Rorate Caeli: In a stunning and breathtaking letter, the Most Rev. Michael Olson, the newly-ordained bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese and the second-youngest bishop in the United States, has fully and totally banned the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel of Fisher More College, where it has been offered for the last three years on a daily basis by chaplains all approved by his predecessor bishop according to the college. This blow comes after the students of the college raised $300,000 in about a week to keep the school open for the spring semester (see here).
Rorate has exclusively obtained — through a source who has requested anonymity — a copy of the letter sent last week by the bishop after a personal meeting with the college’s president, Michael King. Even more striking, the letter from Bishop Olson states that he’s doing this “for your own soul,” addressing Mr. King, apparently saying in some twisted way the offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a danger to Mr.King’s soul. Read more here.
I’m confused… can it be that this young bishop is ignorant — and I mean that in all charity — that he just doesn’t know about Pope Benedict and his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, and that the faithful DO NOT need the permission of the local ordinary to have access to, and assist at, the TLM? Or is there something else going on here? (Believe me, I know that my above statement smacks of naivete, but again, I’m trying to be charitable here.) Why pick on the Mass of all the saints and martyrs, yet let the abuses so prevalent in the NO continue? Is there a fear that perhaps the young folk just might just see how sublime and extraordinary the “extraordinary” form is? Is there also a fear that they and their young families would gravitate to that “extraordinary” form, and, in so doing, lessen the already dwindling Sunday (or Saturday) collections at most NO Masses? What is going on here? My family and I attend the venerable TLM; is this a danger to my soul and the souls under my charge? Shouldn’t this bishop — and all bishops in the US — focus on the souls of those who have left the Church for greener pastures — so they think, or the sodomites who wear the Roman collar and call themselves priests? What is next? Where will this end? Our Lady Help of Christians, Pray for us! Please!
Wait just a minute! You have apparently slipped headlong into the sedevacantism. That is NOT the answer! There are rebellious forces within and without the Church, you know that. If there is no “real” pope, then where does the next “real” pope come from? Will he parachute from the sky somewhere in Montana and wear the papal tiara? When St. Peter denied Christ three times, did the nascent Church never get off the ground, after all, Our Lord STILL proclaimed St. Peter as the head of the Church on earth. Did not Judas betray Our Lord — and he was a bishop! Did the Church then fail because some rogue bishop sold out Christ for 30 pieces of silver? Your “solution” is far too “easy”.
I am aware of Pope Paul VI and the papal tiara… I would strongly urge you, sir, to use the resources of this website to see that your position is untenable. But I’m also curious; you said you became a sedevacantist in 2008? Why 2008? What occurred in 2008 during the reign of Pope Benedict the XVI that led you to your present position? Was it his allowing the TLM to all without the permission of the bishops? Or what was it?
Gresu: The sedevacantist position is one that is objectively schismatic. While it has some points that make it attractive to the tradition-loving faithful who are trying to explain the ecclesiastical disarray in which we find the Church of God, it is a dangerous attraction. Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron. You have an invisible Church, a confederation of warring tribes aligned with one sedevacantist bishop or another, not the One Church Christ founded.
The main reason I am posting a comment here is to note that I removed the links you posted to sedevacantist web sites. I have no ill will towards you or the people you like to read, but I am not interested in our readers accessing sedevacantist literature from this web site.
Excuse me, but where to I “advocate permission of the bishops”?
You also said: “NONE KNOWS how Christ will bring a resolution to the hateful regime in the Vatican constantly chiseling away at the doctrines of Catholicism.”
That includes you, right?
Some years back, about ten, that is, I asked a former atheist (and communist — one and the same in most cases) what brought him to the Catholic Church. His answer: the hierarchy of authority, especially the pope. As it stands, you have no head, therefore to you, there is no Church.
A body cannot live without the head.
Some “opposing views” were put on the Index of Forbidden Books by men you consider to have been valid popes. As editor of this site, I have editorial control and can have my own little (non-papal) “Index.” I’ll say no more on the subject.
My choice, then, is between (a) wanting the true faith to die and (b) allowing you to post links to sedevacantist web sites? I choose neither.
