Concelebration

[Revs96]

Concelebration is exceedingly rare in the EF (only done at ordinations as far as I know). Why is concelebration not popular? I’ve been a traditionalist for a while, but never figured that out. Concelebration can be defended by the fact that it expresses the unity of the priesthood, so what is the counter-argument? Is it as simple as a single priest is sufficient? Is it a matter of having many people around the Altar and thus “overpopulating” the sanctuary which is supposed to be “set apart” (i.e. holy)? I want someone to charitably cure me of my ignorance.

 

[Lujack]

Its because it isn’t permitted outside of ordination Masses in the EF. There just aren’t any rubrics for it, so it can’t be done. There isn’t any theological reason, as far as I know, but it just isn’t there as a possibility.

 

[bnbkaine]

usccb.org/liturgy/concelebration.shtml

If you can get that link to work, it talks about concelebration in the mass. I have seen it so many times, I had to reread your question to make sure I understood what you were asking. I went to the Chrism mass here in Alaska last year and there were about a dozen priests concelebrating the mass. It was pretty cool. (And long- not because of the number of priests, but because of the nature of the mass!)

Hope it helps!

 

[Penitant]

If we remember that the celebrant, in the exercise of his ministry, is “Alter Christus”, then it seems exceedingly strange to have another Christ, and another, and another, and another.

 

[MarkThompson]

If we remember that the celebrant, in the exercise of his ministry, is “Alter Christus”, then it seems exceedingly strange to have another Christ, and another, and another, and another.

Not much stranger than having Christ in the tabernacle, on the paten, and in the stomach.

 

[ChristusVincit]

Not to mention concelebration in our Eastern Catholic brethren’s churches.

And the ancient practice of the priests/presbyters all around the bishop/episkopos at Mass. Although at that time, the bishop was the main one doing the Eucharist I think?

 

[Lujack]

If we remember that the celebrant, in the exercise of his ministry, is “Alter Christus”, then it seems exceedingly strange to have another Christ, and another, and another, and another.

Its entirely possible for there to be one person acting in persona Christi at a side altar and another at the high altar in certain churches, and for both to be in the line of sight of a layperson assisting at the Mass. Why is that stranger than concelebration?

 

[ChristusVincit]

Its entirely possible for there to be one person acting in persona Christi at a side altar and another at the high altar in certain churches, and for both to be in the line of sight of a layperson assisting at the Mass. Why is that stranger than concelebration?

I think mainly it’s an ideological thing, and a failure to differentiate between Tradition and tradition.

 

[Chatter163]

What is called concelebration at an EF ordination Mass was/is, in practical terms, quite different from what occurs at an OF Mass. The newly ordained priest would basically kneel at a prie-dieu, on the sanctuary pavement, with a lighted candle and silently read the Mass prayers along with the bishop.

 

[MarkThompson]

What is called concelebration at an EF ordination Mass was/is, in practical terms, quite different from what occurs at an OF Mass. The newly ordained priest would basically kneel at a prie-dieu, on the sanctuary pavement, with a lighted candle and silently read the Mass prayers along with the bishop.

Conceptually and theologically, however, they are identical.

 

[Chatter163]

Conceptually and theologically, however, they are identical.

Not at all the case. The concelebration at an ordination Mass, was intended to emphasize the newly ordained priest’s bond with his bishop–that is similar, yes–but focused on the concelebrant’s responses to his bishop, rather than a co-offering of the same Sacrifice. In fact, the newly ordained did not even receive the Precious Blood. Jungman’s Mass of the Roman Rite (1959) describes this concelebration ceremonial and the reasoning behind it, six years before the reforms, and it is obvious that the theological understanding is quite different.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not at all the case. The concelebration at an ordination Mass, was intended to emphasize the newly ordained priest’s bond with his bishop–that is similar, yes–but focused on the concelebrant’s responses to his bishop, rather than a co-offering of the same Sacrifice. In fact, the newly ordained did not even receive the Precious Blood. Jungman’s Mass of the Roman Rite (1959) describes this concelebration ceremonial and the reasoning behind it, six years before the reforms, and it is obvious that the theological understanding is quite different.

Well, a concelebration can be “intended to emphasize” any one of a number of things, but that doesn’t make it any different conceptually or theologically. And I’m afraid you’re mistaken in thinking that concelebrating priests under the old form merely responded to the bishop; according to Fortescue, the new priests said the offertory and the entire Canon of the Mass, including the consecration, along with the bishop.

 

[Chatter163]

Well, a concelebration can be “intended to emphasize” any one of a number of things, but that doesn’t make it any different conceptually or theologically. And I’m afraid you’re mistaken in thinking that concelebrating priests under the old form merely responded to the bishop; according to Fortescue, the new priests said the offertory and the entire Canon of the Mass, including the consecration, along with the bishop.

