Rorate Caeli

Ecce sacerdos magnus!

We present here the first photos of the Pontifical Mass offered Sunday by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in the Basilica of St. Pius X at Lourdes in front of 10,000 priests, religious, and faithful.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais listens to the chanting of the gospel from the throne at the Basilica of St. Pius X in Lourdes. He is surrounded by the Reverend Jean-Jacques Marziac, assistant to the throne, and Father Louis-Marie Turpault, grand master of ceremonies.


Exiting the Sacristy, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais passes before several members of the Italian episcopate. He is preceded by Father Regis de Cacqueray, assistant priest, and Father Jacques Laguérie, deacon.


Merci à La Porte Latine

54 comments:

Garrett said...

Is his dalmatic white, or non-existent?

So there were were other bishops here besides just Bishop de Mallerais? Interesting.

Anonymous said...

He's not wearing a dalmatic or tunicle (they may not have been available). Fascinating how he's pontificating at the throne since he's not the ordinary. Shouldn't he be pontificating from the faldstool and without the use of assistants at the throne?

-jpb, md, op

Luiz said...

For many, an illicit mass...

Ecce sacerdos magnus!

Martin said...

Deo Gratias !

chiralcapers said...

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

Glorious as it may appear the Mass was still illicit.

May the Eternal King see fit to grant unity, and soon!

Anonymous said...

On paper, the bishop is suspended a divinis.

In actual practice, our Churchmen have presented him as a bishop who is free to offer Mass legitimately.

Actions speak louder than words.

Tim

Don Tiddi said...

The Pope is among those many who call this mass illicit. Don't forget the decree which remove the excommunication: the bishops (and priests) cannot licitly perform any ministry in the catholic church.

Anonymous said...

I am a traditionalist, but catholic and always in communion with Rome, and this is agaist the will of Pope Benedict who wrote in the letter to the bishop after the removal of the excommunications: " The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church...In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
It is simply contrary to the will of Pope Benedict.

Anonymous said...

I am all for the SSPX dialogue and I respect their position but...... I am disappointed to see Rorate Caeli use as the title of this post: Ecce sacerdos magnus. It is simply too much.

THD said...

I wonder why the shrine authorities are so hospitable towards the SSPX but create so many obstacles when those in obedience to the Holy Father wish to have a Traditional Latin Mass.

LeonG said...

How Extraordinary! Deo Gratias!

How true it is that Almighty God's strength does not lie in numbers.

Thank you Mornac.

LeonG said...

Indeed Liuz, paradoxical that out of the NO church have come tens of thousands of services with illicit and even invalid behaviours already customarily forbidden by The Church. While from within the same new paradigm post-conciliar church has been an attempt, over a generation, to neutralise a traditional Catholic Society that has continued the customary norm of defending the perpetual integrity of The Holy Mass of All Times and of Roman Catholic doctrine without any trace of equivocation.

LeonG said...

There was an excellent, lucid & clear sermon by Bishop de Mallerais available at....

http://www.laportelatine.org/communication/audiotheque/sermons2009/091025Tissier.mp3

LeonG said...

Bishop de Mallerais gave a very clear and poignant sermon as to why the role of Our Blessed Lady is so crucial to the world and especially at this time during an era of apostasy - the social kingship of Christ has been subjugated to a universal inter-religious movement without Our Blessed Lord and without His Blessed Mother [a trend destined to falter, in any case, as we witness it doing just that].

What an embarrassment The Christ and His Blessed Virgin Mother represent to those in the new model church who actively support such pluralist and relativist gatherings!

Anonymous said...

Every single time the faithful ask them for a sacrament for a just cause their ministry becomes licit for that time by canon 1335. Even if they don't have permission.

Do you know that the SSPX celebrated Mass today at the Vatican on occassion of meeting in the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith? They have obtained permission. Is the CDF also acting against Pope's will? Or against your will?

Holy Father has not expressed his will but merely reminded the Muellers and Kaspers, with whom you're standing hand in hand, about the canonical status of the SSPX.

If the Church authorities allow them to celebrate then show your famous "obedience" and stop niggling.

Long-Skirts said...

LIKE DINNER
ON
WOOD

Saint Joan,
Saint Tim,
Queen Mary
Of Scotts,

Prayed
The true Mass,
So knew
Their true lots.

They could
Have said
"Oh, no,
I shant!"

But they
Were Saints,
No persons,
Pedant.

Not ones
To lord
Their innate
Good -

While being
Prepared like
Dinner
On wood.

