Here's my .02 on this unfortunate affair: I understand the need for the Bishop to intervene if questionable or unorthodox theology/ ecclesiology is being taught at a Catholic college---though it is to be hoped he will be equally firm if heterodoxy is being disseminated at other Catholic institutions in his diocese--- and I also understand completely the need for the bishop to put an immediate stop to priests without faculties saying Mass on campus if such a thing occurred.

What I'm not sure about, though, is if the bishop in question actually has the jurisdiction to close down a lawfully instituted Latin Mass as a penalty for the above issues.

The most current legislation on the Latin Mass in the EF is Universae Ecclesiae, promulgated May 13, 2010, which was a further instruction on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

UE states unequivocally several times that although the local ordinary is "to be watchful about liturgical matters" he basically has no competency over the Latin Mass in his diocese and issues relating to the Latin Mass must be resolved by the PCED.

9. The Supreme Pontiff has been pleased to confer on the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ordinary vicarious power for all matters within the bounds of its competence, especially in the matter of diligent observance and watchfulness in carrying out the provisions contained in the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum(cf. art. 12).

10. § 1. Apart from the faculties previously granted by John Paul II and confirmed by Benedict XVI (cf. the Apostolic LetterSummorum Pontificum, art. 11 and art. 12), the Pontifical Commission exercises power of this sort also in deciding about recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical Superior, against an individual administrative act of any Ordinary which appears contrary to the Apostolic Letter.

13. It is the task of Diocesan Bishops, according to the Codex Iuris Canonici, to be watchful about liturgical matters so that the common good may be preserved and so that all things may happen in their Dioceses worthily, peacefully and even-temperedly, according to the intent of the Roman Pontiff clearly expressed in the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum.

If any controversy should arise, or well-founded doubt, about the celebration of the forma extraordinaria, judgment is reserved to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Whether there are different laws regarding college campuses, I don't know.

Bishops have more latitude in canon law to intervene in oratories because parishes embody rights of the faithful in general in a way that oratories do not.

With all due respect, PGA, perhaps we should have a similar test for Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form, since it seems quite possible from your comments that you reject both Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

In other words, how can you automatically suspect people who love the TLM of being dissenters while you yourself are saying something that completely contradicts both the text and spirit of two major liturgical documents issued in the last seven years by a Sovereign Pontiff?

Sounds a little inconsistent, don't you think?

I do not reject Summorum Pontoficum. In fact, for a variety of reasons I'm glad that the Holy Father did it.

I do not "automatically suspect" those who love the TLM of being dissenters. But some are. On the other side of the same coin, some who reject the TLM wholesale and insist upon only the new mass are also dissenters.

What I was trying to say is that dissent is two sides of the same coin.

I do think that if you look at the average Catholic who attends an ordinary form mass, if you could measure the percentage drawn to schismatic or heretical ideas, I'm not sure that it would be as high as the percentage of folks who exclusively prefer the TLM who are drawn to such ideas.

In my own parish I've been quite supportive of the TLM. My support is not merely lip service; I've served as the musician for a couple of them and have enthusiastically agreed to help with them in the future.

But even if you or others view it as politically incorrect, I do see a higher danger for heretical ideas among those with a preference for it. Part of the reason for this is simply numbers. Even with its growth of popularity, a minority of Catholics are attracted to the TLM - and usually for very specific reasons. Those who attend ordinary form masses are "everyone else," the other 90% of the pie, and some may have heretical theology, they may have that theology for a lot of different reasons, some may not, etc. Those who prefer the extraordinary form tend to have much more uniformity in views, etc.

It's just a numbers game. Perhaps you see that as not "fair." Truth, unfortunately, is not fair. And I'll admit that I don't have scientific evidence to consider this to be 100% objective truth, but it seems to be the case in my opinion.

None of this means that we should view anyone with suspicion or that we should not offer the TLM when it is requested. I firmly believe in that. But I do think that sometimes it's helpful to examine where the attachment to the TLM comes from.

