Per the request of a reader I am updating this blog concerning the Fisher More College situation.
There are a series of updates on the situation from the College itself, including a rebuttal of Taylor Marshall by the President of the College, Michael King. I provide the link in the interests of fairness, but I also deem it necessary to point out again, why I originally posted on the matter and included a link to Taylor Marshall’s allegations.
I pointed out that the list of speakers at the College since Taylor Marshall’s departure confirm problematic situation as Dr. Marshall narrates it. The invitation,for example, to a suspended priest to speak at the college says pretty much all you need to know.
This is really not about he said, she said. It is about whether it is reasonable to presume that the bishop had grounds to decide as he did. It is, in fact, his competence, and not anyone else’s to decide whether the college should be able to operate a chapel and how so. But if his decision seems to be harsh, we might ask if it seems he had grounds for his decision. It seems that he did, and we might further presume that he has far more information about the situation than we are aware of.
Michael King’s own words, from his rebuttal, are apropos in this matter:
As with all personnel matters, I will not comment publicly on any of the circumstances surrounding Dr. Marshall’s employment and departure. This policy serves to protect current or former employees, none of whom we wish to see personally harmed by statements that would be necessary to explain and justify our actions. It also serves as a guardian of our own souls, particularly when the devil besets us with the temptation to respond to an injustice by committing one of our own.
I believe that for similar reasons the Most Reverend Michael Olsen of Fort Worth chose to communicate privately with President King, and not to publicize his decision. In fact, his office has made clear:
“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.
It is unfortunate that Michael King and Rorate Caeli chose to fight this out in the public forum.
Mary Victrix 
It is unfortunate that Michael King and Rorate Caeli chose to fight this out in the public forum.
It would be heartening to read one or both of them apologise for what they have done and then try and make amends and repair the damage done.
Well,, one can hope 🙂
Bullies, ….. aplologize? LOL!
Seeing snow fall in July might happen first before a bully ever sincerely apologizes to those he injures.
I think misappropriation of monies is a seconary issue with this story.
It’s all about:
Power…Wealth…Honors
{to think a layman would get a Canonical lawyer to defend ‘his rights’ against the edict of his bishop!~~~”I will not obey are also the words of Satan”}
Holy Mother Church is saturated with little dictators!
They get their egos filled knowing unsuspecting individuals will do exactly as their told. NOBODY is bound to listen to a narcissist if he commands that charity be offended!!!!!
Read the “Imitation of Mary” under the chapter ‘Obedience’.
(Little cowards….)
Reverend Father
I would like to precede my remarks by stating that I am not in possession of all the facts; either regarding the current situation within your own order OR Fisher More College.
Can you appreciate the possible perception that the above cases creates within a segment of the Catholic Population ? There where many people (Princes of the Church Amongst them) who when the New Mass was Introduced in 1970 pointed out what they perceived to be ambiguities in the revised liturgical books (both for the Mass and Ordination Rite) that were not present in the Liturgical books of 1962. Additionally in the NAME of the 2nd Vatican council (I’m not going to debate the documents here) changes were carried out which in many cases had nothing to do with the documents of the council and catechisess on moral and doctrinal issues dropped to standards so abysmal that roughly 50% of Mass going Catholics in the United States support so called ‘gay marriage’ (Source Life-site news) and Priests were using invalid formula’s (baptizing in the name of the creator, redeemer & Sanctifyer) and matter (I’ve heard of Priests trying to use soft drinks for baptism) for several sacraments.
Now instead of addressing the concerns of these Catholics ( amongst of whom was the Venerable french Archbishop Marciel Lefevbre) the Bishops largely persecuted their own faithful for simply wishing to worship according to the older form of the Mass, whilst turning a blind eye or even encouraging liturgical abuses and systematically destroying Catholic education. It seemed as if there was one rule for the heretic and another for the orthodox believer, naturally over a period of decades in which both Paul VI and John Paul II did very little to defend these Catholics a bunker / quasi schismatic mentality developed, even amongst those Catholics who did not go to the SSPX but instead attended the Indult / FSSP Mass.
Now along comes Pope Benedict and formally liberalizes the use of the Old Rite, now the only qualification a Priest needs is that he is competent to say it; these groups rejoice, additionally he formally allows a more nuanced critique of Vatican Two itself (one book was published by your own order’s publishing house) and with the replacement of the ‘hippey generation ‘ of Bishops by those who are certainly more open and tolerant of the Old Rite even if they don’t offer themselves, the Old Guard are grateful and think that they can get on with fighting the culture war without having to worry about quislings stabbing them in the back and generally trying to undo the damage of the last 50 years.
Now in the first year of Pope Francis’s reign a young and very successful Congregation is placed in ‘special mesures’, the purported reasons seem to change periodically whilst the ‘nuns on the bus’ are left to continue promoting grave moral evils and a Bishop forbids the Old Rite a young and Faithful Catholic college whilst the likes of the Jesuits are left to continue corrupting the morals of the young at Georgetown and Boston College (I accept that they are outside of Bp. Olsteen’s jurisdiction but they make for a good comparison). Placing yourself in our shoes, what would you think? If had been persecuted by your own Bishop for wanting to go to the Old Rite, how would you interpret these events?
My Own two cents
1) I think that the Reverend Father Fidnezi Volpi OFM. Cap has handled the situation with your own Congregation badly, he is certainly doing nothing to dispel the impression that the restrictions he placed are a crackdown on all things Traditional; and one certainly gets the impression that the reasons given for his actions seem to change frequently. Now this could just be Franciscan infighting (and lets face it, you Franciscans fight over everything and anything with with each other), but there are a LOT of people who think something more sinister is going on and the conflicting accounts given by different people certainly don’t help. I know that generally Religious Congregations don’t like to air their dirty in public, but given the amount of attention this is continually getting in the blogosphere one might think that prominent and respected Catholic Journalists/bloggers such as John Allen (formally of the Reporter), William Oddie (UK Catholic Herald), Mark Shea and Father Zulsdorf (to cover all Orthodox positions on the Old Mass) all the facts and a free pass to interview Fathers / Brothers (anonymously if need be) would be in the best interests of transparency, the health of the Church and put a stop to the rumor mongering.
2) I think that Bishop Olsteen screwed up, here in England it would be considered rude to thank someone for their support and then to inform that their privileges had been taken away in the same letter. As for the situation with Fisher Moore in general, If I were his Vicar General I would have have advised against making permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament conditional on no Priest being allowed to say the EF, yes according to Dr Peters the Bishop is within his rights on this particular Chapel but If I was in his shoes I would take Pat Archibold’s advice and not undertake an action that could give the impression of being solely directed at Traditionalists.
As ever your Son in Christ
Jack
Jack,
Yes I can and do appreciate the perception created in a certain segment of the Catholic population that has felt the affects of the disastrous postconciliar implementation. I am a member of that segment.
But for more than twenty-five years I have also lived, prayed and worked as a novus ordo Catholic in a community that has been faithful to Christ and His Church, in orthodoxy, liturgy and religious life. I also, along with the rest of the members of my Institute, embraced Summorum Pontificum as a grace from God.
I am up on all these facts and more, because the situation as you can well appreciate is a complicated one. It is not all black hats against white by any stretch of the imagination. All is not light and grace everywhere in the Church, even in the blessed land of Tradition.
What would I think if I were in your shoes? Well, first of all I am not entirely out of your shoes. But if I did not know what I do (seeing things from the inside and reading what outsiders have to say about my community), I would probably think exactly what Rorate Caeli and the other blogs that leaked information about us wanted me to think, because after all, the Internet firestorm concerning my community and Fisher More was all about rabble rousing.
No one on the outside really knows all the facts. People who leak private information tend to release only stuff that is favorable to their side, and then they create a narrative in the public that gets repeated over and over again by sympathetic parties until, as we all know, not even Cicero himself could ever convince people that the narrative is not true. Besides, none of the information was meant to be public in the first place, precisely because it is about family life. It involves complex situations and personal reputations. There is not a chance in the world that the problems we face are going to be solved in the public forum. But there it is out in the open and no can put it back in the bottle.
So, Jack, you are right. I probably would think exactly what you think.
Regarding your two cents:
1) What does everyone think? That we only started to pray and live an observant form of religious life in 2007 with the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum? A crack down on all things Traditional? We are observing our life, just as we always have. We are in the chapel five and half hours a day. The Holy Mass celebrated reverently according the mind of the Church everyday. We where the habit all the time. Eucharist adoration and benediction everyday. The Rosary in common everyday. Spiritual reading everyday. And on and on it goes. We have been doing this for twenty-five years. It didn’t start with SP and it didn’t end with the Commissioner.
