Controversy At Fisher More College

[mortify ii]

This has become a big topic in traditional Catholic circles (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3463669.0.html)

 

 

 

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCnBi6D2PU[/youtube]

[mortify ii]

So if the College chapel prays the Latin mass they'll be forbidden to celebrate the Eucharist? Imagine that, the Eucharist being used as part of a threat. 

 

What strange times we live in

Edited March 5, 2014 by mortify ii

[Brother Adam]

You have to wonder what happened behind closed doors to prompt the bishop to write "for your own soul". I'm surprised that he would make such a drastic move in the first three months of being a bishop. It makes me believe that there is much more to this story that we don't know and won't find out from the diocese because they are following protocol. I'm sure we will learn more after Ecclesia Dei gets involved and issues a ruling.

[Maggyie]

Fisher-More is a pretty unusual place. Not really a college experience for adults, more like a boarding school for homeschooled kids having their first time living away from home.

 

One of the faculty members who recently resigned made some comments about increased moonbatism in the administration of the school (sede vacante, etc). I think that probably has a LOT to do with this letter.

 

 

 

[mortify ii]

Maggie,

 

I can't judge the quality of the school since I don't really know much about it, I'm more concerned with the prohibition of the Latin mass from a community that clearly desires it. I don't understand the apprehension some of our hierarchs have towards traditionalists, assuming you are right that this is an issue over sedevacantism. Even if true, sedevecantist make up a very small proportion of the Catholic Church, a fraction of a fraction percent. I think there are much bigger fish to fry than these simple folk who want to worship as traditional Catholics. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by mortify ii

[NotreDame]

So I read a bunch this morning on this topic.  From what I can tell the president of Fisher More, Michael King has had some issues, including veering close to Sedevacantism, that prompted this personal letter from the Bishop.  I don't know if the Bishop's did the best job of handling it - and he certainly hasn't from a PR standpoint - but I think Rorate's version leaves a lot out. 

 

I have also read that Summorum Pontificum doesn't apply for a couple reasons:  first, that there's a risk of schism, second, that it could be something like an "oratory", directly under control of the Bishop - neither of which points I am equipped to discuss, but I am simplifying what I read below.

 

Local DFW catholic blog with background in post and the comments:

 

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/more-notes-on-fisher-more-and-comments-back-on/

 

Another local Fort-Worther:

 

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-bishop-olson-and-fisher-more-college.html

 

The former Chancellor who resigned a while back (read his first timeline post):

 

https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall?hc_location=timeline

 

More here:

 

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2969/bishop_of_fort_worth_draws_the_line.aspx#.Uxan2V6E65L

 

Then there is more here that everyone should have read because it was linked on Rorate:

 

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/

 

Fr Z has some useful info on relevant canon law:

 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/fr-zs-first-reaction-to-bp-olson-banning-extraordinary-form-at-fort-worths-fisher-more-college/

 

Personally, I'm not sure this bishop is in the wrong, but he needs to work on his communication plan.  I really wish bishops would be more transparent with this stuff in general.  They've lost a lot of credibility (in general and with me personally based on my experiences) for the way they handled (and still handle) the abuse cases.  Objectively, they really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate they can be trusted and earn some of that credibility back. 

[ImageTrinity]

Never heard of this college, but the detailed dress code gives me the creeps. :unsure:

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

So I read a bunch this morning on this topic. From what I can tell the president of Fisher More, Michael King has had some issues, including veering close to Sedevacantism, that prompted this personal letter from the Bishop. I don't know if the Bishop's did the best job of handling it - and he certainly hasn't from a PR standpoint - but I think Rorate's version leaves a lot out.

I have also read that Summorum Pontificum doesn't apply for a couple reasons: first, that there's a risk of schism, second, that it could be something like an "oratory", directly under control of the Bishop - neither of which points I am equipped to discuss, but I am simplifying what I read below.

Local DFW catholic blog with background in post and the comments:

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/more-notes-on-fisher-more-and-comments-back-on/

Another local Fort-Worther:

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-bishop-olson-and-fisher-more-college.html

The former Chancellor who resigned a while back (read his first timeline post):

https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall?hc_location=timeline

More here:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2969/bishop_of_fort_worth_draws_the_line.aspx#.Uxan2V6E65L

Then there is more here that everyone should have read because it was linked on Rorate:

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/

Fr Z has some useful info on relevant canon law:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/fr-zs-first-reaction-to-bp-olson-banning-extraordinary-form-at-fort-worths-fisher-more-college/

Personally, I'm not sure this bishop is in the wrong, but he needs to work on his communication plan. I really wish bishops would be more transparent with this stuff in general. They've lost a lot of credibility (in general and with me personally based on my experiences) for the way they handled (and still handle) the abuse cases. Objectively, they really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate they can be trusted and earn some of that credibility back.

