Concelebration

[Cam42]

A couple of thoughts.....

1. Concelebration did in fact happen in the Mass previous to the Second Vatican Council. Ordinations and consecrations. They were allowed and were conducted with all due solemnity.

2. Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

[quote name='Redemptionis Sacramentum #128']Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constituted, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according to his own condition. [b]It is preferable therefore that “Priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.”[/b]  It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the manner of the lay faithful.[/quote]

[quote name='Footnote to RS #128; GIRM 114']Among those Masses celebrated by some communities, moreover, the conventual Mass, which is a part of the daily Office, or the community Mass has a particular place. Although such Masses do not have a special form of celebration, it is nevertheless most proper that they be celebrated with singing, especially with the full participation of all members of the community, whether of religious or of canons. In these Masses, therefore, individuals should exercise the office proper to the Order or ministry they have received. It is appropriate, therefore, that all the priests who are not bound to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful concelebrate at the conventual or community Mass in so far as it is possible. In addition, all priests belonging to the community who are obliged, as a matter of duty, to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful may also on the same day concelebrate at the conventual or community Mass.94 For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.[/quote]

The footnote to the previous quote:
[quote name='Eucharisticum Mysterium #47']Concelebration
Concelebration of the Eucharist aptly demonstrates the unity of the sacrifice and of the priesthood. Moreover, whenever the faithful take an active part, the unity of the People of God is strikingly manifested, particularly if the bishop presides.

Concelebration both symbolizes and strengthens the brotherly bond of the priesthood, because "by virtue of the ordination to the priesthood which they have in common, all are bound together in an intimate brotherhood."

Therefore, unless it conflicts with the needs of the faithful which must always be consulted with the deepest pastoral concern, and although every priest retains the right to celebrate alone, it is desirable that priests should celebrate the Eucharist in this eminent manner. This applies both to communities of priests and to groups which gather on particular occasions, and also to all similar circumstances. Those who live in community or serve the same church should welcome visiting priests into their concelebration.

The competent superiors should, therefore, facilitate and indeed positively encourage concelebration, whenever pastoral needs or other reasonable motives do not prevent it.

The faculty to concelebrate also applies to the principal Masses in churches and public and semi-public oratories of seminaries, colleges and ecclesiastical institutes, and also of religious orders and societies of clergy living in community without vows. However, where there is a great number of priests, the competent superior may give permission for concelebration to take place even several times on the same day, but at different times or in different sacred places.[/quote]

The footnotes for the above quote:
[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #57']§1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the East and in the West. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

1. a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;
c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:
a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;
b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.


§2..1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.[/quote]

[quote name='Ecclesiae Semper #7']Therefore, concelebration is always encouraged, “unless the welfare of the Christianfaithful requires or urges otherwise.” “Visiting priests should be gladly welcomed toEucharistic concelebration, as long as their priestly standing is ascertained,” and “asuperior may not prohibit a priest from concelebrating,” except in the instancesdescribed in no. 10, below.[/quote]

[quote name='ES #10']“No one is ever to enter into a concelebration or to be admitted as a concelebrant oncethe Mass has already begun.”[/quote]

[quote name='SC #41']The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers.[/quote]

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #28'] Christ, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world,  has through His apostles, made their successors, the bishops, partakers of His consecration and His mission. They have legitimately handed on to different individuals in the Church various degrees of participation in this ministry. Thus the divinely established ecclesiastical ministry is exercised on different levels by those who from antiquity have been called bishops, priests and deacons. Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity. By the power of the sacrament of Orders, in the image of Christ the eternal high Priest, they are consecrated to preach the Gospel and shepherd be faithful and to celebrate divine worship, so that they are true priests of the New Testament. Partakers of the function of Christ the sole Mediator, on their level of ministry, they announce the divine word to all. They exercise their sacred function especially in the eucharistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which acting in the person of Christ  and proclaiming His Mystery they unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of their Head and renew and apply  in the sacrifice of the Mass until the coming of the Lord the only sacrifice of the New Testament namely that of Christ offering Himself once for all a spotless Victim to the Father. For the sick and the sinners among the faithful, they exercise the ministry of alleviation and reconciliation and they present the needs and the prayers of the faithful to God the Father. Exercising within the limits of their authority the function of Christ as Shepherd and Head, they gather together God's family as a brotherhood all of one mind, and lead them in the Spirit, through Christ, to God the Father. In the midst of the flock they adore Him in spirit and in truth. Finally, they labor in word and doctrine, believing what they have read and meditated upon in the law of God, teaching what they have believed, and putting in practice in their own lives what they have taught.