“Some years back, about ten, that is, I asked a former atheist (and communist — one and the same in most cases) what brought him to the Catholic Church. His answer: the hierarchy of authority, especially the pope. As it stands, you have no head, therefore to you, there is no Church.
A body cannot live without the head.”
The above quote is mine. You didn’t respond to the above. I repeat, the atheist/communist came into the Church BECAUSE of the hierarchy of authority, especially the pope.
In addition, “But than of course we must face the fact that the one in position claimed a priest to offer the TLM is actually not a priest but merely a presbyter who has strangleholds over him.”
Not only are you getting silly, but ridiculous as well.
I would advise you to come back to the fold — quickly.
And by the way, who are you to judge the pope?
The sedevacantist crowd have become the judge, jury, and executioner of the pope or popes they don’t like. Nice.
Well, you have done it again. One more time; if you don’t respond to what I have asked you twice already, there will be no further discussion.
“Some years back, about ten, that is, I asked a former atheist (and communist — one and the same in most cases) what brought him to the Catholic Church. His answer: the hierarchy of authority, especially the pope.”
And second: “But than of course we must face the fact that the one in position claimed a priest to offer the TLM is actually not a priest but merely a presbyter who has strangleholds over him.”
Let us look at the age of Benedict XVI: about 85? And Francis: about 77? Each one was ordained in the old rite, correct? So any bishop they consecrated was “real,” correct?
You just keep rambling on and on; you have learned your lines really well, I have to say.
You have also failed to answer what I said earlier too, re that the sedevacantist are the judge, jury and executioner of the popes.
WE cannot judge the heart and soul of any man, pope or layman, but you seem to have done just that. Nice.
I was referring to popes whose validity as popes are completely uncontested.
I will make it very clear. YOU said I was wrong for not allowing you to link to “opposing views” because, as you said, “an opposing view is never harmful when one is sincere in seeking the truth.”
I said that there were many “opposing views” posted on the Index of Forbidden Books by popes that neither of us would doubt to have been valid popes — i.e., those legitimate, pre-Vatican II popes that put books on the Index.
YOU asked me to list “what Popes sedevacantists consider valid and you do not.”
I said that “I was referring to popes whose validity as popes are completely uncontested.”
Then you accused me of not giving a “firm answer” and gave some interesting history about numbers of anti-popes and anti-councils.
So much for the review. Now let me explain my logic.
Pick any bona fide pope of your choice (not an anti-pope) that put books on the Index of Forbidden Books. THAT pope thought that certain “opposing views” should not be read if they are dangerous. I believe sedevacantism to be dangerous, therefore I don’t want to sedevacantist literature from our site. I’m following a logic similar to the popes.
Let’s take a concrete for instance: I assume that you believe that Pope Pius X was a real pope. (I certainly do.) Under his pontificate, Alfred Loisy’s work L’Évangile et l’Église (The Gospel and the Church) was put on the Index. He did not think people should read it because it was among the “pernicious writings” that belong on the Index.
I feel the same about sedevacantist literature. It’s pernicious and dangerous to souls. That was the entirety of the point I’ve been making since Tuesday, March 4, 2014, at 1:25 PM.
Of course, I’m not the pope. But then again, nobody is the pope now if you are correct, so I can pretend just as much as any sedevacantist bishop out there to exercise a bit of authority. Only, I do have authority on this web site (even if they don’t in the real Church) — an authority limited to the modest state of my person.
I hope that I have explained myself sufficiently. Do you need a firmer answer?
Ten years ago; you figure it out.
Yes, he understood infallibility when speaking on faith and morals, that’s why he came into the Church with his family.
Here you go again, YOU just became the judge, jury and executioner of the pope. So you can see into his heart and soul, can you?
Oh, by the way, what cataclysmic event occurred between the funeral of Pius XII — you know, the last “real” pope, your group claims, and the election of John XXIII — you know, the first make-believe or anti-pope as your group claims, made John XXIII a make-believe pope?
Forget the links…I take it that you are a follower of the Diamond so-called “brothers”?
Let me ask again — you didn’t answer the first time.
“Oh, by the way, what cataclysmic event occurred between the funeral of Pius XII — you know, the last “real” pope, your group claims, and the election of John XXIII — you know, the first make-believe or anti-pope as your group claims, made John XXIII a make-believe pope?”
So, everything that comes out of the mouth of a pope is to be binding on the conscience of Catholics? Nonsense. The pope is entitled to his opinion, for instance, what if — at a meeting of scientists — the pope says that the far side of the moon is made of blue cheese (or cheddar if you like), that’s his opinion, correct?
But again YOU ARE judging the pope! Since when do YOU have the authority to judge him??????
It’s the same old line, over and over again.
Without a head, the body dies.
Who is the head of your version of the Church on earth?????
Gresu, Christ instituted the office of the pope. So only He can do away with it. Did Christ recently say there is no more pope? If so, prove it.
I didn’t say that popes are entitled to their opinions on matters of faith and morals, did I? No, I didn’t. Don’t attempt to twist what I said. Did you read my post? Apparently not.
But I have one for you, and I hope this sinks in. You say that you believe what the infallible Magisterium teaches, is that correct?
If this is so, then I also take it that you believe the three DOGMATIC pronouncements that outside the Church there is no salvation? Is that correct? If that is so — and it has to be so in order to be Catholic — then please tell me how you will be saved if you don’t do the following:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
You see, if you believe that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant, then you cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, therefore, you cannot be saved if you were to die tomorrow, heaven forbid.
I recommend that you seriously think about your very dangerous position. Today, I included you in my Rosary.
Gresu, I am responding to your response to James. Could you please answer his question directly? And add no more comments to your answer. Thank you; I like to take things one little question at a time.
I am stunned, on two counts! First, you bought the media interpretation of the Pope’s remarks, but even MORE important, you failed, once again, to address the MOST important part of my comment, and that is, if you are an adherent to the infallible Magisterium as you continue to claim, you just ignored one of the three INFALLIBLE pronouncements that outside the Church there is no salvation. So which is it? Do you adhere to what the Church infallibly defines or don’t you? You can’t have it both ways. Please tell me how you get around the FACT that the Church TEACHES that you — and I — MUST be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order that we may be saved. Please read my above post and answer that, if you can. Again, I will include you in my Rosary today. Look, you are playing spiritual Russian roulette, but the stakes are the highest; where we will spend eternity, unless of course, you really don’t adhere to the Infallible Magisterium as you continue to claim, and just argue for the sake of argument?
Gresu, We’d all love to have another Pope, St. Pius X as our pope, but they are few and far between, I’m afraid. For whatever reasons, Pope Francis is not quite the courageous pope we’d all like to see. If he were, he’d probably be martyred. But our current pontiff and all our past pontiffs have never pronounced any errors regarding the infallible matters of Faith and Morals. As GeneDe has been trying to tell you, he, Pope Francis, and the past pontiffs, have given their opinions on matters OTHER THAN infallible teachings, but never on Faith and Morals. This can happen and does. And yes, it is very confusing for many people (with the help of the LIBERAL MEDIA.)
Now, let’s talk about your statement, “Christ never promised a perpetually seated pope.” Did you have some “divine” revelation tell you this? Your answer would have to be, NO. Who should believe this claim of yours, you, a fallible person?
Lastly, why do you reject the infallible pronouncement, that GeneDe points out to you, where we must all, “be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Don’t you believe this? You must! You cannot read into the history of the Church’s Magisterial Teachings, whatever you want to, such as your “claim” that “Christ never promised a perpetually seated Pope.” You said, “Popes do not contradict Magisterial Teachings.” Think on this one; “FAITHFUL CATHOLICS DO NOT CONTRADICT MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS; ” I’m saying.
Actually He did. The only time the Chair is vacant is during papal conclave. Christ gave the Church’s teaching authority to Peter and his successors, and promised that the Holy Spirit will be with them to teach the truth – until the end of the world. Has the world ended yet?
“We have the teachings of the infallible Magisterium. Christ does not leave the Mystical Body of Christ without substantial teachings on all He personally taught to the Apostles and safeguarded by the Church for centuries.”
Exactly. The Holy Spirit teaches all truth though the Church’s infallible magisterium (teaching office). That office rests with the pope, and the bishops (in union with the pope). So if there’s no pope, how can the Holy Spirit teach us the truth? Would God just leave us guessing? Sounds like Protestantism.
Gresu, which pope do you believe was the last legitimate pope?
Gresu: I did not block you. Some word or words you wrote triggered the Disqus system to throw your comment in the moderation queue. I allowed the comment to go up.
Gresu, Ok; this is what I see. We are suppose to have been having a conversation; however, I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. I’ll make this last comment and then sign off.
You say that “Sedevacantists are subject to Pontiffs.” Yes; but not DEAD pontiffs. You need to “…be subject to the [living] Roman Pontiff;” from the dogmatic Bull: Unam Sanctam; this means Pope Francis. You can’t just decide to run your own “church.” Every single pope from PETER TO FRANCIS have, at one time or another, sinned from one degree to another(because all men are sinful-except for the Blessed Virgin Mary) even the sainted popes. What I am getting at here is a very simple deduction. Whichever of God’s popes deserve condemnation, have been or will be decided upon at their deaths, by God alone. We do not have any right whatsoever to decide who is not a pope once he’s been elected. But we do have the obligation to pray for them to do God’s Will. If YOU aren’t, you need to start. Remember; Christ asked us to “become like little children.”
It is a very sad thing that Paul VI stopped the Oath Against Modernism, but again, I say, pray that it will be brought back. Prayer is a powerful weapon. Choose that rather than rejection of the Church, because that is what you are doing.
All the other negative statements you spurred (as awful as they are,) can only be corrected over time with prayer and with unity among us Catholics who are TRULY faithful to the Magisterium. Come back to the Unity of Faith. Live your faith as Christ intends; not as you see fit.
And now, I bid you adue as I do not think you want to continue this “conversation” any longer. God help you; I will pray for you.
The same old line.
Good Sunday morning; the first Sunday of Lent. May we all look within our interior selves for repentance and increase in holiness, as we prepare for the ultimate sacrifice of Our Lord on the cross for us poor sinners!
Please know that I do wish you well now and always, but it seems that you simply cannot accept/answer the fact of the infallible pronouncement of the Bull Unam Sanctam which states, again, that we must be subject to the [living] — as kdl pointed out — Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. I feel that you should honestly rethink your position.
This will be my last post on the subject.
This makes no sense. I ask again, what cataclysmic event occurred between the funeral of Pius XII and the election of John XXIII that made J XXIII a make-believe, anti-pope?
Most of them come pre-installed. We added a few others to keep some particular anti-Catholic trolls off the site. I have no idea which words or combinations of words that you used set off the system.
We don’t have any “sedevacantist” filtration built into it (as if that were possible). Sometimes totally innocent words or combinations of words that resemble “bad” words trigger the system.
We live in a very vulgar age, I’m sure you would agree, and the system has a fantastic array of variations on vulgarities built into it.
So what about all the bad popes before Pius XII? Do you think they were all perfect? I don’t know if you realize it, but many sedevacantists believe that the last legitimate pope was BEFORE Pius XII. Some even believe that the last one was Peter himself. How ironic. Again, sounds like Protestantism.
Every pope makes mistakes. But none of them, including our current Pope Francis and his recent predecessors, has ever taught any error EX CATHEDRA. They can’t. The Holy Spirit won’t allow it (that’s Christ’s promise to the Church). However, when the popes are NOT teaching ex cathedra, they are not protected from error. So when the pope is not speaking ex cathedra, and says things that sound heretical, it’s because he’s fallible like everyone else. I’m sure you’d agree we’ve had some pretty bad presidents, not to mention our current one. But he’s still the president. Same concept with the popes. Only, the president is an institution of man. The pope is an institution of Christ. So to say that there’s no more popes because some of them have messed up is just nonsense. It’s not surprising that sedevacantists can’t all agree on who the last legitimate pope was.
Btw, do you believe in the Fatima apparitions?
The pope cannot teach error EX CATHEDRA. Whatever he says when not speaking from the Chair is his opinion. Without the pope, there is no infallible teaching office. That’s the way Christ set it up and that’s how He left it. The Church is a LIVING Church. That includes a LIVING Roman Pontiff.
The Church may have a weak Shepard, but he’s still the Shepard. Even if the pope never speaks ex cathedra, and all he has to offer is erroneous opinions, he’s still the pope. And he needs to be prayed for, not mocked and called an anti-pope.
None of the popes – including John XXIII and his successors and our current Pope Francis – none of them have changed Church doctrines or taught new ones. The pope can’t change Church teachings, even if certain bishops want him to. Even if the pope himself wants to, he won’t, because the Holy Spirit won’t allow it.
“If a pope does not accept and believe the ENTIRE body of teachings of the Deposit of Faith, he never was a Catholic; he never belonged to the Catholic Church.” Really? What about when he was baptized?
If a bishop is in formal heresy, he’s not going to be elected pope in the first place. And if a pope doesn’t believe certain doctrines in his heart, God will judge him, but he is still protected from formally teaching his errors with his charism of infallibility.
I wasn’t going to post, but I continue to be stunned by what you say above. Because it apparently does not apply to you. Why? Because you have never answered my quote from the Bull Unam Sanctam. That all human creatures must be subject to the [living] Roman Pontiff in order to be saved! Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face, because you are not subject to the Roman Pontiff; therefore, you have rejected the INFALLIBLE, unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church. And, according to your own definition, you are not Catholic.
After reading some additional posts in response to “James,” as well as “responses” to my posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are not ignorant, but in fact, are showing pure malice. That’s right, malice. Why? Because you have dared not to answer my statement over, and over again: that ALL Catholics — I think that includes you? — are subject to the Infallible teachings of the Church — isn’t that what you continue to post? In light of that, you fail to be subject to the INFALLIBLE BULL, UNAM SANCTAM. Again, which states that all human creatures must be subject to the [living] Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. So, the only conclusion that I can arrive at is that you are not interested in where you will spend eternity, but are only interested in a polemic that creates antagonism and angst on this website. I will continue to pray for you — in fact, I already did pray my Rosary, and you were included. Come to your senses before it is too late.
Again, what about the bad popes centuries ago? They defied certain Church teachings by their bad example. According to your logic, why should they be real popes if the most recent ones aren’t?
The pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra. If he errs on faith or morals, it means he’s human like everyone else – and he’s not using his Christ-given teaching office. But he’s still the pope, until he resigns or dies.
Everyone’s a sinner, including the pope. But he’s still the pope. If the popes had to be sinless, Christ wouldn’t have chosen Peter, who denied Christ 3 times.
As GeneDe said, “The same old line.”
You still REFUSE to explain YOURSELF about how you are going to submit to the Roman Pontiff — AS DEMANDED BY THE DOGMATIC BULL, UNAM SANCTAM. So, in effect, you are denying the Infallible Magisterium that you say you follow. Yet you continue the line. Please explain how you will submit to the Roman Pontiff — as all human creatures must in order to be saved. I am waiting for your explanation, but alas, you will not because you cannot. And this is what you cling to — sedevacantism? You folks can’t even answer a simple layman; you continue to change the subject or beat around the bush. Why should we even bother?
It’s sad that those things happen at some Novus Ordo masses, but the NO is still a mass. I go to a NO mass here in Afghanistan and it’s actually very reverent, and the priest is really good. I still prefer the Latin mass though.
You’ve become your own false authority.
You are your own judge and jury…
Did you get that? “James” is in Afghanistan. It would be nice of you to pray for his safe return.
No I don’t know which pope that was. My reason for asking about Fatima is because Our Lady requested that the POPE consecrate Russia for world peace to happen. She said the POPE has to do it and he has to do it right (some of the popes have “done” it, but not correctly – not the way Our Lady requested it). So how is Russia supposed to be consecrated if there’s no POPE to do it?
Except the Bull Unam Sanctum, which GeneDe keeps pointing out. Faithful Catholics submit to the LIVING Roman Pontiff. You don’t.
There’s nothing sacrilegious about the Mass I go to here. And it’s the only one I can go to (there’s no Latin mass here). The priest is very orthodox. He’s an Anglican Rite priest (he’s a convert from Anglicanism).
