Most interesting corrective, I would say:
I have written before about the frantic desire some who think of themselves as Ultra-Traditionalists have to discover ‘invalidity’ in the sacraments of the non-traddy part of the Church. Indeed, there are ultra-ultra-traddies who passionately seek out ‘invalidity’ even among plain traddies.
The last time I wrote about this, I quoted the locus classicus among traditional Catholic theologians discussing ‘validity’ – a passage of S Robert Bellarmine. I don’t feel like repeating either the passage or my detailed explanation: you will find them both by tapping Bellarmine into the box at the top left-hand corner of the page. Here, today, is an explanation by an Englishman, the Fr Adrian Fortescue who wrote The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, still the standard handbook for the Vetus Ordo . This is what he wrote in a book published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1908.
“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so small and vague a thing that one can hardly help having it … numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmalian against which Pope Stephen I, a.d. 254-7, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament, and yet confer it or receive it validly.”
His powerful point is that this is an area in which one can fall into heresy. If you say that “Fr X does not have one ounce of Catholic belief about the Mass, so his Masses are obviously invalid, because he doesn’t intend to do what the Church does”, you are not being a rigidly firm splendidly orthodox Traditional Catholic, defending with your lifeblood the Faith of our Fathers. You are being a heretic. Well, no, not really: because you don’twant to contradict the Church’s established dogma about ‘intention’; you are just terribly confused about what that teaching is.-snip-
The only way a daft priest can invalidate a Mass is by forming a deliberate interior intention “I’m not performing any sort of Christian rite at all; I am just play-acting”; or by not using real wheat bread and real grape wine; or by not using words which mean This is my Body, This is my Blood. There are a lot of other bad things he can do, but they are what we call “abuses” and abuses do not invalidate. They might, however, give one a thoroughly good reason for seeking out a Mass celebrated by a less daft priest.
Foolishness to the world 
Pingback: Fr Hunwicke writes on the validity of Masses | Catholic Canada
Well! So much ado for liturgical abuse.
All the “liturgical abuse” can only really be boiled down to just bread and wine, and explicit denial of what he’s doing. Let Fr. Bozo have his clown Mass, it’s still valid. Modernism is perfectly fine, why, there should be a case for the ordination of women, after all it’s only charitable to allow women to serve at the agape feast of our brother Jesus. It’s all about the good intention.
It’s the road to Hell, paved with the skulls of well-intentioned clergy!
The Latin Mass is dead and gone, and people joyfully dance on its grave. Good riddance to bad rubbish! There shall no more be speaking of dead languages! It should be forbidden to say “Kyrie Eleison” because no one knows what it means! You say it’s Greek, but no one in the Catholic Church speaks Greek! Not even the Greek Catholics!
Those SSPX are zombies. Fanatics. Maybe just confused?
Let the spiritual mutilation recommence, no one’s really doing anything wrong.
Perhaps the Orthodox were right about Catholics- it was Catholic theology, with its emphasis in legalism and pagan framework that started a whole chain of historical events which is currently leading to the downfall of Western Civilization, or its regression to paganism. 1,000 years of progress made by great Christians, destroyed. And the icing on this cake is that all of those events occurred with good intentions. You really thought Martin Luther wanted to destroy the Church? No, it was his good intention to “Reform” it. All heretics have good intentions. Even atheists have good intentions.
I tell you, Good Intentions will not stop people from being sent to Hell.
What about faith? Atheists have faith, you don’t have to constantly have someone show you how flipping a switch will turn the lights on, you take it on faith. Even Demons recognized and believed that Jesus was the Son of God.
What is needed is Supernatural Faith, and this Romish, Scholastic, intellectualism does nothing to nourish any seed of such faith in an individual. And now we are told by a learned priest that it’s not such a big deal. Hey, sacrilegious communions are not a big deal! That’s why it’s perfectly fine to give yourself communion when the priest puts the host on your hand! Not a big deal! Women priests, divorce and remarriage, these are all not a big deal!
Let’s just conveniently forget those people who would rather die than agree with what they believe is error. All the opposition does is talk and “dialogue” but such things are pointless now.
