plainly improper conduct* in this sad affair.
___________

* At least, "improper" by last week's rules.

Petertherock · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2014, 01:40:43 PM »

An article explaining the College's side of things..

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/323-it-is-what-it-is-fort-worth-diocese-clarifies-bishop-olson-s-ban-on-traditional-latin-mass-at-fisher-more-college

President Provides College’s Perspective

Exclusive to The Remnant

Fort Worth, Texas, March 3, 2014—Today’s blogosphere and Catholic news sites were lit up by the startling news that His Excellency Michael F. Olson, STD, Bishop for the Catholic diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, had forbidden Fisher More College from having Catholic priests offer the Traditional Latin Mass at the college. This, despite the fact that the college had full diocesan approval since 2010, including a chaplain offered as a courtesy by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter from Feb. 2013 through June 2013.

Most recently, a priest from the Fathers of Mercy based in Auburn, Kentucky, known more for preaching Catholic missions than for their traditional liturgical leanings, ably served the students and faculty. In addition to offering daily access to the Traditional Latin Mass throughout the school year, the college offered substantial parts of the traditional Divine Office, often-times sung, with a fully intellectually rigorous Catholic liberal arts curriculum.

In summary, in a letter dated February 24, 2014, Bishop Olson, installed as the diocese’s fourth Ordinary less than one month prior, forbade Fisher More College from the public celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass at its chapel. Not only did he forbid its public celebration, but he informed the college that they were allowed to have the Novus Ordo liturgy with priests from the diocese, all with the threat of his withdrawing permission to have Holy Mass offered and the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the college’s chapel. “I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for students of Fisher-More (sic) College as well as for your own soul,” Bishop Olson stated in his letter.

As the blogosphere and Catholic news sites engaged in wild speculation about “what really happened” from unnamed people in the know, anonymous priests from the nearby Dallas diocese and speculation that the college had really gone off the rails, The Remnant sought and received further information directly from the sources of the contention—the bishop’s office of the Diocese of Fort Worth and Michael King, president of Fisher More College.

“It was a private letter and someone leaked it, and it is what it is,” said Pat Svacina, director of communications for the Diocese of Fort Worth. “Bishop Olson has nothing to add to what has been out there,” Svacina said.

Fisher More’s King said the college received the letter from the Bishop on Wed., Feb. 26, and he read it out loud to the students and faculty to make them aware of the situation. The fact that the letter purported to be “private correspondence,” but that impacted dozens of college faculty, staff, students and parents was not explained by the bishop’s spokesman. As the college’s mission is centered on the Church’s liturgical and spiritual tradition, King said that the board felt compelled to be transparent to those affected by the Bishop’s decision.

King said he was invited to a meeting with Bishop Olson that was very short and provided no further details other than the contents of the letter. “There wasn’t much discussion,” he said. “There was no discussion about the college at all.”

Meanwhile, high traffic volume driven to Fisher More’s website prevented the college from issuing clarifying statements later in the day today regarding the school’s mission, guest speakers and their corresponding topics the college has hosted since 2012 (http://fishermore.edu/list-college-chaplains-since-2010/) and a lineup of priests the college has had as chaplains with public ministry since 2010 under the watch of former Bishop Kevin Vann (See http://fishermore.edu/list-college-chaplains-since-2010/).

Note that every priest had faculties for confessions and diocesan approval to offer public Holy Mass at the chapel up to the bishop’s edict. Michael King, president of Fisher More said that Father Nicholas Gruner, famous for his Fatima apostolate, recently spoke as a guest lecturer, but did not offer any public ministry at the college chapel. Many consider Father Gruner to be controversial because of his vocal and persistent call for the consecration of Russia by the Pope together with all of the bishops of the world as Sister Lucia repeatedly stated that our Lady of Fatima requested.

King noted that the academic curriculum at Fisher More is rigorous, and as a college in the intellectual tradition of the Church, its professors and guest lecturers often address controversial topics such as the theological speculation of Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, scientific evolution versus intelligent design, and other similar topics.

King said that he prefers not to respond publicly to critics about his leadership style, nor those critics of the college’s faculty. Fisher More College is currently considering its canonical options regarding the Diocese of Fort Worth’s decision to ban the Traditional Latin liturgy while still allowing the Novus Ordo to be offered by diocesan priests.

