Controversy At Fisher More College

[KnightofChrist]

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.

I heard a lot of gossip against Fisher More and it's President, many of the same things you've heard. Even if true I don't believe the Bishop should have forbidden the Mass for it. All the gossip I have heard are all problems outside the Mass or problems the College denies exist.

[Basilisa Marie]

To me, this looks like a final piece in a very long line of back and forth. The language is certainly forceful, but there must be a serious question of obedience if the bishop is threatening to withhold communion.

 

Plus, it's not like he's against the EF mass. He told them exactly where they can go to have it.  It looks to me like he's worried about problematic theology. 

 

In principle, it doesn't seem all that different from withholding communion from a disobedient person.  It's a thing the Church does in order to get people to realize the seriousness of their actions. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[mortify ii]

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

 

I can understand your concern to a degree but I think you're over exaggerating. The Church has much bigger problems than a bunch of pesky SSPX Chapels and a few sedevacantists. The fact is we're living in a very strange time in Church history where unprecedented things regularly occur. Many Catholics who attend SSPX or sedevacantist chapels are simply trying to make sense of it all and continue to live close to the faith. I may not agree with them, but I can understand where they're coming from, and they're not people that deserve to be feared or have some kind of stigma thrown at them. Dialogue and unity is what's needed. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by mortify ii

[Basilisa Marie]

I can understand your concern to a degree but I think you're over exaggerating. The Church has much bigger problems than a bunch of pesky SSPX Chapels and a few sedevacantists. The fact is we're living in a very strange time in Church history where unprecedented things regularly occur. Many Catholics who attend SSPX or sedevacantist chapels are simply trying to make sense of it all and continue to live close to the faith. I may not agree with them, but I can understand we're their coming from, and they're not people that deserve to be feared or have some kind of stigma thrown at them. Dialogue and unity is what's needed. 

 

True, but a big part of the problem is that the leaders of the SSPX aren't at all interested in true dialogue, even after Pope Benedict bent over backwards for them.  But yeah - most people who attend their masses do so because they love the traditional Latin mass, not because they have heretical ideas. 

[Basilisa Marie]

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?

 

But he's not forbidding them from going - he even gave them a suggestion for where to go. He does have every right, according to canon law, to regulate the right of people to attend mass and the sacraments.  That includes where and when. 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

I can understand your concern to a degree but I think you're over exaggerating. The Church has much bigger problems than a bunch of pesky SSPX Chapels and a few sedevacantists. The fact is we're living in a very strange time in Church history where unprecedented things regularly occur. Many Catholics who attend SSPX or sedevacantist chapels are simply trying to make sense of it all and continue to live close to the faith. I may not agree with them, but I can understand we're their coming from, and they're not people that deserve to be feared or have some kind of stigma thrown at them. Dialogue and unity is what's needed.

You're right about dialogue and unity, but both of those groups present a spiritual problem. As people, I don't fear them -- I evenempathize with their decisions, to some degree -- but I don't believe those groups are safe and a college president appearing to support either is a massive red flag. Also, they provide the same amount of danger as liberal Catholics; just a different kind. Most Catholics at an SSPX chapel, would be orthodox, but there is still a spiritual danger that comes with that association. Edited March 5, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[4588686]

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

 

 

Right.  So when I seen people on here constantly calling for, and celebrating she Bishops do, refuse the Eucharist to Democratic politicians that's using the Eucharist as a….?????

[mortify ii]

True, but a big part of the problem is that the leaders of the SSPX aren't at all interested in true dialogue, even after Pope Benedict bent over backwards for them.  But yeah - most people who attend their masses do so because they love the traditional Latin mass, not because they have heretical ideas. 

 

Bending backwards would mean the Pope was willing to rescind Vatican II and of course he was not willing to do that. I don't think it's an issue of dialogue but rather two mutually exclusive views that are unable to come to an agreement. There is no common accord here, one must accept the others views.

[Basilisa Marie]

Bending backwards would mean the Pope was willing to rescind Vatican II and of course he was not willing to do that. I don't think it's an issue of dialogue but rather two mutually exclusive views that are unable to come to an agreement. There is no common accord here, one must accept the others views.

 

Right, but...

 

Erg I'm getting off topic. 

 

Anyway. Fisher-More.  I do hope this works itself out. 

[mortify ii]

Right.  So when I seen people on here constantly calling for, and celebrating she Bishops do, refuse the Eucharist to Democratic politicians that's using the Eucharist as a….?????

 

Ok, granted! But I don't mind if a priest wants to deny an obstinate politician who public supports the license to murder life within the womb. I do find it objectionable however that a Bishop would deny Catholics the Eucharist because of some issue they may have with an administrator stepping into an SSPX chapel, or whatever the issue may be. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

from the letter ' reserve the blessed sacrament in the chapel.' What does this mean? Does it mean not celebrate holy mass there or does it mean not keep the holy host present in the tabernacle of the chapel, and doesn't the extraordinary form of holy mass also have a portable tabernacle, and perhaps this group used to leave there own tabernacle in the chapel aside from the ordinary tabernacle ? I don't get this line in the letter. What do you all think without jumping to conclusions, and i don't know is a full credit. I don't know personally. :) The fssp mass in my city have this portable little tabernacle which contains 1 holy host or holy hosts(i don't know) but also gather host from the ordinary tabernacle to feed the congregation. They place there own tabernacle in the middle of the alter if i remember correctly. Perhaps now they have to keep all there own hosts in there own little tabernacle, even if so that does seem strange unless it's some kind of disciplinary action or in preparation of disciplinary action towards the school that the chapel is attached to or something. As per usual i probably come across a bit unknowledgeble on such matters because i have not much knowledge of such matters. What sayeth ye all, what does ' reserve the blessed sacrament in the chapel' mean.

