Monday, March 3, 2014

The suppression of the Vetus Ordo continues

Fisher More College, a Catholic institution of higher learning in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, has just had its Vetus Ordo suppressed by Bishop Michael Olsen.

Read about it here at Rorate-Caeli.

It might be worthwhile to ponder why the Vetus Ordo, the Mass of the ages, the Mass that was (and is) a living link to Holy Mother Church and her Children throughout time is being suppressed. Especially so in light of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.


  1. "you do not have permission"

    They don't need permission... however the results of not complying are given in #3 of the letter.

    This is so unjust

  2. On the other hand, we don't know what was said in the private conversation between the bishop and the College President. Father Z also covers this here . There may also be some trouble at Fisher More College, according to this blog the FSSP are no longer serving as chaplains at FMC and there are accusations of the President of the College criticizing the VII Council and trying to align the school with the SSPX, along with staff and student departures as well. If ANY of that is true, there is reason for the bishop to take action. Not sure if it's this action, but I think I am inclined to withhold judgement until there is more information. Prayers sound like they are in order for all involved

    1. I think it is okay to criticize V2, don't you? Some of its fruit has certainly been rotten to the core and there are enough books out there detailing problems with some of the doctrinal issues coming out of it. Demanding a slavish acceptance of the Council as a litmus test is morally bankrupt. V2 was not a dogmatic council, it was a pastoral council, and while much of it was in consonance with the Church's tradition and history (even Bishop Lefebvre could agree wtih 95% of it), the problematic aspects of it have multiplied the sorrows of the faithful for decades now.

      Also, the SSPX are in an irregular situation with Rome, not a schismatic (as is often claimed) one. The enemies of tradition have succeeded in calumnizing them to such an extent that even mentioning them scares people. I would find this amusing, except for the fact that Pope Francis thinks nothing of addressing an Anglican-Pentecostal as a "brother bishop". Apparently, the acting principles of today's ecumenism do not include those of one's own household...

    2. I think you forget my sympathies.

      It is okay to criticize the Council...not to deny it's legitimacy. If that is what happened (and there is evidence that suggests that may have happened) then FMC was skating on thin ice, and they were essentially daring the Bishop to do something. The Bishop has the right as the local ordinary under SP to deny the EF mass to FMC if they did this. It was stupid of FMC to do this if they did, as it gave the Bishop a cudgel to beat them.

      I have nothing against the SSPX but the fact is the SSPX is irregular, and does not have facilities to celebrate public mass nor offer the sacraments. If FMC used SSPX priests, then they are stupid for giving the bishop a legitimate cudgel to beat them. It certainly was a bad move tactically and strategically.

      Some other info I've picked through from the Father Z and other articles and comments:

      1. FMC's Chapel is either a private Chapel or an oratory, either way the bishop CAN restrict any mass and or whatever sacraments can even be said or done there at all. (Canon 1227 and 1228)

      2. His letter directs the students to a local parish 2 miles away that offers the EF at 5:30pm on Sundays, so it is unlikely that he is not at least TLM tolerant.

      3. the FSSP were on site until June 2013...their departure is significant. The EF has not been offered regularly since they have left and it is probable that not many of the staff and students were assisting anyway.

      4. During the Episcopal inter-regnum, the FMC President and some of the faculty, and visiting priests have taken an anti-Vatican II direction and have publically presented on this, if this is true (and there seems to be several sources that confirm this) the bishop can, under SP, deny the EF mass to a group of Catholics (acceptance of the validity of the VII Council and the NO Mass are a per-requisite of SP) Whether this should be a requirement is moot, it is. Hence the Bishop is within his authority.

      Look this is a bad situation, and yeah, it would be a better if the Bishop hadn't restricted the TLM and mass in general. However, FMC is a mess and it sounds like they are a victim of that mess, this latest débâcle is just a symptom of a much bigger problem brought on by that mess.

      We need to pray for all involved. The Evil One is at work in this matter, and we need to be mindful that we do not know what else is going on behind the scenes.

      God Bless! St Michael Defend us in Battle.

    3. By responding in the way he did, the bishop not only illuminated the mess and did not solve it, he then created another one. He is certainly being baptized by fire in his new role!

      Much of what you are hearing about the situation may not be entirely true. Realize that the parish where Taylor Marshall worships is a small and intimate community. They are a bit insular, I would say. Some traditionally-minded Catholics would not feel comfortable worshipping there on an ongoing basis because of the perceived clique-ishness. Indeed, there are many first-time visitors, and less second and third time visitors. A number of parishioners have been affected by the crisis at FMC. They may lack some perspective as such. Please keep that in mind. It is quite unfortunate that some of the bloggers close to the situation have allowed their feelings to get in the way of the deeper issue.

      Let me ask you a question: Is it okay to argue that some aspects of V2 lack legitimacy? And further, in an academic setting, is it legitimate to expose students to all viewpoints?

      One more thing. If, as you aver, it is a correct move to suppress the TLM as a way to save souls or bring a Catholic to a correct state of mind, you most likely agree that it was correct to suppress the TLM almost universally around 1970, right?

  3. either way it is a foul business. again, pray for all those involved.

  4. If the president of the school is in the deep end, then the bishop should have asked him to step down (and threatened discipline/sanctions for refusal to comply).

    The current action implies that the source of the apparent problems is traditional expression of the faith. When the real source is a person. If the NO were suppressed at all Jesuit universities would they they be fixed?

  5. I think some of those who are locally involved have been distressed for months over the situation, and they are not seeing the deeper issue clearly, which is that a bishop is suppressing the Mass (VO) as a form of correction/punishment. There is no justifying that, regardless of the issues at the college. If Mr. King was a raging sedevacantist it would still not justify what Bishop Olson did.

    I'm afraid that the desire to please man over God is ingrained in modern Catholics through an unspoken rule that the clergy is above reproach no matter what they do (they are ordained doncha know), and some will follow the bishops over the edge into the abyss because "He's the bishop and he's in charge" rather than reason out the implications of what the bishop has done.

    I'm terribly afraid this blog's name was somewhat prophetic.