Retired Jesuit Forbidden to Offer TLM

[EddieArent]

You’re right Sean. I guess the end of Quo Primum is only a “suggestion” that they would receive the wrath of the Holy Apostles Peter & Paul, etc. if they alter this notice. You know, like the 10 suggestions that Mosses was given? Just suggestions. Not absolutes.

This is getting out of hand. Fr. Zigrang was “suspended” for offering the TLM in public and now a priest who has served the Church for the overwhelming majority of his life is being threatened in his later years for offering the Mass of his ordination in private. Lord have mercy! If they were to have a clown mess or give away candy at the altar they would be given Mgr. status withing the Church.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

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).

.

the mass wouldn’t be a matter of “faith”?

Just asking!

Angel

 

[SFH]

Trident59:

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.

Shame on all of you who are attacking the Catholic Church! The response of Fr. John Martin, assuming it is indeed his response, seems eminantly reasonable.

Ad majoriam Dei gloriam!

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

SFH:

Shame on all of you who are attacking the Catholic Church! The response of Fr. John Martin, assuming it is indeed his response, seems eminantly reasonable.

Ad majoriam Dei gloriam!

Dear Brother/Sister, SFH

In all charity and Humility, No one is attacking the Church. Just pointing out the double standard.

If anything the Church is attacking Her Children! And faithful servants.

I posted this before, My priest friend, who is now 90 yrs old. applied to Rome for A “celebret” to say the Tridentine Mass in private. This was 10 years ago. Rome gave him permission. And sent the “celebret” His superior absolutely refused him the right to say the TLM. And my Friend dutifully complied under Holy obedience. This Priest entered the minor Seminary when He was 12 yrs old. And has now served the Church for 78 yrs. 66 of those years as A Priest. And He is denied what Rome says He is Allowed? He is still serving as Chaplain to A Monastery, drives across Town at 5 am to say mass for the nuns every day.

 

[maryceleste]

I posted this before, My priest friend, who is now 90 yrs old. applied to Rome for A “celebret” to say the Tridentine Mass in private. This was 10 years ago. Rome gave him permission. And sent the “celebret” His superior absolutely refused him the right to say the TLM.

The elderly priest who was saying the Sunday Mass in Santa Clara (Father Ottonello) also had a celebret from Rome, *and *permission from the superiors of his order. He hit a roadblock when he was unable to obtain permission from the local bishop to celebrate the TLM at any of the churches in the diocese. So, although these priests and faithful were in an irregular situation, they were far from a sedevacantist group, as some in this thread seem to have assumed.

BTW, there’s somewhat of a grey area with respect to some of the Masses that are said privately by retired or “independent” priests. As I understand it, the Church’s rules say that:

Having a retired priest say Mass (TLM or NO) for a group of friends in a private location, such as one’s own home, without the bishop’s permission = ALLOWED

Setting up your own chapel (TLM or NO) with mass times posted out front, advertising in the paper, etc., without the bishop’s permission = NOT ALLOWED

The question arises: What if the situation is somewhere in between the above? For instance, maybe the crowd got too big for the living room, so they rented a room somewhere… but they didn’t advertise, except by word of mouth. Are they still a “private Mass,” or have they become a “renegade chapel?” It’s not clear.

Evidently, early last year, Bishop McGrath decided that this particular group – which had already been celebrating Mass for several years, in various venues – had crossed the line. (BTW, the heated criticisms of the bishop on the “St. Joseph’s Men” web site weren’t primarily due to this incident, but, rather, to an ongoing controversy involving an editorial the bishop had written in the local newspaper.)

Anyway, my reason for reviving the thread is to let you know that this story has a happy ending. As of last month, the Institute of Christ the King has taken over the pastoral care of the chapel, which is now called an Oratory. Both Father Ottonello and Father Bourret are saying Mass, along with Father Wiener (who makes the trip down from St. Margaret Mary in Oakland). As a result, Catholics in the Diocese of San Jose now have access to four Sunday Masses, various devotions, and all the sacraments, according to the 1962 Missal… with full approval of the bishop.

What happened to change the bishop’s mind? Maybe we’ll never know. I guess this is further proof that miracles do happen!

 

[djrakowski]

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.

Whoa, I can understand someone being upset with this decision, but demoniacs? Foaming at the lips? Isn’t this a bit over the top?

 

[maryceleste]

Whoa, I can understand someone being upset with this decision, but demoniacs? Foaming at the lips? Isn’t this a bit over the top?

It looks like the article’s choice of language has already been discussed and criticized by several forum members earlier in the thread, back when it was originally posted (almost a year ago).

To reiterate, though… these comments – however ill-advised and over-the-top they might be – were not simply a response to the Fr. Bourret incident. The “demoniacs” remark was aimed at the local Jesuits, who run the nearby Santa Clara University… which, IIRC, had just sponsored some kind of “drag-queen” event. It must have been pretty galling for people to hear that these superiors – who are supposed to be champions of “diversity,” and are known to turn a blind eye to all manner of heterodoxy – were forbidding an elderly priest to say a TLM and a novena for a few local faithful.