I didn't hear anything about the president drifting towards Sedevacantism, but I heard he had been attending an SSPX chapel occasionally. Granted, I have no evidence for either; I'm only going off what I've heard. Of any of these are true, then we have a very dangerous situation. If the president was doing that then he was setting a bad example for the students and potentially leading them and himself in a bad direction. Again, I don't know this for sure, I have not researched the issue. I have often heard complaints about (and have done so myself) "liberal" Catholic colleges damaging the faith; there is the possiblity of this doing the same -- just in a different direction. In such a case the bishop has the right, even the duty, to step in. The EF should never be used to divide the Church and based of what I heard, this could very likely be the case. Now it should also be noted that this is not a prohibition on the Extraordinary From. The letter mentions a nearby parish where people can go, thus that whole community still has it available; just not on campus. The Bishop is likely just trying to fix an on campus problem and feels that this is the best way. That leads me into my final point: in charity we must presume that the bishop has just reason for his decision. He is the shepherd of that diocese and so we should trust him to make decisions that are best for their souls. Could his decision be wrong? Potentially, but we should assume otherwise unless we have solid proof.

[mortify ii]

I think the fear is towards traditionalism. For whatever reason, this movement within the Church arises the most apprehension and requires the most decisive action among our hierarchs. It's not the virtually ubiquitous progressive institutions and colleges that explicitly uphold and promote moral and doctrinal positions contrary to Catholicism. No, they can continue right on doing what they do without fear of the Eucharist being taken away from them. Rather, it's a small and obscure traditional college out in Texas with just about as many students as my graduating class in high school that requires harsh force. Something is very off about all of this!

[Ancilla Domini]

This confuses me - how is this in compliance with the Motu Proprio? The bishop doesn't have the authority to forbid the celebration of the Extraordinary form of the Mass, does he?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Ancilla Domini

[mortify ii]

I didn't hear anything about the president drifting towards Sedevacantism, but I heard he had been attending an SSPX chapel occasionally...Of any of these are true, then we have a very dangerous situation. 

 

Is it really a dangerous situation? I mean don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Sedevacantism, but is really this boogeyman we have to fear? What of the countless irreverent masses where sermons are preached contrary to faith, are they not a greater fear? I honestly don't understand the phobia towards traditionalism. 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

I think the fear is towards traditionalism. For whatever reason, this movement within the Church arises the most apprehension and requires the most decisive action among our hierarchs. It's not the virtually ubiquitous progressive institutions and colleges that explicitly uphold and promote moral and doctrinal positions contrary to Catholicism. No, they can continue right on doing what they do without fear of the Eucharist being taken away from them. Rather, it's a small and obscure traditional college out in Texas with just about as many students as my graduating class in high school that requires harsh force. Something is very off about all of this!

The Eucharist wasn't taken from them; they just have to say the Ordinary Form, with the option to attend the EF off campus. The reason that this problem has resulted in such a decision is because the issue revolves around the Mass. The actions of the bishop aren't really that harsh. I will say that we do need to do more about the liberal colleges, but they wouldn't listen any way. Maybe that's why the bishops don't do anything. A traditionalist will obey the Church, even when they don't like it. This it becomes a more efficient to take action in these situations.

[mortify ii]

The Eucharist wasn't taken from them; they just have to say the Ordinary Form, with the option to attend the EF off campus. The reason that this problem has resulted in such a decision is because the issue revolves around the Mass. The actions of the bishop aren't really that harsh. I will say that we do need to do more about the liberal colleges, but they wouldn't listen any way. Maybe that's why the bishops don't do anything. A traditionalist will obey the Church, even when they don't like it. This it becomes a more efficient to take action in these situations.

 

Did you read His Excellence's letter where he says if the College does not comply they will be prohibited from any celebration of the Eucharist? Traditionalism is not a disease that requires quarantine, traditional Catholics should be allowed to celebrate it wherever they want. 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Is it really a dangerous situation? I mean don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Sedevacantism, but is really this boogeyman we have to fear? What of the countless irreverent masses where sermons are preached contrary to faith, are they not a greater fear? I honestly don't understand the phobia towards traditionalism.

I do think it's something to fear. The SSPX and Sedevacantism are dangerous to the faith and having an authority figure appear to support them is frightening. I agree the irreverent Masses and bad sermons are also worth fearing. The one difference is they don't make any claims to orthodoxy, like the SSPX would, which makes them far less dangerous Edited March 5, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Did you read His Excellence's letter where he says if the College does not comply they will be prohibited from any celebration of the Eucharist? Traditionalism is not a disease that requires quarantine, traditional Catholics should be allowed to celebrate it wherever they want.

I didn't read that part. Still I'll trust that the bishop has a reason for it. Let's not presume on his motives.

No one said traditionalsim is a disease. The bishop even tells them where to go to celebrate the EF. If he was acting against all traditiol Catholics he would gace also closed down that parish. This inficates that ge sees a ptoblem at the school that he wants to solve. I'm quite sympathetic towards the traditional movement and have a great love for the Extraordinary Form. I try to attend it when ever I get the chance. Edited March 5, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert