Pres. Of FMC Clarifies Some Points

The President of Fisher More College has responded to the Remnant (kudos to them) for some point of clarification. Some points, if true, make the situation more troubling in my mind.

According to King, they first received notification of the ban on the TLM on January 30, 2014. That date is notable as it is Bishop Olson's first full day on the job. Further, according to King, they received the notification with no prior discussion. The discussion happened afterwards and is characterized this way:
Fisher More’s King said the college received the letter from the Bishop on Wed., Jan. 30, and he read it out loud to the students and faculty to make them aware of the situation. The fact that the letter purported to be “private correspondence,” but that impacted dozens of college faculty, staff, students and parents was not explained by the bishop’s spokesman. As the college’s mission is centered on the Church’s liturgical and spiritual tradition, King said that the board felt compelled to be transparent to those affected by the Bishop’s decision.

King said he was invited to a meeting with Bishop Olson that was very short and provided no further details other than the contents of the letter. “There wasn’t much discussion,” he said. “There was no discussion about the college at all.”
According to King, the tone of the discussion after the decision is similar to the tone of the letter.

I cover this additional information in an effort to be fair. I waded into this pool, now I gotta tread water. Take King's comments for whatever your think they are worth.

My current take, absent any response from the Bishop, is that this situation was handled extremely poorly and continued silence on the part of the Bishop is not helping make it any better.

*subhead*TLM banned on Bishop's first day..*subhead*


  1. Catholic World Report has a very good bit about this story, including info in the comment box from former employees. Red Cardigan's blog also has info in the com box from former employees. I expect soon to be a former employee.

  2. Appearences can be deceptive, and "transparency" can be overrated, but it does seem worth noting that so far, in all things related to this matter, the college has seemed nothing but transparent and the bishop has seemed nothing but opaque. That does not eo ipso mean that the college is in the right or the bishop in the wrong, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

    What should the bishop have done? Even if he was sure that shutting off the TLM spigot was the only viable solution, he should have written to explain why that was so. I generally defer to our pastors; when a decision is taken with which I disagree, I will defer to it even if I find the reasoning unpersuasive. Here, however, the bishop doesn't state his reasons, and because he fails to give even the relevant facts, we can't infer what those reasons are. That cannot merit deference.

  3. Traditonal Latin Mass being targeted : Catholic blogs and websites are not discussing the real reason

  4. Why target the TLM? Why not deal directly with the problems, if any, instead of banning the Mass?

  5. The list of guest speakers at the Fischer- More College indicates that the bishop faulted them for the 'ideology' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the bishop assumes is contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted with the common false premise.

    Since the bishop likely uses the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II FMC must be coming across to him as sedevacatists or traditionalists who reject Vatican Council II. So he wanted to save the soul of the President of FMC and maybe be that of the students.
    If the President of FMC or the faculty could show Bishop Olsen that he could interpret Vatican Council II without the common error, they would be able to affirm the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in perfect agreement with the Council.
    Then unless the bishop wants to appear irrational or heretical he would have to agree that Vatican Council II can be interpreted in a rational way and it is traditional on the subject of other religions.Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation (AG 7,CCC 846 etc)

    Presently the FMC, the new bishop and the curia of the diocese are not using a rational, traditional interpretation but are suggesting that we can see the dead now saved in Heaven.

  6. The major issues were addressed, I believe, by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf in his blog:

    Abstracted below are some of the relevant points he made verbatim. See his blog for more with copious updates:

    Essentially they said the whole matter centers on the fact that Masses for the school are held in an oratory… [that's why I raised the issue of "parish", above] because of this, they said the bishop is probably on solid ground despite the fact that they “took an immediate dislike of the bishop when reading the decree.”


    Canon 1225 states that “All sacred celebrations can be performed in legitimately established oratories except those which the law or a prescript of the local ordinary excludes or the liturgical norms prohibit.”

    Everything that happens within oratories are subject to regulation by the local ordinary. Because the local ordinary can lawfully regulate, restrict, or eliminate the celebration of the Mass or any of the sacraments in any oratory in his diocese, our canonists said that he most likely can restrict which form of the Mass is celebrated, because “he who can do the greater can do the lesser.” If you can prohibit Mass outright, the principle in law would suggest that you certainly can prohibit one form of the celebration. Furthermore, this is in a similar vein of regulating activities in Oratories with stipulations — for instance, “the Mass may only be celebrated in this oratory when some of the Christian faithful are present,” or “the Mass may only be celebrated in this oratory if extraordinary ministers of holy communion are not used.”


    If the oratory at Fisher More is really a private chapel instead of an oratory (unlikely but technically possible), Canon 1228 — which governs the sacraments in chapels — is even more restrictive: “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1227, the permission of the local ordinary is required for Mass or other sacred celebrations to take place in any private chapel.”

    Pax tecum,

  7. Deo Volente
    Even accepting all that, it does nothing to explain WHY the action is taken or how it will help.

  8. You may want to look at what Taylor Marshal, former Chancellor of FMC, has to say about the back story of this mess. It sounds like the bishop could trust who was saying the Vetus Ordo, and it sounds like some things done by FMC during the Episcopal inter-regnum were kosher.

    What a mess.

  9. oops forgot the link:

  10. argh..that should be "could not trust" in my first post...PIMF