I am very sorry that there are many who believe something sinister is going on in our community. You should take that up with Rorate Caeli and their friends in the blogosphere and ask them kindly to mind their own business. Our transparency is with the Church. We are sons of the Roman Church. Our responsibility is to the Church. That is ultimately what our vows mean. What has happened in the public forum is the responsibility of those who have made the Church the villain and have done so in the most untransparent way.
2) It is all about narratives created in the public by people who intended to create narratives in the public to serve their interests. You choose to fight a bishop in the public, when he is within his rights, especially, when there are matters that he has chosen to deal with among the involved parties only, you lose. True, you now have a narrative impervious even to Cicero that makes the bishop the villain. But you still lose. And you can jump up and down about how unfair it is, and how it’s all a persecution and everyone else’s fault, and how almost everyone hates Tradition and the true faith. You still lose. There is a lesson there, but I won’t hold my breath in the hope that the victims, leakers and propagandists are going to learn it.
Dear Father
I most certainly do Not think that you only started to live and pray an observant form of religious life in 2007, I have only met members of your congregation on two occasions but each time I have been edified by their commitment to the Evangelical Vows.
Perhaps I should clarify. When I say ‘all things traditional’ I was referring specifically to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Brevium Romanam, this is because there are people with a bunker mentality who because of their past experiences are worried that the decision to suspend permission for Priests of your Congregation to say the Mass of Bl. John XIII may be used as a pretext by others who have a hatred for said Mass (and I’m sure that you will admit that they exist) to try and renew the persecution of faithful Catholics who are attached to it.
This hatred of the Mass of Bl. John XII has nothing to do with ‘rad trads’ and everything to do with an ideological commitment to the ‘new and evolving church of social justice / nice’ and recognize quite rightly that the Old Mass stand resolutely for Traditional Catholic belief in a way that the New Mass with its multitude of options does not do as effectively.
1) I won’t get into an argument over who started what leak over your Congregation and I appreciate that leakers don’t always include the whole picture. However there are many honest, faithful Trad Catholics who have NOTHING to do with Rorate who are worried that the FI community near them is going to be uprooted by Fr. Volpi’s fiat (as Sandro Magister reports has happened in Italy, for reasons that appear dubious to the naked eye) and are fearful that a redux of the 1970’s & 80’s is on the cards where heretical or just downright mean clergy do their level best to try and impose their vision of the Church by abusing the vow of obedience to superiors (one thinks of Bp. Trautman who is infamous in Trad communities for denying permission for Requiems in the old rite prior to SP)
I would hesitate to accuse the likes of Rorate of casting the Church as ‘the enemy’, again please try and understand their mindset, these are people who’ve been through the wringer so often that ecclesiastical PSTD has set in, they have had to adopt an almost protestant mindset in order to cling to the whole Faith, nothing short of LOTS of paternal affection is going to cure them of that, also I would hesitate to use such language to describe Dr Joseph Shaw the Chairman of the English Latin Mass society, whose commentaries are
I appreciate that you would like to sort this out as a family, but as you say the genie is out of the bottle and in my experience genies never go back in of their own accord. Now I suggested a way in which would give you and your superiors a chance to set the record Straight and quash rumors which would be (I think) in the best interests of everyone. I mentioned the Priest and three laymen as I thought that they would be able to report from a reasonably impartial viewpoint and lay any rumors to rest. If you choose not that is your choice but think of the balm you would bring to troubled souls if you did so.
2 ) I never said that Bp. Olsteen was ‘a villain’, I did question the prudence / decorum of his letter. I won’t say any more because a lot of what I’ve already said applies here as well.
Dear Mr. Hughes. For starters, you could learn the name of the Bishop you are publicly criticising (… persecuted..). His name is, Bishop Michael Olson, of Fort Worth, Texas.
Joel Olsteen is a protestant preacher from Texas
You repeatedly call Bishop Olson, Bishop Olsteen.
I am sure you would understand the mindset of those who might think you intentionally switched those names as a sly way to indicate that Bishop Olson is a protestant by praxis owing to his action that Rorate Caeli and President King cunningly chose to make a public case out of (for their own agendas).