Pope Francis and his predecessors haven’t apostatized.
I appreciate all the prayers I can get.
He’s pope because he IS Catholic. Pope’s can’t TEACH error. Their Christ-given teaching office (magisterium) protects them with infallibility from teaching error. When popes don’t use that office, and they make an error, it’s their opinion and it’s not binding on our consciences. Either way, the pope isn’t making a false TEACHING. He’s just stating an erroneous opinion that needs to be corrected, like how St. Paul rebuked St. Peter in Scripture. But Paul didn’t say that Peter suddenly wasn’t pope anymore. He still acknowledged Peter’s authority.
Well, you have exhibited continued defiance and judgmentalism. First, you continue to ignore my many posts re the DOGMATIC Bull, Unam Sanctam. Therefore, by your own definition, you have excommunicated yourself from Holy Church. Am I being too harsh here? I think not, since you continue to “excommunicate” the current living/reigning Pope, Francis — judging him to be unfit to hold the office of the papacy. Is it your lack of humility — pride — that stands between you and submitting to Unam Sanctam through the current Pope? Know that many souls are lost because of PRIDE. I urge you to — as you say you do — adhere to ALL the Infallible teachings of Holy Church, without which, it is impossible to please God (paraphrasing St. Paul). There really is nothing left for me to discuss here, as long as you persist in your obstinacy and defiance. Sedevacantism dies on the vine, and those who subscribe to that schism, spiritually die with it by not submitting to the current, living, reigning Pope Francis; this is what is DEMANDED of ALL Catholics by the Dogmatic Bull, Unam Sanctam. Will you answer that, or just go on and on and on, ad nauseam?
Again, you continue to change the subject. Will you submit to the current reigning Pope Francis as the DOGMATIC Bull Unam Sanctam demands in order that you may be saved??
Wow.
Blessed John Paul II allowed Anglican priests, who converted to Catholicism, to become Catholic priests in the Anglican Use. And Benedict XVI and Francis have continued it. But of course, you think they’re “anti-popes.” How sad.
The change in the liturgy is not a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of DISCIPLINE. Christ gave the pope infallibility on doctrine, not disciplines. The problem isn’t Vatican II. It’s people’s interpretations of it. It has to be interpreted according to the Church’s Tradition. Sadly, many Church leaders have interpreted it in a modernist way, which has led to a “global apostasy” as BLESSED John Paul II said. But the pope is still Christ’s Vicar (representative). And without the pope, where’s Christ representative to humanity?
You keep beating around the bush. I’m not “silent” on any of that. I’ve been saying the whole time, and so has GeneDe and others – not everything that the pope says or does is infallible and binding of our consciences. Only EX CATHEDRA pronouncements are infallible and binding. So when the pope says something that sounds and/or is heretical, he’s not teaching error because he’s not TEACHING at all. He’s expressing his OPINION. If he were to actually TEACH error, then he would be in formal heresy – but that scenario is impossible. It’s impossible for the pope to TEACH error, because of his Christ-given charism of infallibility. Get it?
To Gene De, KDL and dear James in Afghanistan, it is Joanie’s humble opinion that you follow the advise of Our Lord and “shake the dust from your feet” and leave Gresu to wallow in his heresies. Just sayin’.
Joanie, you are correct, of course.
I agree.
Wow. Yep, sedevacantism is just another form of Protestantism.
The only recommendation that can be made for extremely obsessed sede vacantists who are divisive, argumentative, illogical, and who exhibit moments of rash judgment on the interior motives for laymen and Popes alike is to ask them if they have the courage and strength to leave all pro-sede vacantist discussions, debates, and literature aside and just concentrate on prayer. One year of letting the issue alone and concentrating on spiritual advancement through proper traditional spiritual methods would do wonders. If invoked, the Blessed Virgin Mary will not disappoint.
But this would take commitment and strength only available through the grace of God. One would have to leave one’s passions aside and lose oneself through total abandonment to the will of God.
Do sede vacantists have what it takes to do this???
Very well stated!
Read this: https://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html
I am now closing the comments on this article.