Retired Jesuit Forbidden to Offer TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter loyola38
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

loyola38

Guest
94 Year Old Jesuit Priest Commanded to Stop Saying Traditional Latin Mass!
…

Please note corrected information received from a parishioner. The Rector of the Sacred Heart Jesuit Center, in Los Gatos is the individual responsible for preventing Fr. Bourret from celebrating the Traditional Mass at the private Chapel.

St. Joseph’s News Service

3/23/2006: Santa Clara, California

Shocking information was revealed today, that a 94 year old Jesuit Priest who is retired to the Sacred Heart Jesuit Retirement Facility in Los Gatos, California, has been “commanded” by his immediate superior, Rev. John Martin, to stop saying the Traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at a small private chapel in Santa Clara, California.

Father Phillip Bourret, S.J., a retired Jesuit Missionary to China has, in recent years, returned to the practice of saying the Immemorial Mass. This was the Mass for which he was ordained nearly 70 years ago. He remains a hard working priest in the service of Our Blessed Savior, and though retired, continues to minister to souls wherever and whenever he is needed.

A small independent chapel, which is used by retired priests to provide the Holy Mass, welcomed Father Bourret to celebrate his private Mass in their chapel once a week on Tuesdays. He had started devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus (A Traditional Devotion of the once orthodox Jesuit Order) with Mass and Novena as a simple way of providing for the spiritual needs of a few individuals who were fortunate enough to attend his Mass.

Well this was, apparently, too much for the demoniacs running the Society of Jesus in the Western United States. One wonders if they found themselves on the floor writhing in pain and foaming at the lips every time Fr. Bourret said the Mass and that is why they had to stop him.

More:
www.stjosephsmen.com
 
These quotations show exactly why certain Catholics are not much liked by some other Catholics - I don’t think I have quoted them out of context:

“Well this was, apparently, too much for the demoniacs running the Society of Jesus in the Western United States. One wonders if they found themselves on the floor writhing in pain and foaming at the lips every time Fr. Bourret said the Mass and that is why they had to stop him.”
Why was this done? It was done simply because Father Bourret was generously providing the Traditional Latin Mass for a small group of people in a private chapel!!! This shows you the depth of hatred these Modernists have for Roman Catholicism in general and the Traditional Roman Liturgy in particular. It should also indicate to Vatican II Catholics exactly who is running things and should give them pause as to why the Modernists have such hatred of tradition

Now I wouldn’t be surprised that the Pink Wolf, Bishop McGrath, was somehow pressuring the Jesuits to remove poor Fr. Bourret from his earnest endeavor but so far there is no hard evidence for this.

Let’s put the spotlight on poor Father Bourret so that these cruel and evil men will think twice about hurting him any further. It’s time that Roman Catholics who are of good will show outrage toward those who pretend to be Roman Catholic when they are simply pseudo-Catholics bent on destroying the Church from within and torturing good Catholic priests in the process.

======

These remarks are utterly unChristian - it is not good enough to makes allegations against a Catholic bishop for which not one iota of evidence is offered.

It is slanderous to accuse priests of doctrinal error without even offering evidence of the alleged error.

It’s precisely bescause of that attitude that some of us have turned our backs on that type of Catholicism.

The fact is, that the TLM is no longer the Mass of the Latin Rite - whether one deplores this, or welcomes it, is immaterial - it is a fact. As a priest and a member of a priestly society, the Reverend Father is “a man under authority” - so it is not in the least wrong for his lawful superiors to exercise the authority committed to them. And sometimes, life being what it is, and the Church being what it is, orders are given which may or may not be imprudent. This one may be - or may not. As long as no impossible or immoral thing is commanded, orders, welcome or not, are to be obeyed.

Even if the order given is unwise - and the priest’s superior, who ought to know the circumstances better than we can, seems to have thought that he was requiring nothing unwise or unjust - vilifying the bishop and the other Jesuits as the writer of the article does is not only lamentably unChristian; it is also begging for trouble; it has “schismatic mentality” written all over it - what’s all this about an “independent chapel” ?