(If the Jesuit superiors were truly in favor of Fr. Bourret’s activities, and the problem were just the irregular location of the Masses – as the letter implied – they could simply have allowed Fr. Bourret to say his weekday Masses at the Santa Clara Mission, which is on the university campus, just a few blocks from the then-independent chapel. But they refused to permit this. The website covers this point in detail… albeit in its usual inflammatory manner. )

BTW, Santa Clara University is the oldest institution of higher education in California, and the first Catholic university in the Western United States.

Saint Clare, pray for us!

 

[MrS]

thanks for the update… and God bless those priests for their devotion and their patience.

 

[bear06]

Having a retired priest say Mass (TLM or NO) for a group of friends in a private location, such as one’s own home, without the bishop’s permission = ALLOWED

Whoo hoo for San Jose. The Catholics down there have had so much trouble for a very long time.

That said, I’m interested in the documentation for the teaching above. I have a priest in this situation that had to receive permission from the local bishop before doing this.

 

[maryceleste]

That said, I’m interested in the documentation for the teaching above. I have a priest in this situation that had to receive permission from the local bishop before doing this.

 

[bear06]

bear06;1913662:

Good question. I don’t remember where I read this. (A quick search did turn up some references to the subject on a “traditional Catholic” forum, but I don’t think we’re supposed to link to that forum on CAF, because it’s pro-SSPX.) It did make sense to me, since it’s quite well known that there’s a retired priest in another part of the San Jose diocese who’s been saying a private TLM for a small group in someone’s home for years now, and I’m not aware of any intervention (positive or negative) by the bishop.

Is your priest diocesan, rather than a member of a religious order? That might make a difference, in terms of authority.

I also seem to recall reading that the “private Mass” exception was supposed to apply to priests who were “older” when the new rite was introduced, and had difficulty adapting to it. In other words, it was for the benefit of the priests (to ensure they could continue to offer Mass), not for the faithful per se. Since the new rite was introduced over 30 years ago, these “older” priests would all be quite elderly now… in their late 80’s or 90’s.

Anyway, I’ll try to find an accurate reference.

Many thanks and feel free to send me the link privately.

 

[rwoehmke]

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.

Suppressing this Mass apparently has nothing to do with the Mass itself, but that it was being publically celebrated in a private Chapel not under the authority of the local Bishop. I would assume the owners of the Chapel was a dissident group of some sort.

 

[maryceleste]

Suppressing this Mass apparently has nothing to do with the Mass itself, but that it was being publically celebrated in a private Chapel not under the authority of the local Bishop. I would assume the owners of the Chapel was a dissident group of some sort.

Don’t you think it’s rather a stretch to say that the incident has “nothing to do with the Mass itself?”

The fact is, there wouldn’t have been any “private Mass” or “private chapel” in the first place, if the bishop had simply given his permission to use one of the diocesan churches… or if the Jesuits had given their permission to use the Mission… so that these priests could celebrate the Mass licitly, for the faithful who very much desired to attend. The fact that such permission was not forthcoming – despite countless polite requests and petitions, over many years – would seem to have a great deal to do with those authorities’ distaste for the TLM itself, or their distrust of those who prefer it.

As far as calling the group “dissident” – I guess that’s technically accurate, since they chose to disobey the bishop… but they didn’t always meet that description. It seems to have started as a licit private Mass, which continued to operate even though it grew beyond the size that the bishop considered permissible. Even at that point, the group was still quite small, and not well-known. AFAIK, they didn’t advertise in any way (unlike the SSPX, which has a chapel in the area, and runs newspaper ads). In fact, I happen to know many Catholics with an attachment to the TLM who were living in the area for years, and weren’t even aware of this chapel’s existence.

Now that they’ve been regularized, it appears to be pretty much the same crowd attending. They went from being “obedient to the bishop,” to being “dissidents,” to being “obedient to the bishop” once again… even though their personal beliefs didn’t change at any time. Funny how that happens.

I guess some might think I’m taking the matter of “dissent” too lightly. Frankly, most of my own diocese seems to consist of “dissidents” of one sort or another. They’re still my brothers and sisters in Christ, though, and we’re all in the same boat. If I made a habit of getting upset about it, I’d be upset pretty much all the time. Many of the orthodox Catholics who “tough it out” at their local parish, while outwardly seeming obedient, are inwardly full of bitterness and disrespect toward the bishop, the diocesan staff, the priests, etc. … which they’re all too glad to vent, if given the opportunity. (“What?! He told us not to kneel after receiving Communion?! That !@#$… I bet he’s part of the Lavender Mafia… Did you hear what happened over at St. So-and-So’s?”) Frankly, I think I’ve encountered more negativity of this sort in “conservative Novus Ordo” circles than in TLM circles (though, of course, it varies a lot from one community to another).

I’d prefer not to have my children exposed to either brand of dissent – the “vote with your feet,” or the “lash with your tongue” – but it comes to a point where you have to choose your poison. We wouldn’t go the “independent TLM community with questionable canonical status” route in our current circumstances, but I can picture some scenarios where we might do so. These are exceptional times.

 

[Marian_Boy]

I hope that priest knows about “Quo Primum”.