You know what an American bishop is doing now?
He’s forbidding an entirely Catholic College from celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass.
Fisher-More College, a real Catholic college, not like openly apostate and pagan university such as Notre Dame, has been forbidden by a young bishop from offering the Traditional Latin Mass in the same vein as what has been done to the Franciscans of the Immaculate!
Traditionalists are being beaten into a corner, and that’s something you don’t really want to do to people who would rather die than compromise or people who are considered radical extremists. Once all civil and patient “dialogue”, no matter how one-sided it may be, breaks down, what is the only way for people to get what they want? Schism. Rebellion. It’s unavoidable, once ignorant and bigoted men lord their authority around.
There’s no way to dialogue your way out of this one.
I read this over at Rorate Caeli. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/Rorate-Exclusive.html Heh. Try saying this out loud: “Offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a danger to the soul.”
Editor: Please delete the previous comment, upon further research, they invited a sede vacantist to speak at their school. How awful.
So it isn’t some sort of vendetta against the TLM? I could totally imagine some people hating that mass and fault it for everything that’s wrong in the world. They’d write non-stop about it. (As much as radtrads do, in fact.)
None of the speakers at the school were sedevacantists, stop spreading ignorant lies- nor are any of the chaplains affiliated with SSPX- they were all approved of the previous bishop.
WHY WAS THE NEW BISHOP SO QUICK TO ACT AGAINST THIS SCHOOL? He was only ordained a bishop for 26 days, and this occurred incidentally after Fisher-More raised $300,000. There is something extremely fishy here.
Even if Fisher-More College was teaching sedevacantism and calling Pope Francis a heretic, that has NOTHING to do with the Mass. Using the Mass as a weapon, not only against the administrators of Fisher More, but against the students who go there is troubling to say the least. It is most pharisaical and hypocritical of those who accuse traditionalists as pharisaical while they manipulate Church Law to suit their own agendas, namely to quell the rise of the traditionalist movement.
To say that the Church, for hundreds of years, has been celebrating the wrong kind of Mass is despicable. There is nothing organic about any sort of fabricated Mass -and it is fabricated, if it has made massive changes- which goes against any sort of precedent. The Council of Trent banned Masses that had no root in antiquity because of the abuses and superstition those Masses have brought about, and it is only right that an orthodox Pope would ban Masses that has been fabricated for less than 100 years.
What about the Ordinariate Mass? That Mass underwent organic change, and there was no drastic change in the Mass and was even enhanced by some elements of the recent revisions to it. It is far superior to the skeletal novus ordo missae. Perhaps, to show that the issue at Fisher-More is NOT about the Traditional Mass, that the bishop has NO problem with the Traditional Mass, he should instead offer the Ordinariate Use as appropriate to a college named “Fisher-More”; if not even this is allowed, claims that it’s not about the Traditional Mass holds no water.
I think we need to wait before jumping on any bandwagon regarding the Fisher More situation. Why is it that some are so eager to believe the worst about a bishop or the Church hierarchy and not give any benefit of a doubt?
From my own experience and what I’ve read from other people, it’s an emotionally charged topic. People feel even without any intellectual justification, that their faith is slipping away, whether because of the Mass or some other part of the religion. And the buck happens to stop at the bishop’s chancery, so guess who gets all the flack?
I am waiting to find out more and from what I have read via Father Z’s blog would indicate this is a more complex situation than meets the eye. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
🙂 very sweet of you to leave the previous post! Perhaps it should read, “it appears they have invited a sede vacantist to speak there”….I don’t know these people or their situation, I only have second hand information. Taking the mass away seems a very severe punishment. Let us use our lack of knowledge as a chance to pray for both His Excellency Michael Olson, Bishop of Fort Worth and the administration and students of Fisher and More College. To stop college kids from assisting at a campus mass and offering this prayer to God is certainly very grave and must have been a very difficult decision. May God have mercy on all their souls.