What is worst of all, is that the rite which is supposed to be the bond of brotherly love and communion has become the occasion of such bitter hatred among Catholics. There are no words to describe this - it beggars description 😦 ##
 
Is the original quote from Catholic Family News? If it is, well, I wouldn’t trust the accuracy of what it’s “reporting” (like the liberal “Catholic” rags, if this radical traditionalist “Catholic” rag said that it was a bright, sunny day outside, I’d pack an umbrella). More absurdities from those who regard themselves as being more Catholic than the pope…which means they’ve no idea what it means to be a Catholic.
 
"Well this was, apparently, too much for the demoniacs running the Society of Jesus in the Western United States. One wonders if they found themselves on the floor writhing in pain and foaming at the lips every time "

that’s a bit much.
 
The Latin Mass is not forbidden and cannot be forbidden. St. Pius V, who re-established the Missal in conformity with the ancient rule and rites of the Holy Fathers, gives priests every guarantee in the Bull Quo Primum signed by him in the 14th July 1570:

“We have decided and declare that the Superiors, Canons, Chaplains and other priests by whatever title they are known, or Religious of whatsoever Order, may not be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than as enjoyed by Us. We likewise order and declare that no-one whosever shall ever at any time be forced or coerced into altering this Missal: and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law…Should anyone venture to (make such an alteration), let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of the 3rd April 1969 authorizes the Mass of Paul VI, but contains no expressly formulated prohibition of the Tridentine Mass.It follows from this that if a priest were censured or even excommunicated on this ground, the sentence would be absolutely invalid.

The article uses un-Catholic language but that is nothing compared to the wrath of Almighty God (and our Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul) Fr. Martin is ostensibly bringing upon himself.

I don’t even attend the Latin Mass but this is clearly egregious. If the Modernists can’t prohibit the Latin Mass they should embrace it. Fr. Martin will be hearing from this Catholic.
 
40.png
srp643:
The Latin Mass is not forbidden and cannot be forbidden. St. Pius V, who re-established the Missal in conformity with the ancient rule and rites of the Holy Fathers, gives priests every guarantee in the Bull Quo Primum signed by him in the 14th July 1570:

“We have decided and declare that the Superiors, Canons, Chaplains and other priests by whatever title they are known, or Religious of whatsoever Order, may not be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than as enjoyed by Us. We likewise order and declare that no-one whosever shall ever at any time be forced or coerced into altering this Missal: and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law…Should anyone venture to (make such an alteration), let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of the 3rd April 1969 authorizes the Mass of Paul VI, but contains no expressly formulated prohibition of the Tridentine Mass.It follows from this that if a priest were censured or even excommunicated on this ground, the sentence would be absolutely invalid.

The article uses un-Catholic language but that is nothing compared to the wrath of Almighty God (and our Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul) Fr. Martin is ostensibly bringing upon himself.

I don’t even attend the Latin Mass but this is clearly egregious. If the Modernists can’t prohibit the Latin Mass they should embrace it. Fr. Martin will be hearing from this Catholic.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. In private, priests may well offer the TLM, I truly don’t know. It wasn’t abrogatted, but it was derogated (replaced, by the promulgation of the Pauline Rite) for public worship (this appears to be public, as there is a novenna in conjunction with it). If the right exists (and no right exists if the supreme legislator says it doesn’t), then why did John Paul the Great (at the time the “supreme legislator,” in the words of canon law) call for an indult, which had to be granted by a bishop? Now, the Pauline Rite can always be celebrated in Latin, anytime and anywhere, without special permission.

Saint Pius, saint though he is, did NOT possess the competence to bind his successors in matters of discipline, only in matters of faith and morals. The regulation of the liturgy is a discipline.

I don’t know whether the elderly priest did something egregious in the context of a homily at the TLM, or if his superior truly has it in for him and thus acted in an uncharitible way. It may be that the superior did this in compliance with the desire of the local ordinary. I wouldn’t trust Catholic Family News to report the incident with accuracy anyway. Why don’t you write to the superior and ASK, rather than denouncing?
 
