Posted on 03/08/2014 2:10:44 PM PST by BlatherNaut
Video Broadcast Introduces Bishop Olson In His Own Words On November 19, 2013 Pope Francis appointed Msgr. Michael Olson as Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth. As the Dallas Diocesan newspaper reports:
Bishop-elect Olson earned bachelors and masters degrees in philosophy in 1988 and 1989, respectively, from the Catholic University of America. He also has degrees (M.Div. and M.A.) in theological studies from the University of St. Thomas in Houston…On May 6, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI granted him the Papal Honor of Chaplain to His Holiness with the title of “monsignor.” In March 2011 he successfully earned his doctorate in moral theology at the Academia Alfonsiana in Rome…
-snip-
Thus, as far as credentials go, Bishop Olson may be near the top of his class of bishops in knowledge and study of Catholic theology. In addition, Bishop Olson has not only been a student of theology, but a teacher. As a monsignor, Fr. Olson lectured on theology at the university level for five years. Even more, he was entrusted with the position of rector at the diocesan seminary, responsible for the theological formation of dozens of future priests in the Fort Worth area.
As most readers know, Bishop Olson made headlines recently when he wrote a letter to the President of Fisher-More College, forbidding the Traditional Mass on campus. Further, Bishop Olson explicitly stated he was taking this action, at least in part, for the sake of the President’s soul. Thus, besides the canonical questions, Catholics today are faced with a more serious question. How is it possible that Bishop Olson, possessing such a vast theological education at prestigious Catholic institutions, believes the Traditional Mass, an immemorial and sacred Rite of the Church, can, in any way, serve as a detriment to someone’s soul?
(Excerpt) Read more at remnantnewspaper.com ...
A friend of mine, who works for the Diocese of Fort Worth, said he thought the new bishop was quite good.
Here is a different take on the situation:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2969/bishop_of_fort_worth_draws_the_line.aspx#.UxuZfoW2FzU
I am not familiar with the facts beyond what I have read, and don’t have an opinion.
It is unclear how depriving "a stable group of faithful" of their preferred rite is either fair or prudent in this case. It would be helpful if the bishop would explain his reasoning.
Per Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.”
I recommend you broaden your reading material. It might help you reach an opinion.
>>The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council.<<
Maradiaga is not only head of Francis’ Gang o’ Eight; he has sided with Kasper in attacking Cardinal Mueller's defense of the indissolubility of marriage. Maradiaga has said Mueller needs to “loosen up” on that doctrine.
Very surreal reading this article here, he is the brother of a childhood friend. He is a wonderful man that comes from a wonderful family.
I have had many problems with the Catholic church with all of the abuse to children, Bishop Olson restores my faith in the church and hopefully he can make it a safer place for children.
Although I am not certain, I have a sense of what appears to be going on, though additional evidence could change my mind.
Both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo are licit forms of the Mass. However, to offer the Tridentine Mass publicly requires a few extra steps, so to speak.
Unity is a requirement of the Church, and any intentionally actions to create disunity are forbidden.
Having read some comments about the Franciscan case, and now this case, a concern mentioned was that those offering the Tridentine Mass were using the form as a sort of protest, almost a passive-aggressive statement.
If, and a big if, that is the case, it would make sense for the local ordinary to forbid it use, by the “offending” parties, though not for the diocese as a whole.
Alternatively, if the bishop just doesn’t like the Tridentine Mass and is forbidding it for non-Canonical reasons, that is a different story.
Generally speaking, however, I tend to side with the local ordinary, as he bears the greater responsibility and is also to be afforded obedience.
Funny, there was no concern for disunity when there was one Mass in the Roman Rite. But then the reformers in Vatican II HAD to overhaul that ONE Mass.
How is that relevant to this discussion?
Unity is a requirement of the Church, and any intentionally actions to create disunity are forbidden. Having read some comments about the Franciscan case, and now this case, a concern mentioned was that those offering the Tridentine Mass were using the form as a sort of protest, almost a passive-aggressive statement. If, and a big if, that is the case, it would make sense for the local ordinary to forbid it use, by the “offending” parties, though not for the diocese as a whole.
Let’s stick to the case in question.
Regarding Vatican II, are you a sedevacantist, or do you just disagree with its outcomes?
If you are a sedevacantist, there is no point in this discussion. If you aren’t, then your questions about unity in Vatican II are not relevant in this case.
Either way, the issue under consideration is one college and one bishop.
If you had done any checking on Fisher-More College, you would have seen that their whole raison d’etre is Traditional Catholic life. They advertise that they teach in the traditional manner (liberal arts) and that they are conservative. The parents trust that the College will provide their children the foundation for life that they desire for their children. For the Bishop to deprive them of the Traditional Mass goes against the whole philosophy of the College. How in the world is that just?
That's a nebulous charge at best. What are the criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that some are offering the TLM as a protest? This appears to be an attempt to draw a line between those who prefer the TLM for aesthetic reasons and those who prefer it for theological reasons, with the latter classified as "protesters". Many who are initially drawn by the "smells and bells" are inspired to further investigation, read a comparative study of the TLM vs. the Novus Ordo Missae and after examining the various deletions and insertions, come to the logical conclusion that the Novus Ordo is more theologically in line with Protestantism. They then go on to examine and question Vatican II. It's hardly a conscious form of protest, but apparently it's convenient for progressives to construe it that way, particularly as an excuse for putting restrictions on the TLM. Of course the priests and laity who are violently opposed to the TLM are never accused of being passive aggressive protesters. Such charges only cut one way.
Generally speaking, however, I tend to side with the local ordinary, as he bears the greater responsibility and is also to be afforded obedience.
Questioning the actions of bishops is not disobedient. The faithful are entitled to proper pastoral care and fair and honest treatment from bishops. The sex abuse cover-up and other scandals involving bishops and cardinals proves beyond a doubt that we shouldn't automatically side with the local ordinary. We need to know the facts.
You apparently don't understand the definition of sedevacantist. I recommend you look it up. It has nothing to do with "purely pastoral" councils.
We seem to be getting off track.
The question is whether the bishop was right in telling the college it couldn’t have TLM, after having it for many years.
The bishop made this change after a personal meeting with Mr. King, the president of the college.
Unfortunately, he didn’t go into details as why he took this action.
The only other facts we have are those provided by Dr. Taylor Marshall, who resigned in 2013. He makes accusations about improper financial dealings, the leaving of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), and public remarks by one FM’s professors Dr. Dudley.
So, how do we judge who was right and who was wrong? What are the measures we use to make that decision?
Bishop Olson has written a letter implying that the TLM is dangerous to the souls at FMC, has taken it from them, and has limited them to the Ordinary Form. Although he hasn't bothered to share his rationale, his implication that the TLM could be a cause of harm is horrible on its face.
The same clergy and laity who so adamant in replacing the old rite, regardless of the views of most of the laity and clergy, also refused to affirm Pope Paul’s teaching on contraception. I was in favor of liturgical reform and was at the time ambivalent on the issue of birth control. But looking, I do not see how their actions promoted the unity of the Church. I agree with Pope Benedict in seeing it, rather, as a departure from unity, and the planting of trees that have produced a lot of bad fruit.
I don’t know about you, but I’m going to judge by the weapon the bishop has used and the even more severe weapon he has further threatened to use. There’s not an ounce of charity in his actions.
Equating the offering of the TLM as a cause for criticism of VC II or criticism of JP II doing blasphemous acts such as kissing a Koran, or asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, is just juvenile. It shows the bishop has absolutely no respect for the TLM and considers it a threat to his own petty and narrow ideas of Catholicism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.