A little depressing to google Fisher More College and discover that there are apparently more sites discussing this obscure contretemps than there are discussions about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Victor Bonno, I wish to make a public apology and eat some humble pie. I trusted someone and was misinformed. I should have fact checked myself. You are correct, the person in question is not a sede vacantist. Fortunately I hadn’t mentioned any names at least. Editor: would you be so kind as to remove my two previous posts, they could mislead someone. I apologize for causing you extra work.
I still stand by my other words: Taking the mass away seems a very severe punishment. Let us use our lack of knowledge as a chance to pray for both His Excellency Michael Olson, Bishop of Fort Worth and the administration and students of Fisher and More College. To stop college kids from assisting at a campus mass and offering this prayer to God is certainly very grave and must have been a very difficult decision. May God have mercy on all their souls.
Yes, it is unsettling to look at the accounts on unashamedly sedevacantist sites (the kind that refer to “Bishop” Olson and “Pope” Francis) and then at those on Traditionalist sites and observe relatively little difference beyond the use of quotation marks. The existence of this level of alienation from the hierarchy cannot be good for the Church or her mission.
Victor,
In your earlier post, you wrote: Fisher-More College, a real Catholic college, not like openly apostate and pagan university such as Notre Dame, has been forbidden by a young bishop from offering the Traditional Latin Mass in the same vein as what has been done to the Franciscans of the Immaculate!
If it really is “in the same vein as what has been done to the Franciscans of the Immaculate” as you assert, that is good. None of us know all of the details, which are confidential, but information that’s in the public forum indicates that the abuse of the Tridentine form of the liturgy had become a source of friction and division within that order — clearly NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, which leads all true believers to unity. Note that the word “diabolic” comes from the Greek dia- meaning “apart” and bolos meaning “to cast” and thus means “to cast apart” or “to separate.” When the celebration of a particular form of the liturgy becomes a source of division rather than unity, that is a serious problem requiring immediate pastoral intervention.
The groupthink that “they are out to get us” from many Traditionalists over a few isolated correctives is very much on par with the groupthink that “they are out to get us” that came from liberals over the release of the Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) here in the States and the concurrent announcement that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) would meet with the LCWR regarding the issues identified in that report a couple years ago.
You wrote: WHY WAS THE NEW BISHOP SO QUICK TO ACT AGAINST THIS SCHOOL? He was only ordained a bishop for 26 days, and this occurred incidentally after Fisher-More raised $300,000. There is something extremely fishy here.
None of us know the circumstances on the campus of Fisher-More College that motivated the bishop to take this action, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Twenty-six days is certainly enough time for a new bishop to have read a report of an investigation initiated by his predecessor, or even to have investigated the situation personally if he learned of a problem.
You wrote: Even if Fisher-More College was teaching sedevacantism and calling Pope Francis a heretic, that has NOTHING to do with the Mass.
I would not be so sure of this. Although neither sedevacantism nor disparagement of Pope Francis has any link to the genesis of the Tridentine form of the mass, the most radical of Traditionalists, who hold such positions, are among the staunchest advocates for its use. The more likely problem, however, is simply that the Tridentine form of mass had become a source of major division on campus.
You wrote: Using the Mass as a weapon, not only against the administrators of Fisher More, but against the students who go there is troubling to say the least.
Acting to stop abuse is NOT “using the mass as a weapon” in any sense of that term.
You wrote: To say that the Church, for hundreds of years, has been celebrating the wrong kind of Mass is despicable.
But nobody has said that.
You continued: There is nothing organic about any sort of fabricated Mass -and it is fabricated, if it has made massive changes- which goes against any sort of precedent.
Compare this statement with the doctrine articulated by the magisterium in this regard, in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal (emphasis in original; boldface added; citation removed).
The notion that the present ordinary form of the liturgy is “fabricated” and “goes against any sort of precedent” — which seems to be the “groupthink” in many Traditionalist circles — is completely contrary to Catholic doctrine articulated by the magisterium.
You wrote: Perhaps, to show that the issue at Fisher-More is NOT about the Traditional Mass, that the bishop has NO problem with the Traditional Mass, he should instead offer the Ordinariate Use as appropriate to a college named “Fisher-More”; if not even this is allowed, claims that it’s not about the Traditional Mass holds no water.