Or having
Their eye-lids
Tucked
And nipped,

Even though
Queens,
With kings
They sipped,

No, no -
Accepted
With joy,
No fuss...

"For you, et
Pro multis."
Now, daily,
For us!

New Catholic said...

"I am disappointed to see Rorate Caeli use as the title of this post: Ecce sacerdos magnus."

See how we live together with a wide diversity of opinions here, despite what some others claim? Anyway, this Mass was allowed to take place in the Sanctuary by competent authority, not by us...

Vox Cantoris said...

I am equally disappointed that this is being featured. They continue in manifest disobedience to the Pope who shows great sympathy for them. Yes, let the talks begin and progress and reach a suitable conclusin for the Church, but they have still torn the robe of Christ. If they do not humble themselves and reunite they will be come as irrelevant as the Old Catholics. The reform and restoration has begun and the door cannot be closed on it no matter what the SSPX thinks or does.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Does anybody think that perhaps the Holy Father is in favour of the SSPX and that his public words were just done to appease those who oppose Tradition?

Anonymous said...

Comparing SSPX which was never in schism and has never introduced any novelties to Old Catholics is just an insult.

That the ministry is illicit doesn't mean it is always forbidden. It's canon law basics. If the Pope wanted to forbid it, he would have done it. The SSPX was not rebuked for their pilgrimage to Lourdes in 2008, on the contrary, they were allowed again.

You have to be bad-willing or ignorant to call asking for a permission and obtaining it a "disobedience".

Of course this should be featured on Rorate Caeli, just as every positive development should be.

Dan Hunter said...

This is truly wonderful to see!

If competant authority at Lourdes permits this, then it is permitted by the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Vox

They had permission. Can't be more Catholic than Pope Benedict. I am glad you featured this story. Many out there are unaware of the situation with the SSPX. I am also glad they said Mass in St Peter. Wish I had been there.

Anonymous said...

What a shame! They are not in communion with Rome, they are still schismatics, they are out, and yet, received to celebrate an illicit mass in a Catholic Church.
Carlo, from Mexico

Paul Haley said...

To the naysayers I remind them of the law ecclesia supplet which is the Church supplies faculties in an emergency. What emergency? Look, no emergency could be greater than the salvation of souls which is the main reason why the SSPX has taken the position it has since it was formed by Archbishop Lefebvre. No one, including the Pope, can countermand this law when the salvation of souls is at stake. Therefore, when the bishops and priests of the SSPX are engaged in actually confecting the sacraments they do so only to save souls. This also applies to any traditional priest or bishop validly ordained within the Church.

Now, someone might say: "I never heard of this law or what the Pope says must be the final word" but I say: "get real" and use your God-given intelligence. Do you really think that Our Lord would allow priests and bishops to be properly ordained and then have them shackled without faculties due to theological disputes and differences while souls were in danger?

There is no doubt that Rome disputes this law as applying to the SSPX and independent traditional priests but that is over whether there is, in fact, a state of emergency. If you don't believe there has been a state of emergency in the Church over the last 40 years the you must be from some other planet than the one I live on.

But, if you're still not convinced, I invite you to check out the following link which describes the situation much better than I ever could: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_2.htm

LeonG said...

Each time there is a necessary and timely posting here concerning the Society we suffer the usual round of disconnected doctrinaire anti-SSPX commentaries which take small if any account of valid social realities. They may quote theoretical approaches to their severely limited perspectives 'ad nauseam' but they are based more on wishful thinking than actuality.

They may or may not have noticed that there is an almost total absence of justice in the church today as it virtually ignores flagrant sexual, financial and other abuses with scarcely even a word of condemnation. Many times we witness bishops and priests, nuns and lay who willfully speak and act in non-Catholic, indeed even anti-Catholic manner without ecclesiastical consequence. I have given objective examples of this elsewhere on several occasions and do not wish to repeat myself here. This puts to shame remarks alleging the disqualification of the good SSPX priests and bishops who rightfully perform the Traditional Sacraments as they should be administered using time and doctrine-honoured Roman Catholic norms and values.

Moreover, when we study realities on the ground, we do not find Pope Benedict XVI speaking in such a disregardful and disrespectful fashion. In fact, reading his mind on what is for him a long-standing and vexing concern, he is moving all the mountains possible to accommodate this admirable confraternity which behaves with dignity and integrity in the face of constant criticism, public vilification and sheer diabolical malice. There is absolutely no doubt that the Pope himself is keen to bring all doubts and disputes into the open light of discussion and to give the Society publicly the place it merits in Catholic Christendom because the hour is already late and The Master has need of them.