TKGS · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2014, 01:55:16 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

Can someone explain how Benedict XVI's moto proprio declaration granting the "Indult" does not apply to the priests who said mass at this college? Is the indult cancelled now?

The indult to say the traditional (1962) Mass is an exception that the local bishop has the authority to grant or not grant.

This is what the motu proprio says:

Quote

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

As you can see, the phrase I bolded merely allows priests to say the 1962 Mass without permission if he does so alone, without servers, without people present.

This bishop has fully accommodated, in accordance with other provisions of the motu proprio, the wishes for the 1962 Mass by anyone who wishes to attend by making it available at St. Mary of the Assumption Church (see the bishop's letter, norm #1).

Now, if the college closes the doors of the chapel, the bishop cannot deny the right of any Conciliar priest who has faculties to say Mass in his diocese to say the 1962 Mass. Of course, no one would know about it so it would not be an issue.

Quote

Just so. This is a situation where one side has been doing its damnedest to play strictly by Newchurch rules and the other side—the side holding all the marbles as well as the exclusive right to write and rewrite the rules at will—laughs loudly at the first side's cluelessness.

This is why the SSPX's "celebration" of Summorum Pontificuм was so insane! The motu proprio did not "free" the traditional Mass, which was, I thought, one of the pre-conditions to negotiations. All it did was allow for priests to do in secrecy what they wished to do without having any scruples of conscience that they were "breaking the rules" or something like that. The [Conciliar] faithful have exactly the same legal access to attend the traditional (1962) Mass they did prior to the publication of the motu proprio on July 7, 2007--i.e., if they can find a willing priest and if they can find a church building whose rector is willing to allow it, and if the bishop is willing to allow the nostalgic fad that they all believe is behind the desire to go to the traditional Mass, they can have it when and where the bishop graciously allows. Otherwise, who cares what the laity do because most of them still put money in the collection basket anyway?

Quote from: claudel

Just so. This is a situation where one side has been doing its damnedest to play strictly by Newchurch rules and the other side—the side holding all the marbles as well as the exclusive right to write and rewrite the rules at will—laughs loudly at the first side's cluelessness.

And are you surprised? Satan always laughs at people's foolishness.

Geremia · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2014, 02:24:40 PM »

One reason this Francis-appointee wolf banned FMC's TLM after just a month at the job is because, according to ex-FMC «ex officio» board member Dr. Taylor Marshall, FMC's Dr. Dudley

Quote

claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.).

You can read Dr. Dudley's lecture here: http://fishermore.edu/.../uploads/Dudley-Faith-in-Europe.pdf

Another reason I've been able to verify from a mother of an FMC student is that their current chaplain is SSPX, since the FSSP one left months ago:

Quote

One of his [her son's] friends served Mass and found out later the priest was SSPX. Other students who attend and are friends with my son are also telling him this.

Dr. Taylor Marshall verifies this:

Quote

He [Mr. King] also contracted an irregular/suspended priest without faculties, and hired “trad resistance” faculty while there was no bishop in Fort Worth to check these developments.

https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall/posts/400180263452671

Fr. Kramer's comment on the relevant CFNews article:

Quote

Brainwashed Catholics still don't get it; There's only one course of action that works: Campos and Econe. No one is bound by obedience to bishops or popes who profess heresy and schismatically enforced fabricated new liturgical rites. As the independent traditional priest, the late Fr. Paul Wickens said so many times: "Don't walk, run away from the Novus Ordo."