See how easy it is for anyone to infiltrate unjust charges into a parade of seemingly innocent questions.
Father has posted a splendid, pointed, yet pacific reply to your post and your response indicates to me that you really do not care to know the facts of this captious quarrel that was intended to be addressed privately by Bishop Olson.
Now I suggested a way in which would give you and your superiors a chance to set the record Straight and quash rumors which would be (I think) in the best interests of everyone. I mentioned the Priest and three laymen as I thought that they would be able to report from a reasonably impartial viewpoint and lay any rumors to rest. If you choose not that is your choice but think of the balm you would bring to troubled souls if you did so
Well, so much for a Bishop and His Duty to Teach, Rule, and Sanctify in his own Jurisdiction.
The Tradition since the Rise of the Online Trad machine is that self-appointed laymen, with, admittedly, very little knowledge of a particular situation, think themselves the competent authority; and yet they wonder why so many Bishops would not touch them with a two hundred foot Crosier.
Bornacatholic….
You crack me up! 🙂
Born Catholic
My apologies for confusing his Grace with a protestant churchmen leader, here in the UK we hear more about these protestant heretics than we do authentic Catholic Bishops, and given the similarity in the names its is an easy mistake to make. One might retort that you have intentionally quoted my remarks about the possibility of the FI inviting prominent Catholic journalists / bloggers to talk to the members of the Congregation in relation to Bp. Olson in order to make it seem like I was seeking to undermine his Grace’s authority, but being a charitable chap I will assume that you made an honest mistake.
Firstly please tell me what is wrong with my response to Fr. Angelo’s rejoinder? It was intended to clarify points in my first post that I believed Father had misinterpreted, to give further exposition on the mindset of many people attached to the liturgical patrimony of the Mass of Bl. John XII and why I believe the said Mass is to heretics, what a Crucifix is to a Vampire. In relation to Bp. Olson I merely said that I was not seeking to cast his grace as a villain whilst restating that I disagreed with the prudence and decorum of his letter and thought that he could have handled the situation better.
Secondly I would like to answer the charge that ‘the online Trad machine is a self-appointed laymen, with little knowledge of specific situations. Since the majority of the first hand reporting of the Fransicans of the Immaculate has come from Sandro Magister who is a correspondent for l’Espresso (which enjoys a reputation as a politically independent newspaper in a country where most of the press is brought and paid for by the former premier) one would be justified in treating his articles with respect, even if one disagrees with them.
Dear Mr. Hughes. You did not even trouble yourself to get the Bishop’s name right and so that fact alone suggests whatever else you claim is likely to be about as reliable as that.
Please heed Father’s advice
You should take that up with Rorate Caeli and their friends in the blogosphere and ask them kindly to mind their own business.
and mind your own business.
Neither Mr Archbold nor you have any standing to demand one thing from a Bishops under whose Jurisdiction neither of you live.
Born Catholic
a) it was an honest mistake, even the best of us make them and given the similarity between the names and I would have thought that a charitable person could let it pass, you on the other hand seek to use that to dismiss the credibility of anything I say. Personally I fail to see how that invalidates the points I have made, Fr. Angelo being a gracious soul did not hold that against me and instead of being a nitpicker, responded to the points that I actually made, which I then responded to and you got your feathers in a flap over a small mistake that had nothing to with the substance of my argument.
b) You are right, I have no rights to demand anything from any Bishop, let alone one in whose jurisdiction I do not live; indeed I mentioned that Bp Olson was WITHIN his rights in taking the action that he did; I was MERELY stating that I disagreed with both the tone of his letter,he prudence of his actions and stated what advice I would give him IF I was his Vicar General I was not ‘demanding’ anything.