The SSPX may not be perfect, however, the post-conciliar church itself is but a disorientated, scandal-ridden and compromised shadow of the pre-conciliar counterpart.

Dan Hunter said...

Mr Haley,

Do you now believe that the FSSPX have faculties to hear confessions?

LeonG said...

"If you don't believe there has been a state of emergency in the Church over the last 40 years the you must be from some other planet than the one I live on.'

Yes Paul!

The objective evidence of absolute crisis and disorder is so overwhelming that you would have to hail from the other side of the universe to miss it. Any Roman Catholic who deceased prior to the 1960s who returned to Earth would wonder where The Church they left behind had nearly disappeared to. They are almost completely different. Many of the churches and religious houses they may have known have disappeared to. And, as for the liturgy..............?!

Enoch said...

So this Mass is considered as to be scandalous to the faith by the folks at Rorate Caeli? Is that right?

Enoch said...

In re-reading the posts here, I now see that Rorate Caeli is not taking an anti-SSPX stance, as I had thought. Mea culpa.

Mornac said...

The folks at Rorate Caeli consider it to be a Roman Catholic Mass offered by a Roman Catholic bishop at a Roman Catholic Basilica.

Anonymous said...

here here.

Jordanes said...

To the naysayers I remind them of the law ecclesia supplet which is the Church supplies faculties in an emergency. What emergency?

It refers to an individual Catholic's personal "emergency," on a case-by-case basis.

Look, no emergency could be greater than the salvation of souls which is the main reason why the SSPX has taken the position it has since it was formed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That is pretty much how the Orthodox justified their splitting from the Church, and not altogether unlike how the original Protestants justified their rejection of Catholic teaching and authority.

Do you really think that Our Lord would allow priests and bishops to be properly ordained and then have them shackled without faculties due to theological disputes and differences while souls were in danger?

The priests and bishops of the SSPX are not properly ordained -- their ordinations are valid but illict.

There is no doubt that Rome disputes this law as applying to the SSPX and independent traditional priests but that is over whether there is, in fact, a state of emergency.

I think rather that the Apostolic See disputes that invoking a "state of emergency" can ever activate a blanket, overarching "ecclesia supplet" provision for a whole group of priests who have been suspended a divinis.

Think: if the Church's "state of emergency" cancels the Church's law dictating that men who are illicitly ordained are automatically suspended, wouldn't that mean that a man could validly receive Holy Orders from any vagus bishop and, practically speaking, not incur automatic suspension?

Jordanes said...

Whatever scandal may be caused by this Mass is far, far less than the scandal of allowing pagans to use a Catholic altar for their idolatrous ceremonies at Fatima, or allowing Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams to celebrate a liturgy on a Catholic altar in Rome.

Leonardo said...

"far less than the scandal of allowing pagans to use a Catholic altar for their idolatrous ceremonies at Fatima, or allowing Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams to celebrate a liturgy on a Catholic altar in Rome."

...and Assis(1986)too.

Johnny Domer said...

Bishop de Mallerais' act of celebrating Mass at the Throne with full pontificals is, to my mind, ludicrous and totally antithetical to the whole ethos of a Pontifical Mass at the Throne. I would be shocked if he had received any permission from the local ordinary to celebrate in this fashion (which would be the only way possibly to justify it; if he did, I retract what I am about to say). So much of the symbolism of this form of the Mass revolves around the fact that the local ordinary is the source of the sacramental life of the Church to his diocese, and around his authority over his subjects; a bishop without jurisdiction over a diocese (for example, an assistant bishop with only a titular see) does not offer pontifical Mass at the throne, unless he receives permission from and acts in the name of and by the authority of the local Ordinary, serving, in a sense, as his proxy. Cardinals, because of their close attachment to the Pope, are allowed to offer Mass with full pontificals anywhere in the world (as a sign of the Pope's immediate jurisdiction over the whole world), except in Rome, where the Pope is alone given honor as the source of that diocese's sacramental life. How ludicrous it is, then, that this bishop, who has absolutely no jurisdiction from the Church over any person or place, is offering Mass at a throne!

I also really wonder if the Lourdes authorities, in an age where ecumenism was given less emphasis (100 years ago, for example), would have allowed an illicitly consecrated bishop who is suspended a divinis to offer a Mass at the throne without the approval of the local ordinary. I personally doubt it.