Thurifer · « **Reply #22 on:** March 04, 2014, 02:59:09 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

One reason this Francis-appointee wolf banned FMC's TLM after just a month at the job is because, according to ex-FMC «ex officio» board member Dr. Taylor Marshall, FMC's Dr. Dudley
Quote
claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.).
You can read Dr. Dudley's lecture here: http://fishermore.edu/.../uploads/Dudley-Faith-in-Europe.pdf

Another reason I've been able to verify from a mother of an FMC student is that their current chaplain is SSPX, since the FSSP one left months ago:
Quote
One of his [her son's] friends served Mass and found out later the priest was SSPX. Other students who attend and are friends with my son are also telling him this.
Dr. Taylor Marshall verifies this:
Quote
He [Mr. King] also contracted an irregular/suspended priest without faculties, and hired “trad resistance” faculty while there was no bishop in Fort Worth to check these developments.
https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall/posts/400180263452671

Fr. Kramer's comment on the relevant CFNews article:
Quote
Brainwashed Catholics still don't get it; There's only one course of action that works: Campos and Econe. No one is bound by obedience to bishops or popes who profess heresy and schismatically enforced fabricated new liturgical rites. As the independent traditional priest, the late Fr. Paul Wickens said so many times: "Don't walk, run away from the Novus Ordo."

Dr. Dudley's lecture has been removed. Guess they are out and about being busy scrubbing their website! We have seen this before, haven't we?

Was it just there today or yesterday?

What a nightmare.

Thurifer · « **Reply #23 on:** March 04, 2014, 03:11:08 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: claudel
Just so. This is a situation where one side has been doing its damnedest to play strictly by Newchurch rules and the other side—the side holding all the marbles as well as the exclusive right to write and rewrite the rules at will—laughs loudly at the first side's cluelessness.

And are you surprised? Satan always laughs at people's foolishness.

Very true.

claudel · « **Reply #24 on:** March 04, 2014, 03:58:38 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

And are you surprised? Satan always laughs at people's foolishness.

No. I wouldn't have referred to laughter if surprise had entered the picture. I am not, however, prepared to read anyone's mind and conscience. That is to say, whilst I'm sure that Satan is indeed laughing at what's happening in Texas, it's a bit early in the day to declare or imply that Olson or, for that matter, Taylor Marshall and the other robotic, thick-witted Newchurchers who back Olson are Satanic.* Calling them "fundamentally disordered" seems sufficient—and quite bad enough—for now.
_________________

* I am not suggesting that you yourself are doing so. Given the propensity for freelance mind reading hereabouts, however, any time is a good time to preach prudence—especially before each new commenter tries to outdo the last one in broad-jumping to conclusions.

claudel · « **Reply #25 on:** March 04, 2014, 04:34:09 PM »

Quote from: Thurifer

Dr. Dudley's lecture has been removed.

I found it here. I recommend it to all. It's an excellent piece of work: closely argued, carefully reasoned and sourced, analytic, dispassionate—not at all the sort of intemperate and extreme outburst that the sanctimonious fraud Taylor Marshall claims it is.

The passage that has the Newchurchers and the mushy-soft pseudotrads up in arms may be found on page 11. Happy reading.

Matto · « **Reply #26 on:** March 04, 2014, 04:39:24 PM »

I didn't read the entire PDF yet, but I read the offensive part of it. I like it so far and since now it has been noticed by a wide audience, I expect Dr. Dudley to be fired.

Geremia · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2014, 05:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I didn't read the entire PDF yet, but I read the offensive part of it. I like it so far and since now it has been noticed by a wide audience, I expect Dr. Dudley to be fired.

I hope not. Also, all those who disagree with Dr. Dudley have already been fired or quit.

Meg · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2014, 08:35:53 PM »

The lecture by Dr. Dudley is excellent, and it's worth taking the time to read it. I hadn't really understood the emphasis from the pulpit at the NO parishes on peace and luv, without any mention of sin (except for the sin of not being charitable) before reading this. It makes more sense now.

He makes a good case for chucking the Council altogether. I can see why a typical diocesan bishop might have a problem with this, if the bishop has read this.

Dr. Dudley explains his position very well in an articulate but easy to understand manner.

Geremia · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2014, 11:09:35 PM »

Quote from: Meg

The lecture by Dr. Dudley is excellent, and it's worth taking the time to read it. I hadn't really understood the emphasis from the pulpit at the NO parishes on peace and luv, without any mention of sin (except for the sin of not being charitable) before reading this. It makes more sense now.

He makes a good case for chucking the Council altogether. I can see why a typical diocesan bishop might have a problem with this, if the bishop has read this.

Dr. Dudley explains his position very well in an articulate but easy to understand manner.

Yes, it was a good lecture.