I did SUGGEST to Fr. Angelo a way in which the Reverend Father Fidenzio Volpi COULD quite easily dispel the rumors in the blogosophere and correct any misunderstandings that may have arisen as a result of his actions as a balm to troubled souls. . If Fr Angelo doesn’t choose to share them with Fr. Volpi / he does and Fr. Volpi dismisses the suggestion then that is their prerogative.
c) You have not responded to any of my points I actually raised, I have explained that the source for most of the articles making their way around the web is Sandro Magister a man who is respected for covering religious affairs in Italy and therefore in the absence of a defeater his articles should be considered reliable. now sometimes even well respected and well meaning jorno’s get it wrong, in which case they retract their articles publicly and issue an apology to anyone who they have made inaccurate claims about, Their credibility may take a hit depending on the severity / number of the error/s but that is the way in which the free market regulates the press.
d) you tell me to ‘mind my own business’ ?, may I ask you who died and made you the arbiter of what is and isn’t my business ? as I explained many of those attached to the Old Rite fear (for reasons which may have no basis in reality) that the ban on FI Priests saying the older RIte / Bp. Olson’s may be used as a pretext to suppress the Old Rite by those who have an ideological objection to it. As someone who goes to the Old Rite almost exclusively I have a stake in its availability and therefore if a clergyman is suppressing it for ideological reasons then it very much becomes my business.
“Dear Mr. Hughes. You did not even trouble yourself to get the Bishop’s name right and so that fact alone suggests whatever else you claim is likely to be about as reliable as that…”
In other words, I am unable to refute you or even have a charitable conversation with you, so I will resort to ad hominem attacks on the basis of a misspelt name.
Mr. Hughes….
As you have stated previously, you live in England… (“here in the UK”)….why would anything happening in the diocese of Ft. Worth, TX concern you? You are not affiliated with the FI so why would you concern yourself with their internal issues?
Both Fr. Volpi and Bishop Olson are the responsible authorities to care for the souls under them, nobody else. And if you are so concerned about the TLM being suppressed then I would begin to think you have too much attachment to it, instead of desiring nothing of this world; which sometimes includes holy things.
2nd Glorious Mystery: the Ascension of our Lord
Stoney….You’ve got guts. I’ll say that much for you.
Holy Veil
To put it bluntly I am concerned because my Bishop is hostile towards the TLM and I am worried that he might use the situation at Forth Worth and the FI to suppress the TLM here.
As for having ‘ too much attachment’ to the TLM, there are a number of reasons I prefer it amongst of which are the following:
a) I believe that its theology of Sacrifice is more explicit than that of the Novus Ordo
b) It is longer than the Novus Ordo by about 1/3 and includes the prayers at the Foot of the Altar which better prepare the attendant for the Sacrifice
c) I have come to the conclusion that the revised liturgical books are sometimes ambiguous in their meanings and can be read both as orthodox and heterodox depending on the orthodoxy of the individual.
d) The Ordinary of the TLM never changes and there are no options to shorten the readings of the Propers
e) I believe that it is simply more extrinsically beautiful.
The Late Michael Davies wrote an excellent series of books about the New Mass which I heaterly recommend you read, the FSSP Priest Fr. Chad Ripperger has also written extensively on this topic.
I do go to the Novus Ordo when the TLM is unavailable, I believe it to be a Valid Mass etc etc, also whilst I will charitably assume you did not mean it this way, you sound quite sanctimonious by suggesting that I need to be detached from the TLM, it smells a lot like a case of special pleading to this Thomsit
Thank you very much. Btw, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not just a “holy thing”, it is a foretaste of Heaven. It actually is not of this world, but almost supernatural: Heaven comes down to us and we participate in the Heavenly liturgy offered by Christ the eternal High Priest. Yes indeed we should be attached to the Mass. Read the Book of Revelation, especially Chapter 19.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi:
“Liturgical worship is not an “add on” for a Catholic Christian. It is the foundation of Catholic identity; expressing our highest purpose. Worship reveals what we truly believe and how we view ourselves in relationship to God, one another and the world into which we are sent to carry forward the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.
How the Church worships is a prophetic witness to the truth of what she professes. Good worship becomes a dynamic means of drawing the entire human community into the fullness of life in Jesus Christ. It attracts – through beauty to Beauty. Liturgical worship informs and transforms both the person and the worshipping community which participates in it. There is reciprocity between worship and life.”
https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=39029
Stoney…are you sure you aren’t a priest in disguise? No one is to attach themselves to ANYTHING to the point of losing one’s peace, and/or fighting with one’s neighbor.
In response to both of you:
“Nothing happens in our world without God’s permission. And everything, evil as well as good, serves His providential purposes. It is not granted to you now to understand His plans, but the day will come when you will recognize their full justice and wisdom.