I just think it is a bit naive to think that the SSPX's frequent Masses at Lourdes are a sign of the broader Church's greater acceptance of them (the Church is drawing the SSPX closer, but this is not a sign of it); if anything, my guess is that it is a fruit of the (at times excessive, perhaps) ecumenical spirit of many in the Church. While I think that the SSPX are in fact Catholics, and that it is insulting to think ecumenism applies to them, I still would guess that this is whence their toleration at Lourdes stems. Are other Christian denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans) allowed to offer religious services at Lourdes? I would have to guess that a lot of ecumenical functions are held there, correct? I honestly do not know, although I do know that Rowan Williams (Anglican archbishop of Canterbury) delivered a homily at a Mass at Lourdes offered by Cardinal Kasper last year. I am perfectly willing to hear arguments opposed to mine, since I admit that I don't have all the details.

Dan Hunter said...

"...for a whole group of priests who have been suspended a divinis."

Jordanes,
I know this getting off the subject, but was there a just reason for Pope Paul VI and or the Office of Bishops, suspending the Society?
From what I have read they were suspended for the sole reason that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained men to offer the Gregorian Rite of Mass.
What is wrong with a priest offering Holy Mass?
Last time I checked this is the highest calling ever, for the salvation of souls.

I have never had this explained to me satisfactorily.
Is it just because the Curia issued the suspension, that makes it right?

Enoch said...

Thankyou, Mornac and Jordanes, for your good explanations.

Peter said...

I am not scandalized at all.
On the contrary, I am edified and I hope that other bishops will follow the example of hospitality of bishop Jacques Perrier and superiors of the Sanctuary. For the benefit of everybody.

If you have doubts about the liturgy, contact Fr Louis-Marie Turpault, he will probably answer your questions. But bear in mind that the SSPX has some liturgical privileges officially granted at the request of Msgr Lefebvre in the early 1970s.

In any case, local ordinary may allow celebration from the throne even to the not entitled.

Anonymous said...

I think that you "disappointed" folks should look into your hearts to see where this animosity towards your "separated brethren" arises. When it comes to the SSPX, of a sudden the rule books (that are ignored for everyone else) are pulled out and gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

I often get the impression that most Catholics (especially the Catholic Answers' brand) really don't want the SSPX back where they belong.

Remember: there was a time when the entire Church was once what they are. Who moved?

Jordanes said...

Remember: there was a time when the entire Church was once what they are. Who moved?

No, there has never been a time when the "entire" Church was once what they are. Most of the Church was almost entirely like they are, but not the entire Church.

Jordanes said...

I know this getting off the subject, but was there a just reason for Pope Paul VI and or the Office of Bishops, suspending the Society?

I'm personally not sure about that, but at any rate it does appear that the Vatican thinks the grounds for suppressing the SSPX were sufficient to justify it.

From what I have read they were suspended for the sole reason that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained men to offer the Gregorian Rite of Mass.

More immediately, the reason was that he went ahead with the ordinations in a diocese after the local bishop had withdrawn his permission, and after the Pope directed him to refrain. It was, objectively, an assault on the authority and integrity of the Church's hierarchy, at a time when the Church's authority and integrity were already being compromised on many, many fronts.

What is wrong with a priest offering Holy Mass?

Of itself, nothing, but other factors can make what is of itself a good and holy thing into something bad. Just think of the unworthy and liturgically illicit ways Mass is more often than not celebrated in the Church today.

Is it just because the Curia issued the suspension, that makes it right?

No. My understanding is that it would take a lot more than that.

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes:
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation.
It does help me somewhat but what I still cannot understand is: what did Archbishop Lefebvre do that was intrinsically wrong?[in the 1970's, I mean]

I know that he disobeyed the Holy Father, which in and of itself could be a grave matter, but it most assuredly seems like he was given an unjust sentence.
We all know what Aquinas said about unjust laws...

Now I know that my little old self has no divine authority to pass judgement on what Pope Paul VI did, but just using the little common sense that Almighty God has given me, it does not seem logical that a man should be punished for doing something that is in actuality very good.
Archbishop Lefebvre taught the Catholic Faith, not some form of protestantism.
He never changed the deposit of the faith.He never taught heresy.
He just handed down what had been taught him by his teachers in the Church.
Why should he and in turn the rest of the Church be punished for this?

Should one blindly obey even a Pope, if the Pope is actually wrong?

Anonymous said...

get over it..After 40 years of nonsense.. why worry about small details.Rome needs tradition the church is dieing in the west.

