Concelebration

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 10:32 PM']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.
[right][snapback]765588[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

However, we are not in the Tridentine period. And the Tridentine is not the normative view to hold. It is an indult.

Again, your view is uninformed and is contrary what the Church teaches. I don't need to be you in order to understand where you are coming from. Part of being able to learn is being able to see the whole picture. When you start learning then you can apply what the Church teaches in a concrete way.

So, I know where you are coming from. And I am not too concerned about your similes....they don't even make me smile.

[son_of_angels]

I believe by saying "we are not in the Tridentine period" you just agreed with me, whether you think you did or not.

Is it uninformed to like the musical Candide if you've never read the novel?

Nonetheless, my view is not particularly uninformed, yours seems (and I say "seems" because most of these discussions are based things that "seem" one way or another) to be uninformed by the light of reason and circumstance.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[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.[/quote]

So, does this mean that a priest who is traveling by himself should not offer Mass on a given day if he cannot find anyone to attend? At St. Peter's in Rome, many priests offer private Masses in the morning. A server will usually set up for them, but the server then leaves and the priest is often by himself, though sometimes there is a congregation.

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 11:25 PM']I believe by saying "we are not in the Tridentine period" you just agreed with me, whether you think you did or not.

Is it uninformed to like the musical Candide if you've never read the novel?

Nonetheless, my view is not particularly uninformed, yours seems (and I say "seems" because most of these discussions are based things that "seem" one way or another) to be uninformed by the light of reason and circumstance.
[right][snapback]765645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Whatever.....nope.....I am not agreeing with your position at all.

Your position is incorrect. Period. It is contrary to the accpeted teaching of the CDW and the Church.

[jmjtina]

all I keep seeing is what you [i]think [/i]and [i]feel [/i]sons of angels......and your personal view, right?

And I hated the Candide novel. absolutely destested it. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon8.gif[/img]

[Antonius]

[quote]So, does this mean that a priest who is traveling by himself should not offer Mass on a given day if he cannot find anyone to attend? At St. Peter's in Rome, many priests offer private Masses in the morning. A server will usually set up for them, but the server then leaves and the priest is often by himself, though sometimes there is a congregation.
[/quote]

Yeah, a priest friend of mine is on a leave of absence from the diocese and he cannot celebrate the sacraments without special permission from the local bishop, but he was telling me that he'll have to say his daily Mass in private, which is what St. Pio did for a few years when the bishop ordered him not to say Mass in public.

A priest can't say a Mass without an altar server helping him?

Edited October 21, 2005 by Antonius

[Cam42]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Oct 21 2005, 12:11 AM']Yeah, a priest friend of mine is on a leave of absence from the diocese and he cannot celebrate the sacraments without special permission from the local bishop, but he was telling me that he'll have to say his daily Mass in private, which is what St. Pio did for a few years when the bishop ordered him not to say Mass in public.

A priest can't say a Mass without an altar server helping him?
[right][snapback]765710[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As a rule, no he cannot. [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM"]Canon Law[/url] forbids it, except in extraordinary circumstances, which are just and reasonable.

[quote name='Can.906']Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.[/quote]

[JP2Iloveyou]

Cam, that's interesting. I never knew that. What would constitute a just and reasonable cause? For example, I suppose if a priest showed up for morning Mass at his parish and for whatever reason, NO ONE was there, he would still be able to celebrate Mass, wouldn't he?

[Cam42]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM']Cam, that's interesting.  I never knew that.  What would constitute a just and reasonable cause?  For example, I suppose if a priest showed up for morning Mass at his parish and for whatever reason, NO ONE was there, he would still be able to celebrate Mass, wouldn't he?
[right][snapback]766715[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes. That would be the best reason.

Also, if a priest were on vacation, although I don't think that would be a good enough reason, from my point of view.....I mean, can't he find a church, where is he, the middle of Egypt?

I don't think that there are many reasons that are justifiable, but that is for the priest's Ordinary to decide, not me. Thanks be to God.