You should not, of course, be insensible of the evils in the Church; it is only right that they should be a source of affliction for you; you may even weep bitterly over them, as God Himself does. But if you were to be scandalized at them so that your faith suffered or you lost your peace, that would not any longer be zeal but an abuse and excess.
One true virtue does not destroy another.
Submission of mind to what God allows is compatible with genuine zeal for the glory of God.” ~ Imitation of Mary (pg 198)
“The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be God forever.” (The Book of Job)
Your arguments go very much against the teaching of abandonment.
Pax!
Mr. Hughes @
“The Late Michael Davies wrote an excellent series of books about the New Mass which I heaterly recommend you read, the FSSP Priest Fr. Chad Ripperger has also written extensively on this topic.”
And I recommend you read the Gospel of Saint John….in its entirety.
BTW…during the Last Supper (first Mass) our Lord’s only command was…”do this in remembrance of Me.”
No fiddlebacks, incense, smells or bells necessary to worship God. And I say this as one who prefers the TLM myself.
Worshipping God, if I am not mistaken, begins with giving God praise, because He is God. We praise Him now on earth because praise is all we will be doing in heaven; (the foretaste Stoney mentioned). We give Him thanks, adore Him, and offer our petitions to him in both forms of the Mass. Two forms~one Mass.
If we attach ourselves to anything to the point of losing our peace when its taken away then we make room for the evil one to move into our hearts. Our Lord does not desire to dwell in a divided heart.
Pax.
Holy Veil
Like born catholic you seem to be incapable of actually interacting with the points that stoney and I have made, instead you quote passages from spiritual books and assert that they support your assertion that we are to attached to the old rite.
You are in effect piling assertion on assertion
Total Surrender to Divine Providence is not only spiritually healthy for one’s soul, but exemplifies Jesus’ and Mary’s entire life.
Not assertion. Truth. 🙂
(PS…It’s also the title of another spiritual book!)
Have a blessed night! Pax.
Holy Veil
Why do you refuse to interact with my arguments ? Your claim that I am inordinately ‘attached’ to the Traditional Mass is unfalsifiable i.e.it cannot be proven false, anything I say is evidence that I am inordinately ‘attached’. Can you not see the problem with your logic?
Quoting spiritual books is not a way to win an argument (oh and by the way quotes can be taken out of context), logic is.
Hughes @
“Why do you refuse to interact with my arguments ?”
{Arguments?…arguing negates charity, does it not?}
The simple fact, sir, and I use this term loosely, is that you are fretting about matters that do NOT concern you. You can spin it any way you wish.
You are not associated with the FI (so you say), and you do not live under the jurisdiction of Bishop Olson. What happens in these two venues IS NOT your business!
Can it be made any plainer?
If God chose to remove all Mass forms from the world…God’s Will be done.
2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 6:25-34
Mr. Hughes @
“Quoting spiritual books is not a way to win an argument.”
~But using Mr. Davies’ book and an FSSP priest’s book is?
Have a blessed night, Mr. Hughes…..
As you well know Holy Veil I am referring to LOGICAL arguments.
I have given you the reasons why I am concerned (which you seem incapable of interacting with, responding as you do with assertions and pithy quotes ripped out of context), why do you not interact with them?
One could turn the tables and ask why are you concerned with my remarks? Who died and appointed you to admonish me ? Where do you derive your authority from?
As to the points you made before our conversations, Dr. King is perfectly within his rights to hire a canonical lawyer to examine his case and take it to ecclesiastical tribunals, Bishops do not posses unlimited authority, Consecration does not result in a Bishops every action being infallible, also obedience does not require us to follow blindly without questioning,
I will be charitable and assume that you are not someone who hates the TLM, but you must realise that the arguments you used e.g. obedience were the same ones used by heretical bishops to impose the ‘peace and justice church, where Jesus is just a nice guy, not God Incarnate, abortion is ok if your conscience says its ok etc etc. therefore you will understand when I take your words with a tablespoon of salt.
I didn’t quote Mr Davies / Fr. Ripperger, I signposted them as resources where one can learn WHY so many trads love the TLM and why we prefer to assist at it (a preference which Pope Benedict recognized as legitimate and well founded).
Every post you make reaffirms my position.