It’s the bishop’s obligation “to show that the issue at Fisher-More is NOT about the Traditional Mass” or to show that he “has NO problem with the Traditional Mass.” It is, rather, the obligation of his subjects — including the students and the staff of Fisher-More College, to accept and to submit to his pastoral authority, whether they understand his decision or not.
Also, canonically, Fisher-More College does not have the faculty for any sort of regular celebration of the ordinariate mass unless and until an ordinariate community forms on its campus.
Of course, you just might find that there are masses celebrated according to the Tridentine form elsewhere in the Diocese of Fort Worth if you do your homework.
Norm.
With the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, the diocesan bishop no longer has the discretion either to permit or restrict the celebration of Mass according to the usus antiquor, a prerogative he previously enjoyed. Thus, no bishop has the authority to arbitrarily restrict the celebration of Mass according to the traditional Roman Rite. While the diocesan bishop has “all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function” (CIC/83, c. 381, §1), his authority is not absolute.
The faithful have a right, enshrined in ecclesiastical law, to have access to the Mass and sacraments celebrated according to the usus antiquior. Celebration of the traditional Roman liturgy is no longer a privilege extended to the faithful on an individual basis but rather a right that can be properly vindicated if requests for such celebrations are not satisfied (cf. SP, art. 7).
[…]
For several years following the promulgation of Summorum, the legal mechanisms for the vindication of rights relative to the proper implementation of the motu proprio left much to be desired. With the promulgation of the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae of April 30, 2011, the universal law of Summorum was effectively given teeth: the process of hierarchical recourse may now be utilized by faithful who believe their rights have been violated by a decision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the motu proprio. (cf. UE, 10 § 1)
The recent letter of Bishop Olson to Fisher-More College certainly appears to represent such a decision. Insofar as it has unlawfully restricted the rights of the faithful, the bishop’s administrative act can and ought to be challenged.
The canonical opinion above validates my own understanding of the matter, namely: the authority for a bishop to forbid this Mass which was “never abrogated” (SP, art. 1) does not exist. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote in the accompanying letter to Summorum, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
Contrast these words with those of Bishop Olson, who wrote (after forbidding the Extraordinary Form and making provision only for celebration of the Ordinary Form), “I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More College as well as for your own soul.”
These words imply that continuing to offer the Traditional Latin Mass at Fisher More would be substantively harmful to the souls who attend it. Bishop Olson also makes the draconian threat that any violation of his proscription would result in “withdrawal of permission to celebrate the Eucharist in your chapel along with withdrawal of permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.”
What it seems Bishop Olson disregards is the critical phrase, “Never abrogated.” Had it been abrogated, no priest would licitly be able to celebrate it. Since it has not been abrogated, every priest of the Roman Rite has the *right* to say it. It is, in fact, a completely licit and authorized Mass of the rite in which he received his ordination. There is no legal suppression of one Mass in favor of the other. This is the very situation Summorum sought to address. A bishop has authority over sacramental jurisdiction, and can at his discretion order that no Masses be said in a certain chapel. What he does not have the authority to say is, “You may have only the Ordinary Form of Mass, but not the Extraordinary Form.” This creates a false dichotomy between the forms, and violates the rights and freedom of the faithful.
It is true that there are certain restrictions in Summorum Pontificum which apply to the approved celebration of the Extraordinary Form. These are clearly not meant as impediments, but as safeguards against the potential for disruptive autonomy on the issue, which is why they appear in reference most specifically to “Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life” (SP, art. 3) and “not parish or conventual churches” (Sp, art. 5 § 5). Put another way: approval is needed in situations where lack of oversight concerning the discretion of which form of Mass to celebrate could create considerable conflict.
If Summorum is to be referenced at all in favor of Bishop Olson’s decision, it is the provision in article 5 § 5, that strikes me as the most likely to be invoked. Still, a full reading of the text of this section should put the question to rest (emphasis mine):
§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.