I think it's outrageous for you to suggest that those who attend the TLM must pass some kind of theological purity test. That old saying about people in glass houses comes to mind since it's far more statistically likely that many Catholics who attend the OF dissent from Humanae Vitae, don't believe in the Real Presence, and probably think the Ten Commandments are a fairy tale.

Sure, there may be a few sedevacantists and schismatics lurking about in diocesan-approved TLM communities, but the crisis of faith in your average diocesan parish is a far greater problem.

Well, Julie, we're talking past each other, I think. I don't want to give anyone a "test."

The idea that most who do not attend the TLM don't believe in the real presence, think that the 10 commandments are a fairly tale, and dissent from Humanae Vitae is a caricature. The Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form are a vast majority, and I'd bet you'd find the ones that you describe along with those who think like you do but want to understand the mass in English, and everything in between.

All I'm saying is that that seems to be a much bigger tent than the other 10% - and I think that number might be high - of Catholics who exclusively attend the TLM.

PGA, I didn't see your 4:44 post before sending my latest post, and I wish I had since you do present some valid complaints @ traditional-minded/homeschooled Catholics and I appreciate your honesty.

Since this seems to be a time to put our cards on the table, I want to say, just for the record, that I'm not a liturgical flibbertigibbet although I know very well the phenomenon you describe. I think you asked me before if I would have gone to a TLM if I had the option of a traditional-style OF liturgy you describe, and I'd have to say that my family and I would have jumped at a chance to be in a parish like yours but there is nothing even remotely close to what you describe in our diocese and the surrounding dioceses.

21 years ago we pulled up everything and moved to another town so we could be in a parish where the liturgy still retained some semblance of sanity, but it wasn't even half as nice as what you describe. However, eventually another pastor came in. I won't bore you with the details, but the new pastor caused such enormous upheaval on so many levels that we made the painful decision to leave our once beloved parish where we had been faithful and actively engaged members for 18 years.

Then we went to two diocesan TLM's where among other weirdnesses the silent low Mass mentality reigned supreme. The congregation was actually advised that it was "official diocesan policy" that no audible sound should come from the pews during the Latin Mass.

I kid you not. We went through all the levels of parish and diocesan bureaucracy to get to the bottom of that absurd claim and after months of correspondence, a diocesan official finally conceded that this was no longer official diocesan policy.

Needless to say, there is a very good reason why we are now at a (diocesan-approved) Latin Mass in a cemetery chapel, and are supremely grateful to be there since we have the opportunity to help build a Catholic faith community from the ground up and, with God's grace, perhaps avoid many of the traps and vicissitudes associated with the usual traditional Catholic venues.

Well, hope that gives you a better understanding of me. We have gone through a lot of "stuff" and have gone through our own personal liturgical war so maybe I'm a little too aggressive in defending the Latin Mass, but I wouldn't willingly give it up. In a sense, because of circumstances in our diocese, we were driven to the Latin Mass as our last spiritual refuge. It wasn't my first choice liturgically speaking but I've found in it a treasure of spiritual and theological wisdom and beauty and am now hopelessly in love with the Church's ancient liturgy.

At any rate, there's my apologia for my own attachment to the TLM, and maybe we made a lot of mistakes along the way, but there is such a rigidly imposed, purposely bland and homogenized liturgical culture in our diocese that we had to tunnel out or risk losing our faith.

Thank you, PGA, for your honesty and sincerity. I think this was a real breakthrough, and I suspect we are much closer ideologically speaking than we realize, but tomorrow we're all going to be in sackcloth and ashes, so maybe it's fitting that this all come out now. I'm going offline for Lent, and will be reading some volumes of Dom Alcuin Reid and Cardinal Ratzinger's so hopefully I'll have a better and more informed perspective on a lot of things in a few weeks. I'll keep all of you good folks in my prayers and a blessed Lent and Easter to you all.