Priests, prudent cooperators with the episcopal order, its aid and instrument, called to serve the people of God, constitute one priesthood  with their bishop although bound by a diversity of duties. Associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity, they make him present in a certain sense in the individual local congregations, and take upon themselves, as far as they are able, his duties and the burden of his care, and discharge them with a daily interest. And as they sanctify and govern under the bishop's authority, that part of the Lord's flock entrusted to them they make the universal Church visible in their own locality and bring an efficacious assistance to the building up of the whole body of Christ. intent always upon the welfare of God's children, they must strive to lend their effort to the pastoral work of the whole diocese, and even of the entire Church. On account of this sharing in their priesthood and mission, let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him. And let the bishop regard his priests as his co-workers and as sons and friends, just as Christ called His disciples now not servants but friends. All priests, both diocesan and religious, by reason of Orders and ministry, fit into this body of bishops and priests, and serve the good of the whole Church according to their vocation and the grace given to them.

In virtue of their common sacred ordination and mission, all priests are bound together in intimate brotherhood, which naturally and freely manifests itself in mutual aid, spiritual as well as material, pastoral as well as personal, in their meetings and in communion of life, of labor and charity.

Let them, as fathers in Christ, take care of the faithful whom they have begotten by baptism and their teaching.  Becoming from the heart a pattern to the flock, let them so lead and serve their local community that it may worthily be called by that name, by which the one and entire people of God is signed, namely, the Church of God.  Let them remember that by their daily life and interests they are showing the face of a truly sacerdotal and pastoral ministry to the faithful and the infidel, to Catholics and non-Catholics, and that to all they bear witness to the truth and life, and as good shepherds go after those also, who though baptized in the Catholic Church have fallen away from the use of the sacraments, or even from the faith.

Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God.[/quote]

So, that is a really wordy way to say that concelebration is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged, when necessary, as determined by the Church, not the faithful.

[God Conquers]

Wow, CAM... that is an incredibly well-laid out answer. I thank you and the others.

One follow-up question:

What about priests in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? My friend said it would be improper for them to concelebrate at a NO mass, and even at all, and that the two rites should be completely separate to prevent scandal (both ways).

What do you think?

[Cam42]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:31 PM']Wow, CAM... that is an incredibly well-laid out answer. I thank you and the others.

One follow-up question:

What about priests in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? My friend said it would be improper for them to concelebrate at a NO mass, and even at all, and that the two rites should be completely separate to prevent scandal (both ways).

What do you think?
[right][snapback]761743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yep, they are to be totally separate. There is to be no mixing of the Missa Normativa and the Mass previous to Vatican Council II.

That is per Ecclesia Dei and supporting documents.

[Aloysius]

as I suspected, I was just being as bad of an antiquarian as those who argue we should use wooden tables as altars.

[dspen2005]

in our parish, we have 4 priests... and on Sunday's one priest offers Mass, then when it comes time for the dispensing of Communion, another one of the priests comes out in cassock, surplice and stole to help dispense Communion... then he leaves, going back into the sacristy

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:20 PM']Yep, they are to be totally separate.  There is to be no mixing of the Missa Normativa and the Mass previous to Vatican Council II.

That is per Ecclesia Dei and supporting documents.
[right][snapback]761883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe there is permission given for FSSP priests to concelebrate with their bishops on a holy thursday mass with the missa normativa.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 17 2005, 11:13 PM']in our parish, we have 4 priests... and on Sunday's one priest offers Mass, then when it comes time for the dispensing of Communion, another one of the priests comes out in cassock, surplice and stole to help dispense Communion... then he leaves, going back into the sacristy
[right][snapback]761988[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


As he should, per Redemptionis Sacramentum #128; quoted above.

[Sinner]

Not a statement of any Chuch issues..... personally speaking, I don't mind it as long as common sense rules. Not all the time....
and when priests are falling off the side steps of the altar; maybe, just maybe there are too many of them up there.

[Aloysius]

I still think private masses are awesome.