 

I honestly don't know, would be good to know though. :)

 

Onward christian souls .

 

Jesus iz LORD!

[Cherie]

Did y'all read the post from Dr. Taylor Marshall that he posted on his Facebook page? For those of you who think it's all about the "Latin Mass," you really need to read this. It's NOT really about the Latin Mass at all. Dr. Marshall is saying there are things we don't know - very serious things that he has particular knowledge of that he's not free to explain fully. But I do commend him for saying something. It's a terrible thing for the bishop to be maligned unjustly like this.

 

 

Regarding Fisher More College and what you're reading in Rorate Caeli:

Now that the Bishop of Fort Worth has weighed in (and is now being maligned), after much prayer, I feel that I should break the silence.

First off, I love the students at Fisher More College (FMC). I love them so much. It was heartbreaking for me to leave FMC. Last summer (2013) was very difficult for me. I also love the Latin Mass and write about it often on my blog and talk about it publicly (my family belongs to a FSSP parish – Mater Dei parish in Irving, Texas).

For the record, I resigned as Chancellor of the College at the beginning of June of 2013—only days after our seventh baby was born. I had no job prospects and no income. I did it for the sake of conscience. I felt it would be a danger to my soul to remain at Fisher More College.

I resigned when moral, theological, and financial discrepancies came to light regarding the presidency of Michael King. I was an ex officio member of the Board so I knew what others did not. From May to early June of 2013, five of the eight College Board Members also resigned for two reasons:

1) Mr. King refused to disassociate himself from the public statements of faculty member Dr. Dudley that 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.)

2) Mr. King, after selling the original FMC campus to Texas Christian University for millions of dollars, had imprudently entered into a real estate deal that financially crippled Fisher More College.

Much of the politicization around the “Latin Mass and FMC” is Mr. King’s careful attempt to distract attention away from his financial misdealing at FMC. The college is currently teetering on bankruptcy and this latest entanglement with the bishop will lead to a public statement: “Fisher More closed down because the new bishop of Fort Worth persecuted the Latin Mass!” when in reality the College is failing because Mr. King entered into a dubious real estate deal that washed out college’s endowment AND all the proceeds from the sale of the original campus.

How did a College sell its extremely valuable campus to TCU for several millions dollars in 2012 only to announce at Christmas 2013 that it might be closing without an immediate fund raising campaign through Rorate Caeli?

Rorate Caeli has just released their sensational “exclusive” report on how the new Bishop of Fort Worth is persecuting the traditional Latin Mass in the person of Michael King. They included the (private) letter of Bishop Olson to Michael King and offered their speculation.

This controversy created by Rorate Caeli with the help of Michael King’s letter is not about the Latin Mass or Summorum Pontificum.*

FMC hosted a public repudiation of Vatican 2 and the Ordinary Form of the Mass in April of 2013 that was so offensive that my wife and I walked out of it before it’s conclusion. That did not do much to heal the breach with the local diocese or presbyterate and it contributed to the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) discontinuing their support and presence at FMC. The current FMC website advertises that the FSSP provides a chaplain, but this is not true.

At the same time, Michael King estranged himself from the diocese of Fort Worth by not allowing the Ordinary Form (as stipulated by the previous ordinary Bishop Vann of Fort Worth). He 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. Mr. King was able to create a community in his image (he affectionately referred to himself the “father” of this community) during the episcopal inter-regnum of the diocese of Fort Worth.

Clearly, a bishop's intervention was inevitable. The current controversy really has nothing to do with the Latin Mass per se. The Latin Mass is at the center because Michael King is politicizing the Latin Mass in his favor, knowing that “bishops vs the Latin Mass” is red meat for some traditionalist blogs.

Bishop Olson says in the letter that he is doing this for Michael King's "soul." The bishop understands that this is a personal intervention – and not an attack on Fisher More College or its students or the Latin Mass.

It's a serious pastoral problem. Mr. King no doubt leaked Bp Olson’s letter via one of his few supporters to build sympathy before the inevitable financial collapse that will expose his mishandling of Fisher More College. Mr. King, more than anything, would like to blame the inevitable collapse of FMC (within only weeks or months) on the bishop’s “persecution of the Latin Mass.”

Hold your peace. Watch for how it unfolds, and most of all pray for the students that are still dutifully studying and praying. There are some GREAT students at Fisher More College.

As one who loves and prays the Latin Mass, please don’t curse or blame Bishop Olson for this one. He is a new bishop who inherited a TOUGH pastoral problem. Pray for him. And if you love the Latin Mass, don’t be so quick to judge the bishops or cite canon law. Sometimes there are things behind the scenes that you don’t know.

1 Cor 13:1-2 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

*Regarding Summorum Pontificum in this situation. It doesn’t apply here since the college chapel does not have a priest requesting to say the Latin Mass and the chapel therefore falls under the direct pastoral control of the bishop. It’s the case of a layman (Michael King) asking for it. Those accusing Bishop Olson of breaking canon law or despising Summorum Pontificum should be more careful. Moreover, be assured that Bishop Olson supports the FSSP in his diocese and has nothing against the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Gracious thanks Cheriemadame.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

From what I understand, the bishop is not anti-EFM. I heard that there are believed to be fishy/scismatic stuff going on since FSSP stopped doing their Masses.

And for future reference, Mortify, citing Michael Voris as a source is a bad move.

Edited March 5, 2014 by FutureCarmeliteClaire

[MIKolbe]

The good Bishop did not run this decision through me and is clearly not as acquainted of the pastoral needs in his diocese as I am.

 

Now if you'll pardon me, there is a Bishop in Djibouti who is due to call me for advice and pastoral direction on the GIRM.