You all have missed the key point.

Fr. Bourret was celebrating Mass at what the article calls “a small private chapel.” It turns out the chapel is owned by a group that is not under any bishop who is recognized by the Pope.

This means Fr. Bourret’s superior was right to instruct him not to celebrate Mass there. This would have been the right thing to do whether it was the new or the old Mass that was being celebrated.

The news story was put out at www.stjosephsmen.com, which claims that the chapel is in union with the Roman Catholic Church while “Bishop McGrath is not in union with the Roman Catholic Church.”

The web site has a couple of articles against Bishop McGrath, going so far as to say that demons are “obsessing” the bishop.
 
Karl Keating:
You all have missed the key point.

Fr. Bourret was celebrating Mass at what the article calls “a small private chapel.” It turns out the chapel is owned by a group that is not under any bishop who is recognized by the Pope.

This means Fr. Bourret’s superior was right to instruct him not to celebrate Mass there. This would have been the right thing to do whether it was the new or the old Mass that was being celebrated.

The news story was put out at www.stjosephsmen.com, which claims that the chapel is in union with the Roman Catholic Church while “Bishop McGrath is not in union with the Roman Catholic Church.”

The web site has a couple of articles against Bishop McGrath, going so far as to say that demons are “obsessing” the bishop.
Click to expand...
Thanks Karl, and may God bless your work in Catholic Answers!.

This illicit chapel point was not clear in the article and Fr. Martin has indeed confirmed what you have said, so we should all feel better. The article, like many out there these days, appears to be a calumny. In any event, let’s hope the old priest can celebrate Mass as he wishes.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
You are mistaken. In private, priests may well offer the TLM, I truly don’t know. It wasn’t abrogatted, but it was derogated (replaced, by the promulgation of the Pauline Rite) for public worship (this appears to be public, as there is a novenna in conjunction with it). If the right exists (and no right exists if the supreme legislator says it doesn’t), then why did John Paul the Great (at the time the “supreme legislator,” in the words of canon law) call for an indult, which had to be granted by a bishop? Now, the Pauline Rite can always be celebrated in Latin, anytime and anywhere, without special permission.

Saint Pius, saint though he is, did NOT possess the competence to bind his successors in matters of discipline, only in matters of faith and morals. The regulation of the liturgy is a discipline.

I don’t know whether the elderly priest did something egregious in the context of a homily at the TLM, or if his superior truly has it in for him and thus acted in an uncharitible way. It may be that the superior did this in compliance with the desire of the local ordinary. I wouldn’t trust Catholic Family News to report the incident with accuracy anyway. Why don’t you write to the superior and ASK, rather than denouncing?
Click to expand...
I think that the reason for the necesity of the indult is pretty clear. The Traditional Mass leftvery little if any room room for innovation or personal preferences. It had to be done in a certain pattern, with certain gestures and everything done in a specific way and sequence. I think the necessity of the indult was required to ensure that those who celebrated the Traditional Mass knew what they were doing. Giving the Bishop the authority to regulate this makes perefct sense to me. The fact remains that Pope John Paul II, of Blessed Memory, did not share in the hatred for the Traditonal Mass that many have, and instead saw a great need for it to be continued. But knowing that it needed to be celebrated properly, he took steps to ensure that those celebrating it knew what they were doing and were in communion with Rome. Thus the need for the indult and the permission of the Bishop. Not to hold it down but to ensure its orthodoxy.

I would think that from all the evidence in this case that the small private chapel was probably the home of some kind of sedavacantist group, and that was the reason that the Bishop ordered the Priest to stop celebrating the mass there. I don’t think it had anything to do with modernism or demonic forces or anything like that at all…
 
I’m keeping an open mind about this, but if you go to that St. Joseph’s site, which I had never seen before, they have to look to the left (for church politics) and downward (for intellgence) to find traditio.com.
 