[journeyman]

oh, to be in a parish where "too many priests" was an issue . . . concelebration is not likely to be a problem in our parish for some time

[son_of_angels]

Personally, I am opposed to the notion of concelebration without a Bishop present, as it seems to confuse the fact that priests are priests UNDER a specific Bishop, as with all the Holy Orders. It simply seems too...(searching for word) presbyteral (made one up)...and emphasizes the priests authority while de-emphasizing the fact that the ONLY ordinary authority is in the Bishop. Hence, a priest cannot ordain another priest and should not presume to concelebrate with him as he adds nothing more or less to the celebration itself. When concelebration is done with or between bishops, it seems to more emphasize the particular unity of the church in the episcopal order, and therefore serves a special function. Perhaps replacing common priestly concelebration with priests functioning in the diaconal and subdiaconal role would be more appropriate (though I would say that having lectors/acolytes and deacons fulfill these functions is BEST) for local non-pontifical Masses.

As for private Masses, I agree that private Masses are easily an abuse, because then the Mass may simply become simply a prayer, an action, and a meal, when it is also a liturgical SACRIFICE. Nonetheless, I also think that private Masses serve an important role in the spiritual formation of priests, especially religious priests, by emphasizing the liturgy celebrated within their own solitude, between them, God, the heavenly hosts, and the Mystical Church of God. Each private Mass said with this in mind is truly a sacramental liturgy, fully participated in by all its members. Hence, in my own opinion, concelebration should not be an alternative nor "in opposition to" private Masses, but serve a worthy purpose of itself.

Edited October 19, 2005 by son_of_angels

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 19 2005, 01:54 AM']Personally, I am opposed to the notion of concelebration without a Bishop present, as it seems to confuse the fact that priests are priests UNDER a specific Bishop, as with all the Holy Orders.  It simply seems too...(searching for word) presbyteral (made one up)...and emphasizes the priests authority while de-emphasizing the fact that the ONLY ordinary authority is in the Bishop.  Hence, a priest cannot ordain another priest and should not presume to concelebrate with him as he adds nothing more or less to the celebration itself.  When concelebration is done with or between bishops, it seems to more emphasize the particular unity of the church in the episcopal order, and therefore serves a special function.  Perhaps replacing common priestly concelebration with priests functioning in the diaconal and subdiaconal role would be more appropriate (though I would say that having lectors/acolytes and deacons fulfill these functions is BEST) for local non-pontifical Masses.

As for private Masses, I agree that private Masses are easily an abuse, because then the Mass may simply become simply a prayer, an action, and a meal, when it is also a liturgical SACRIFICE.  Nonetheless, I also think that private Masses serve an important role in the spiritual formation of priests, especially religious priests, by emphasizing the liturgy celebrated within their own solitude, between them, God, the heavenly hosts, and the Mystical Church of God.  Each private Mass said with this in mind is truly a sacramental liturgy, fully participated in by all its members.  Hence, in my own opinion, concelebration should not be an alternative nor "in opposition to" private Masses, but serve a worthy purpose of itself.
[right][snapback]763413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you are opposed to it because it doesn't [i]feel [/i]right to you?

[son_of_angels]

So what? Lot's of things don't "feel" right to me, because they are not. It doesn't seem right to me, that doesn't mean that it isn't valid, or even correct (though I CAN argue that it is equally not INCORRECT to limit the use of concelebration for the benefit of the faithful).

As an aspiring liturgist, and perhaps priest, I don't like it. I have my reasons which I stated above: 1.) A host is still a host whether consecrated by one priest or two, so it seems like the only way to benefit from concelebration is to add something different to the celebration, e.g. the bishop, who exercises the fulness of the priesthood. 2.) I think that anytime one sees too many priests and not enough bishops, it is a poor sign of pastoral leadership. 3.) I think that private masses are a good balance to overly public masses. If the public mass emphasized the sacramental character it once did (not necessarily in the Tridentine, but also in the primitive rites), that is that it is the Sacrifice of the Faithful, and not the public, then I might be inclined to say that private masses were a mistake. As such, I cannot say this about the Rites in most use today, though perhaps others can, and therefore it is my opinion that private Masses should be the preferrential option between themselves and concelebration (if one has the option at all).4.) I think the liturgical roles of Gospel Reader (Deacon) and Epistle (Sub-deacon) are beautiful expressions of the whole Church, and I think fulfilling these roles should be prior to having three priests that don't contribute anything in particular to the Eucharistic Sacrifice (don't take me too literally on that). After all, priests, as an ecclesial rank, are not Bishops and therefore do not posess the fulness of the Apostolic succession, so why MUST they take on a certain role in public liturgies, except by the discipline of the Church?

