Why Latin Mass Onlyists are destroying the Latin Mass.

ere is an anal­o­gy, to begin. When I was a Protes­tant, I would read no ver­sion of the Bible except the King James. This was not because I believed the oth­ers were invalid trans­la­tions, or that they were less accu­rate, but only because I pre­ferred the lit­er­ary grace of the KJV to every­thing else. But one of the huge prob­lems Protes­tants have is with the King James Only­ists in their midst—the folks who believe that the NIV, or the NASB, are per­ver­sions of the word of God. Some (like Peter Ruck­man) go as far as to claim that the KJV is supe­ri­or even to the orig­i­nal Greek and Hebrew man­u­scripts. Some (like Scott John­son) say that if you were not saved by read­ing the KJV, you were not real­ly saved at all. Some (like Stephen Ander­son) burn the NIV in back­yard grills. Some (like Gail Riplinger) come up with wild sys­tems like “acros­tic alge­bra” to explain why the NIV is Satan­ic.

That all this is poi­son should be self-evi­dent. I nev­er went near a church that used the King James, because every one of them is full of loons like that. But because I read the KJV, I was often looked upon as sus­pect: “You’re not one of that crowd, are you?” In a Bible study once, a Unit­ed Church of Christ pas­tor glanced at my King James Bible as though it, and I, were a roach. It is near impos­si­ble to find a Protes­tant church, that uses the King James, that does not also believe that the oth­er trans­la­tions are invalid, even demon­ic, and that those who read them are in dan­ger of Hell. To read the KJV has come to imply that you believe those oth­er things, even if you do not.

Thus are the King James Only­ists the biggest ene­my the KJV has with­in Protes­tantism. A great trans­la­tion, whose cul­tur­al and lit­er­ary influ­ence is immea­sur­able, has acquired the stink of Only­ism and the anti-intel­lec­tu­al fever­ish­ness that goes with it. It is a loss. You can­not sim­ply love the KJV and read the KJV; you must become a fac­tion.

ONLYISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE LATIN MASS

No one ought to have been stunned when it turned out that Fish­er More Col­lege has had a prob­lem with Latin Mass Only­ists. A ban on the Latin Mass always has Only­ists lurk­ing behind. The Catholic form of Only­ism says that Vat­i­can II and the Novus Ordo are invalid, and those who accept them infe­ri­or Catholics, even mod­ernists. (When a Catholic says you’re a “mod­ernist,” that’s rough­ly the same thing as when a Protes­tant says you’re “not saved.” It is a curse word. To be a mod­ernist is one step away from being a Mason, which is one step away from being a Jew.)

Last year, when Pope Fran­cis cur­tailed the Latin Mass for the Fran­cis­can Fri­ars of the Immac­u­late, it was because the FFI (see here and here) had been plagued by a fac­tion of Only­ists who were sup­press­ing the Novus Ordo. To do that is against the norms of Uni­ver­sae Eccle­si­ae 19. The same pope who allowed broad­er cel­e­bra­tion of the Latin Mass also for­bade Only­ism among those who say it and attend it. If you are an Only­ist, you have no right to the Latin Mass.

So it also is now, with Fish­er More; as Dr. Tay­lor Mar­shall explains on his Face­book page. For Dr. Mar­shall would know, since he actu­al­ly worked there, and signs his own name to his own posts—which can not be said of the anony­mous blog­gers and their anony­mous sources at the viper­ous Rorate Cæli, who calls the bish­op “intol­er­ant” and his actions a “kind of ter­ror.” Very brave of Some­one. (“New Catholic’s” orig­i­nal arti­cle may be found here.) As Dr. Mar­shall tells it, Michael King, the pres­i­dent of the col­lege, “refused to dis­so­ci­ate him­self from state­ments of fac­ul­ty mem­ber Dr. Dud­ley [who] claimed … that Catholic pro­fes­sors have the duty to teach young peo­ple that Vat­i­can 2 is not a valid coun­cil. [Let’s see: rejec­tion of Vat­i­can II.] [Dr. Dud­ley] also endorsed sim­i­lar posi­tions [with respect to John Paul II and the Novus Ordo]. …

At the same time, Michael King estranged him­self from the dio­cese of Fort Worth by not allow­ing the Ordi­nary Form [Sup­pres­sion of the Novus Ordo.] (as stip­u­lat­ed by the pre­vi­ous ordi­nary Bp. Vann of Fort Worth). [Dis­obe­di­ence to the bish­op.] He also con­tract­ed an irregular/suspended priest with­out fac­ul­ties [And vio­la­tion of canon law.] and hired “trad resis­tance” fac­ul­ty while there was no bish­op in Fort Worth to check these devel­op­ments. Mr. King was able to cre­ate a com­mu­ni­ty in his image (he affec­tion­ate­ly referred to him­self the “father” of this com­mu­ni­ty) dur­ing the epis­co­pal inter-reg­num of the dio­cese of Fort Worth.

There’s more; and I ask you to please read Dr. Mar­shal­l’s full post.

Now, N.C. tries to respond to sev­er­al of these points. First, he or she asks why Bp. Olson could not sim­ply have allowed the Novus Ordo to be said at Fish­er More. But accord­ing to Dr. Mar­shall, the pri­or bish­op had already done that. Mr. King dis­obeyed.

N.C. also asks why Fish­er More’s Latin Mass-lov­ing stu­dents should have been pun­ished because of the malfea­sance of fac­ul­ty. That argu­ment miss­es the point as well. To start with, there are two Latin Mass parish­es very near to Fish­er More: St. Mary of the Assump­tion in Ft. Worth and Mater Dei in Irv­ing (the lat­ter of which is run by the FSSP).