You lack Christ’s peace, Mr. Hughes. If you were responding properly to all the undeserved graces you received at the TLM you would be more gracious than you have been tonight. Thank you very kindly for making my point crystal clear to Father Angelo’s readers. And, if you bothered to really study my comments you would have read that I prefer the TLM myself.
I will remember you in my rosaries to the Immaculate.
Holy Veil
It appears that we have been talking past each other, I took your comments the wrong way, please forgive me; I am used to the language you employed being used by heretics to take down the Old Mass and those committed to Tradition, perhaps you could have made your support of the Traditional Mass more explicit.
Personally I believe my replies have been quite charitable, I tried to engage with what I believed was a liberal using traditional sounding language to justify attacking the Traditional Mass, please forgive me this error. I do worry that the Traditional Mass will be suppressed, simply because the alternative is heresy laden sermons at Novus Ordo Masses where liturgical abuses are rife. Quite apart from the reasons I gave earlier, one thing that is guaranteed at the TLM is Orthodoxy.
@ Mr. Hughes. ..
“perhaps you could have made your support of the Traditional Mass more explicit.”
Mr. Hughes, you and I are obliged to treat each other, and every other living soul, with profound charity because we are ALL made in the image and likeness of God, and because His only begotten Son came into the world, for love of ALL of us, to redeem ALL of us with His Precious Blood.
I find it very disheartening that you should only apologize because you see that I prefer the TLM over the NO. (Stoney also has the propensity to attack, and later apologize.)
1. I was offering a rosary for you when you made your apology. So I give thanks to the Immaculata that you should have done so. I do accept it.
2. There is abuse taking place in both forms of the Mass. Don’t kid yourself.
3. You stated that: “obedience doesn’t mean not asking questions”.
Sir, being obedient to those placed above us by God is what makes saints. St. Louis de Montfort never questioned his superiors, and many of them were being misinformed by Jansenists! I tell you this…if Mr. King follows this saint’s example, he will win a crown for himself, assuming he has done nothing illicit. If he fights the authority of his bishop he will merit nothing.
Mr. Hughes…gaze at your crucifix. You are starring Obedience straight in the eye!
Pick up your cross, Mr. Hughes…it’s the only way to become a disciple of Christ.
~all for the Immaculate!
Sandro Magister got credit for breaking the news about the FI, but he based himself on the leaked decree that was posted earlier on missainlatina.com. He “broke” the story by immediately claiming Pope Francis had contradicted Benedict. The baseless narrative that was started on that day has stuck. It was irresponsible, regardless of how respected he is. In fact, Magister is so “respected” that Cardinal Burke, who is very favorable the TLM, walked out on one of his talks.
Furthermore, it simply is false that Magister did most of the reporting, or that what he has had to say received no answer. Every last leaked document that every other story was based on was posted on a radical traditionalist blog. These blogs knew the documents were authentic and they protected the anonymity of their sources. Other well-known news outlets in Italy, America, Germany and elsewhere, also reported. Much of what is out there is conjecture based on partial information and prejudices, and that will continue no matter what anyone reports because that is the nature of such narratives.
Mr. Hughes may have an interest in our situation and the one at Fisher More, but that is because certain individuals and groups chose to make the FI and Fisher More rallying points for a certain agenda. I actually don’t hesitate in accusing Rorate Caeli of casting the Church as the villain, simply because that is exactly what they have done. Fr. Volpi has an apostolic commission from the Holy See and the restrictions put on our community in regard to the celebration of the sacred liturgy were included in the decree by Pope Francis, according to the decree itself.
I feel for people who have become uneasy due to the irresponsibility of many of those who have reported on the issue. But it is still none of their business. Yes, the genie is out of the bottle, and it naïve to think that more reporting on an internal matter under dispute is going to solve the problem. Whatever is reported will be contradicted by new information from new leaks. That is the nature of the beast that was created on the day the decree was leaked and Magister chose to sensationalize the situation.
Again, I think there must be a lesson somewhere here for those who very justly want to guarantee a continued and increasing availability of the TLM, and I hope they learn it. I am sure many have. But many have not and that, unfortunately, seems to be to be a void that is likely to widen.
Mine is the last word, folks.
Do not comment on this matter in another thread.
Pingback: Why Those Who Publicly Attack Bishops Are Wrong | Mary Victrix