40.png
palmas85:
I think that the reason for the necesity of the indult is pretty clear. The Traditional Mass leftvery little if any room room for innovation or personal preferences. It had to be done in a certain pattern, with certain gestures and everything done in a specific way and sequence. I think the necessity of the indult was required to ensure that those who celebrated the Traditional Mass knew what they were doing. Giving the Bishop the authority to regulate this makes perefct sense to me. The fact remains that Pope John Paul II, of Blessed Memory, did not share in the hatred for the Traditonal Mass that many have, and instead saw a great need for it to be continued. But knowing that it needed to be celebrated properly, he took steps to ensure that those celebrating it knew what they were doing and were in communion with Rome. Thus the need for the indult and the permission of the Bishop. Not to hold it down but to ensure its orthodoxy. I never implied that the Indult was set up to “hold it down.” I simply said that for the public offering of it, a bishop’s permission was necessary (or a competant authority, as in the case of a religious order, I frankly confess I don’t know). I would say that more than likely, the Holy Father assumed that it would be celebrated properly and that the Indult was set up to make sure the TLM was offered for those “attached” to it (that was the term I believe that JP of Blessed memory used), not as an effort to see that it was celebrated properly (as I said, I imagine he assumed it would be celebrated properly). It was an act of both charity (in the truest sense of that word) and justice.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t see how an indult is needed for private use of the TLM (terrible name for it). I can understand the indult for public masses (not really, but I am being reasonable here) but not for a private mass.

How is it possible that can read the Apostolic Constitution entitled Quo Primum and think that there needs to be permission given to use the TLM.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.HTM
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and thattthis present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.
Click to expand...
Now I can see where the mass of Pope Paul VI might possibly be offered as an option for priests to use since it is possibly within the realm of a Pope’s authority to do so but from reading Quo Primum I have my doubts, however I am confident that there is no authority to supress the Mass of St. Pius V.

With that being said, granting permission (indult) for something that was already granted in perpetuity (forever) seems a bit odd. That is unless perpetuity somehow got re-defined.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I don’t see how an indult is needed for private use of the TLM (terrible name for it). I can understand the indult for public masses (not really, but I am being reasonable here) but not for a private mass.

How is it possible that can read the Apostolic Constitution entitled Quo Primum and think that there needs to be permission given to use the TLM.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.HTM

Now I can see where the mass of Pope Paul VI might possibly be offered as an option for priests to use since it is possibly within the realm of a Pope’s authority to do so but from reading Quo Primum I have my doubts, however I am confident that there is no authority to supress the Mass of St. Pius V.

With that being said, granting permission (indult) for something that was already granted in perpetuity (forever) seems a bit odd. That is unless perpetuity somehow got re-defined.
Click to expand...
There is indeed an authority: any future pope. Popes cannot bind future popes in the area of discipline, only in matters of faith or morals. Your confidence notwitstanding, the Pian Rite was derogated (admittedly not abrogated) by the promulgation of the Pauline Rite. Further, if it was a right of every priest to celebrate the Pian Rite, there would be no need for an Indult in order to celebrate that rite.
 
Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 made a papal decree about the canon of the bible. I am curious then how that was binding on future popes, as it also is a matter of discipline. Does that mean that a future pope could come along and add in the Gospel of Thomas, or the Proto-Evangelion of St. John? According to the logic of it just being a discipline, the answer would have to be yes.

But according to Vatican I which did have the blessing of infallibility they state:

“And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.”

So I just have to wonder how this all works in.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 made a papal decree about the canon of the bible. I am curious then how that was binding on future popes, as it also is a matter of discipline. Does that mean that a future pope could come along and add in the Gospel of Thomas, or the Proto-Evangelion of St. John? According to the logic of it just being a discipline, the answer would have to be yes.
Click to expand...
Well, sort of. There were numerous discipinary decrees setting the canon of Scripture. for Catholics, however, the formal definition of Scripture came about at the Council of Trent. From that time on it was not a discipline.
But according to Vatican I which did have the blessing of infallibility they state:

“And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.”