Petrus Radii said...

The bishops of the FSSPX are auxiliary bishops, not local ordinaries with the right of pontifical ceremonies at the throne.

While one might make an allowance for Bp. Fellay in houses of the institute, since he is their superior general, it is categorically forbidden to the other three bishops to celebrate at the throne without the permission of the local ordinary.

This is because the throne is a sign of *jurisdiction*, which the four bishops ostensibly do not claim. They are required by liturgical law (and formerly Canon Law) to celebrate from the faldstool. Formerly, their celebrating from the throne would have been punished with at least an interdict and usually would have incurred irregularity.

Certainly, the four bishops cannot be ignorant of these facts and must be seriously questioned for their arrogation of the privileges of local ordinaries and Cardinals.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Society, on paper, Pope Benedict XVI declared that said Society does "not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

In actual practice, legitimate Church authorities permitted the Society to exercise legitimate ministries.

I read that this morning at Rome, the Society was permitted to "exercise legitimate ministries."

Is there any wonder as to why monumental confusion exists throughout the Latin Church?

Our Churchmen say one thing on paper, then contradict themselves in actual practice.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Dear liturgical experts,

if you believe that the SSPX bishops do something wrong, contact their ceremoniaries and correct them, as it is your Christian duty. After you do that please post a comment what did the ceremoniaries tell you.

Local ordinary can always give placet for throne celebration.

Paul Haley said...

Dan Hunter,

I tried to answer your question earlier but my answer to you never saw the the light of day. Suffice it to say that I have always believed the law "ecclesia supplet" applied to the SSPX but that is my individual judgment made in good conscience and I would never expect anyone to do something or believe something just because I did. When the salvation of souls is at stake, I can think of no other "emergency" that would override it. And that applies to suspensions a divinis or whatever.

Jordanes said...

When is the salvation of souls not at stake?

Anonymous said...

In the NO Church faldstools are as rare as hens teeth so I doubt they had the option of using one. As to the throne, it doesn't look like it is part of the exquisite decor of the "Basilica" in question but one never knows.

Anonymous said...

Petrus Radii said:

"The bishops of the FSSPX are auxiliary bishops, not local ordinaries with the right of pontifical ceremonies at the throne."

No, they are not auxiliary bishops because they have not been appointed as such. You might say that they function like auxiliary bishops. They are, in fact, episcopi vagantes or 'wandering bishops'; they are Sacramental bishops who lack appointment to any office by legitimate authority.

As for arrogation, Society bishops have, on variuos occasions, worn the mozetta, a symbol of jurisdiction, when they have no right to do so.

I have always thought, though, that the Society puts far more emphasis on discipline and doctrine than on form and ceremony. At one Mass, Bishop De Galarretta wore a chasuble which resembed a horse blanket. Oh, well. I've also heard that Archbishop Lefebvre had them avoid the biretta because he thought the wearing of it might make his priests vain. Perhaps this was something from his experience in the African missions.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Carlo from Mexico writes:

"What a shame! They are not in communion with Rome, they are still schismatics, they are out, and yet, received to celebrate an illicit mass in a Catholic Church."

Almost, but they are not schismatics. Rome has said that, while the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act, they were not adequate to create a schism. If this sounds like a fine distinction, consider an axe-blow against a tree. The blow will penetrates the bark but does not fell the tree is an act of destruction but not one which kills the tree. The Society never made the second blow, which would have been the establishment of jurisdictions.

P.K.T.P.

THD said...

Yes, Anglicans can have "masses" at Lourdes too. With proper notice, the shrine authorities put a chapel at the disposition of Anglican groups visiting Lourdes. I have seen Anglican eucharists at the Chapel of St Maximilian Kolbe in Lourdes.

Anonymous said...

JMJ

It is astonishing to see so many "sure" opinions about what is licit or illicit from those who seem to have obtained J.C.D. or S.T.D. degrees!

Let us observe with tranquil minds and hearts what happens in the coming months; let us be slow to judge lest we misjudge by our ignorance of facts known only to God or even to those in Curial Offices.

Finally, "Ecce Sacerdos Magnus" is a liturgical invocation that greets the incoming Bishop in many different instances. It hardly canonizes him, legitimizes or nods approvingly at his every action or something else over and above its ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

Oremus pro invicem et pro Fraternitate Sacerdotali S. Pii Decimi

Anonymous said...

Shall we remind ourselves that Jesus preached it is sometimes necessary to follow the 'Spirit of the Law' and not the 'Letter of the Law'.