Again that is simply my opinion......

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 09:35 PM']So what? Lot's of things don't "feel" right to me, because they are not.  It doesn't seem right to me, that doesn't mean that it isn't valid, or even correct (though I CAN argue that it is equally not INCORRECT to limit the use of concelebration for the benefit of the faithful). 

As an aspiring liturgist, and perhaps priest, I don't like it. I have my reasons which I stated above: 1.) A host is still a host whether consecrated by one priest or two, so it seems like the only way to benefit from concelebration is to add something different to the celebration, e.g. the bishop, who exercises the fulness of the priesthood. 2.) I think that anytime one sees too many priests and not enough bishops, it is a poor sign of pastoral leadership. 3.) I think that private masses are a good balance to overly public masses.  If the public mass emphasized the sacramental character it once did (not necessarily in the Tridentine, but also in the primitive rites), that is that it is the Sacrifice of the Faithful, and not the public, then I might be inclined to say that private masses were a mistake.  As such, I cannot say this about the Rites in most use today, though perhaps others can, and therefore it is my opinion that private Masses should be the preferrential option between themselves and concelebration (if one has the option at all).4.) I think the liturgical roles of Gospel Reader (Deacon) and Epistle (Sub-deacon) are beautiful expressions of the whole Church, and I think fulfilling these roles should be prior to having three priests that don't contribute anything in particular to the Eucharistic Sacrifice (don't take me too literally on that).  After all, priests, as an ecclesial rank, are not Bishops and therefore do not posess the fulness of the Apostolic succession, so why MUST they take on a certain role in public liturgies, except by the discipline of the Church?

Again that is simply my opinion......
[right][snapback]765523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Correct.

2. Incorrect.

3. Incorrect.

4. Correct and incorrect.

#2. The view that you hold is not the view of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. I would implore you to re-read paragraph 128. You will see that it is clear.

[quote name='Redemptionis Sacramentum #128']Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constituted, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according to his own condition. [b]It is preferable therefore that “Priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments.[/b] Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.”  It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the manner of the lay faithful.[/quote]

#3. This view is also incorrect. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a private Mass. Every Mass is to have a server. In pre-conciliar days, a priest would say his Mass, then serve for the next Mass....if there was no altar server.

#4. It is preferable to have two deacons at Mass, that is what makes it solemn. However, I challenge you to show me how a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating is NOT contributing to the Divine Liturgy. That view is utterly incorrect. Redemptionis Sacramentum states that priests who are present at a Eucharistic celebration should excercise the OFFICE PROPER to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants.

So, take it from one who studied the Liturgy on a formal level; pre- and post-Vatican Council II; you need to adapt your views to the views of the Church. Keep studying. As it stands, your opinions are not informed and they are incorrect. You CAN argue your point all you want, but you are not correct in your view.

Concelebration is acceptable and preferred. The Church is clear, Cardinal Arinze is clear, and the Congregation for the Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments is clear.

[son_of_angels]

First, concelebration is, within the context of Redemptionis Sacramentum, all that you described it, and therefore it IS proper for a priest to exercise the rights of his order. However, in a different context, say the Indult Mass, it would be incorrect because there is generally no allowance for this. Many writers, for example, in the Tridentine period, and indeed the Church of that time itself, felt it completely inappropriate for the Canon to be said aloud within the context of the Mass. Yet the Mass has changed (not the essentials, I agree) and it is appropriate until the rite itself changes. I agree with a change in Context, not in obedience, and context is always the basis for applying the instructions of the Church regarding most liturgical/disciplinary things. It would, for example, be entirely inappropriate to have a married priest, except in the particular contexts in which the Church has approved it, and that most of the instructions regarding to celibacy, must be adapted or abandoned based on context.

Remember the words of the Holy Father "To absolutize what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism."

Secondly, I have seen many cases where I didn't think concelebration, compared to altar serving/Diaconal or Sub-diaconal roles, was preferrable, due, often, to the fact that the over-amount of action around the altar, and the inability of the priests to do it nobly. I also think that it would be a delight best left to pontifical solemn Masses. This is not something I can SHOW you, or even argue with you, because it is like discussing whether or not chocolate is bad (again, don't take my similes too seriously, or you'll hurt yourself), or you/I liked a play. There may be concrete reasons for arguing either side, but those concrete reasons speak to a particular need for either of us, that, until you ARE me, then these arguments mean nothing.

Edited October 21, 2005 by son_of_angels