So I just have to wonder how this all works in.
Click to expand...
Yes, the pope has authority over all aspects of the Church. He can intervene in juridic matters as he sees fit. He cannot change doctrine or dogma. He cannot bind a future pope in matters of disicpline or the statement you cited above would not be true. Since the form of the Mass is a matter of discipline no pope can bind a future pope with regard to the form. Since the matter of the Mass (the unbloody sacrifice) is dogma no pope can change that. Thus, no Mass could be created that did not include the sacrifice.

Easy.

Deacon Ed
 
Wasn’t Vatican II an ecumenical council that undid the judgment of a Pontiff?

It seems there is a paradox going on here.
  1. Pope Pius V as supreme pontif declares the Roman Mass, (TLM) the mass for all time.
  2. Vatican I says that one is in error if they call an eccumenical council to appeal the judgement of a pontiff.
  3. Vatican II is called and undoes the judgement of a pontiff.
How can they all be right?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Wasn’t Vatican II an ecumenical council that undid the judgment of a Pontiff?

It seems there is a paradox going on here.
  1. Pope Pius V as supreme pontif declares the Roman Mass, (TLM) the mass for all time.
  2. Vatican I says that one is in error if they call an eccumenical council to appeal the judgement of a pontiff.
  3. Vatican II is called and undoes the judgement of a pontiff.
How can they all be right?
Click to expand...
  1. Saint Pius didn’t have the competence to declare the Pian Mass the only Mass of the Church in perpetuity, as it was a matter of liturgical discipline, not dogma or doctrine (faith or morals).
  2. No argument with number #2.
  3. Conciliar documents/judgements, etc, have to be ratified by the Supreme Pontiff, whose ratification is that of the Supreme Legislator (in canon law) and who can set aside the judgement of a pontiff on a matter of discipline.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Wasn’t Vatican II an ecumenical council that undid the judgment of a Pontiff?
Click to expand...
No, it undid a discipline – and that has happened many times in history.
40.png
gelsbern:
It seems there is a paradox going on here.
Click to expand...
No, not really.
40.png
gelsbern:
  1. Pope Pius V as supreme pontif declares the Roman Mass, (TLM) the mass for all time.
Click to expand...
Well, he used the language of the time which was very “royal” in nature. However, he established a discipline as is evidenced by the punishment for failure to abide (a fine).
40.png
gelsbern:
  1. Vatican I says that one is in error if they call an eccumenical council to appeal the judgement of a pontiff.
  2. Vatican II is called and undoes the judgement of a pontiff.
Click to expand...
Yes, if the pope has ruled on an issue of dogma, doctrine, or a particular juridic act he cannot be overridden by a council. Doctrine cannot be changed at all. The Second Vatican Council called for a reform of the Liturgy – but Pope Paul VI promulgated the liturgy so it was not the Council but the pope.

Deacon Ed
 
gelsbern wrote:
Pope Pius V as supreme pontif declares the Roman Mass, (TLM) the mass for all time.
Click to expand...
“In perpituity” is legalese. It means “nothing can be changed by a person who has authority less than the pope.” Nevertheless, a future pope (who possesses precisely the SAME authority and power of the original legislator) can make changes in disciplinary or juridicial laws.

Quo Primum was nor “abrogated” - but it WAS “derogated” - that is, the “law” was not abrogated, but the “liturgy” was derogated (replaced) by one who possessed the power to do so.

Other Bulls (documents) exist which used the same phraseology (in perpetuity) which HAVE also been changed by the legitimate authority - so, the derogation of Quo primum is not isolated or unusual. Cf. jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
 
I e-mailed the good Father questioning the “why” of preventing Father Bourret from saying TLM. Below is his response.

Dear William,

Thanks for your message. The problem here is not with the Traditional Mass, but with the place where Fr. Fr. Bourret was offering the Mass. The private chapel and the folks operating it are not in union with the Roman Catholic Church. And, there was no suspension or threat of suspension for Fr. Bourret. He is a wonderful priest with the energy of a much younger man. In this case, he began assisting at the chapel in question without first checking with the local diocese.

John Martin, S.J.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top