Bp. Olson is hard­ly ban­ning the Latin Mass, as N.C. wants us to believe. Indeed, the bish­op specif­i­cal­ly points out in his let­ter that “The week­ly cel­e­bra­tion of the Extra­or­di­nary Form is avail­able to the faith­ful every Sun­day at St. Mary of the Assump­tion Catholic Church in Fort Worth.” Bp. Olson is not try­ing to keep stu­dents from the Latin Mass, but rather to save them from an envi­ron­ment that has been indoc­tri­nat­ing them into Only­ism.

Third, N.C. claims that the norms of Uni­ver­sae Eccle­si­ae 19 do not apply here since “the whole cœtus must be heard.” As though one lone soul in a mob of Only­ists would make it all okay. But as Diane Korze­niews­ki points out, that argu­ment too is flawed. “The instruc­tion,” she says, “does­n’t tell the bish­op how to respond. … In the absence of clear guide­lines, bish­ops are going to act in var­i­ous ways.”

Yes. And so when Bp. Olson acts in the way he does, Rorate has no right to roar as it does. The ene­mies of the Latin Mass are the Onlyists—not Pope Fran­cis, not Bp. Olson, but a fac­tion of Only­ists and their anony­mous defend­ers who write poi­son with­out the courage of their names.

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE MASS

So Bene­dict XVI issued a motu pro­prio in 2007 for the sake of those attached to the usus antiquior who also accept the author­ity of Vat­i­can II. Sum­mo­rum Pon­tif­i­cum was nev­er meant to prop up Only­ism. Thus Bp. Olson felt that he had to sus­pend the Latin Mass at Fish­er More.

But when sus­pect blogs like Rorate Cæli raise the stink that they do, one begins to feel that many who pro­mote the Latin Mass do not do so with upright inten­tions but rather as a sword with which to rend “good” (Tri­den­tine) Catholic from “bad” (Novus Ordo) Catholic. To do so is, in fact, blas­phe­my against the Mass.

Ear­ler this week, Lisa Graas post­ed this blog arti­cle, in which she explained why folks like those at Rorate Cæli have the effect of keep­ing her miles away from a Latin Mass [Ms. Graas appears to have stopped blog­ging and tak­en down the site—SEA, 8/11/19]:

Who wants to be around peo­ple like this, who pounce on every­thing that doesn’t ini­tial­ly “smell” right as if it is heresy? … Since I have nev­er attend­ed an EF Mass, I have a feel­ing that I would seem very out of place there and I dread the protests I would receive to my face giv­en the many uproars we see over things like what Bp. Olson is doing. If you don’t play nice with oth­er peo­ple, I don’t want to be around you. Sor­ry. That’s how I feel about it.

Such a plaint puts me in mind of the kind of thin-skinned and self-right­eous vit­ri­ol reg­u­lar­ly pub­lished by N.C. N.C. refers to the usus antiquior as “the Mass of the saints.” One would think that no one who attends the Novus Ordo could ever be a saint. One would for­get that the Tri­den­tine was not the Mass of St. Augus­tine or St. Thomas Aquinas. (Or the apos­tles, for that mat­ter.) N.C. describes Bp. Olson’s actions as “a naked pow­er grab by a young bish­op who clear­ly has a lot to learn about the pol­i­tics of abus­ing author­i­ty,” and the bish­op him­self as “an intol­er­ant bish­op who should know bet­ter.” As though Rorate sits in judg­ment on bish­ops. N.C. refers to good peo­ple (like Lisa Graas) as “some Catholics who pur­pose­ly and poor­ly dis­guise them­selves as ortho­dox.” As though N.C. is the arbiter of ortho­doxy, and not the Church.

Who wants to be around that crowd? It is poi­son to the soul. If that’s the kind of atti­tude an advo­cate of the Latin Mass has—if that’s what you read on their blogs and hear on their tongues—then I don’t want to go near a Latin Mass, either. (For the record, I do attend the old form of the Mass once a month.) I love the Latin Mass; I want it to be more common—just as I loved the KJV and want­ed more peo­ple to read it.

But what is hap­pen­ing in the Catholic Church is that the Latin Mass is becom­ing the province of a fac­tion of spite­ful, spit­ting lob­by­ists. The Latin Mass is becom­ing asso­ci­at­ed with those who view Vat­i­can II as an invalid coun­cil and think that peo­ple who attend the Novus Ordo are less­er Catholics; who act as though the Latin Mass some­how makes them bet­ter and supe­ri­or and more holy, and their halo more sure, per­haps even com­plete. That (not the Latin Mass itself) is the “dan­ger to your soul” to which Bp. Olson referred in his let­ter to Mr. King.

Only­ism is—like its Protes­tant counterpart—the great­est ene­my the Latin Mass has. It is Only­ism that is caus­ing bish­ops, includ­ing the pope, to restrict the Latin Mass. It is Only­ism that is caus­ing Catholics who might oth­er­wise learn to love its beau­ty to stay far away. A great Mass, whose beau­ty should be pre­served, is acquir­ing a stink from those who reject a coun­cil and the new Mass and look down on their broth­er and sis­ter Catholics.

Those who tru­ly love the Latin Mass must save it from the Only­ists.

The bal­anced and hon­or­able Fr. Z also writes on this top­ic here and here. Michael Miller also wrote this much-shared col­umn. (I don’t know that I agree with Fr. Z’s sug­ges­tion to Bp. Olson. I think it would be viewed by many as an emp­ty ges­ture, and their anger at him would increase.)