I never said that the priests “merely responded to the bishop.” I said that the emphasis on the rite was on their responses to the bishop, according to Jungmann. I am aware of Fortescue’s directions, as the concelebrating priests said the Canon in the secret voice while the bishop said it aloud–the only time this was done in the EF. My point stands about the concelebrant–who knelt, not stood, at some distance from the altar–not receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[MarkThompson]

I never said that the priests “merely responded to the bishop.” I said that the emphasis on the rite was on their responses to the bishop, according to Jungmann. I am aware of Fortescue’s directions, as the concelebrating priests said the Canon in the secret voice while the bishop said it aloud–the only time this was done in the EF. My point stands about the concelebrant–who knelt, not stood, at some distance from the altar–not receiving the Precious Blood.

Then I’m not sure what it is that you think makes this theologically different from concelebration in the modern form of the rite. Kneeling or standing, receiving under one or both species, the new priests at their ordination are all literally celebrating the Mass and consecrating the elements. Do you disagree that at the consecration each of them is alter Christus just as much as the next, and just as much as the presiding bishop?

Besides which, as you obviously know, concelebration was much more common in the medieval Church and remained common in the Eastern rites, so it’s not as the post-1970 resurgence in the practice is somehow a theological novelty.

 

[Filioque]

What is called concelebration at an EF ordination Mass was/is, in practical terms, quite different from what occurs at an OF Mass. The newly ordained priest would basically kneel at a prie-dieu, on the sanctuary pavement, with a lighted candle and silently read the Mass prayers along with the bishop.

Let’s not forget the Concelebration at an Epsicopal Consecration where the newly Consecrated Bishops, the Consecrating Bishop and Co-Concecrators would all Celebrate at separate altars, but would do so in union with each other. While the more ancient practice of them all concelebrating at one altar had developed in to the above described in the West, it was another time when the ancient practice what somewhat preserved.

There were in the 1930’s at Eucharistic Congresses, similar “con-celebrations” with priests at multiple side altars offering Mass simultaniously and “synconized” with the Celebrant at the Main Altar. I’ve known “Traditionalist” priests in the SSPX, and other groups who have done so in private with three or four priests at side altars. I’d think it would be distracting to have the side altars, rather than one.

 

[ac_claire]

Concelebration is exceedingly rare in the EF (only done at ordinations as far as I know). Why is concelebration not popular? I’ve been a traditionalist for a while, but never figured that out. Concelebration can be defended by the fact that it expresses the unity of the priesthood, so what is the counter-argument? Is it as simple as a single priest is sufficient? Is it a matter of having many people around the Altar and thus “overpopulating” the sanctuary which is supposed to be “set apart” (i.e. holy)? I want someone to charitably cure me of my ignorance.

Others have answered you better, but just wanted to add two more thoughts. Yes, as you said, *one *priest is sufficient for whatever that’s worth. Also, the Consecration is supposed to be (secondarily, and among many other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper. There’s one figure of Christ at the head of the table during the last Supper.

 

[malphono]

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in this thread is the Mass of the Chrism.

Not to mention concelebration in our Eastern Catholic brethren’s churches.

The practice of concelebration in the Syriac Churches differs a bit from what is commonly done these days in the Latin Church. In theory, at least, each concelebrant is supposed to say each and every prayer of the Anaphora (soto voce unless he is asked by the main celebrant to do one or more prayers aloud). In other words, each celebrant is actually offering his own Mass.

And the ancient practice of the priests/presbyters all around the bishop/episkopos at Mass. Although at that time, the bishop was the main one doing the Eucharist I think?

When a bishop is present, he is normally the principal celebrant, unless he presides from the chair, in which case he does not celebrate at all. By rights, a bishop should never be a “concelebrant” in his own see (unless, in the East and Orient, the Patriarch is principal celebrant). The same is true even outside his own see unless he is invited to concelebrate by his brother bishop.

 

[ChristusVincit]

Others have answered you better, but just wanted to add two more thoughts. Yes, as you said, *one *priest is sufficient for whatever that’s worth. Also, the Consecration is supposed to be (secondarily, and among many other things) a re-enactment of the Last Supper. There’s one figure of Christ at the head of the table during the last Supper.

If that’s the case, why doesn’t the celebrant break the bread at the point in the words of institution?

 

[ChristusVincit]

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in this thread is the Mass of the Chrism.

The practice of concelebration in the Syriac Churches differs a bit from what is commonly done these days in the Latin Church. In theory, at least, each concelebrant is supposed to say each and every prayer of the Anaphora (soto voce unless he is asked by the main celebrant to do one or more prayers aloud). In other words, each celebrant is actually offering his own Mass.

When a bishop is present, he is normally the principal celebrant, unless he presides from the chair, in which case he does not celebrate at all. By rights, a bishop should never be a “concelebrant” in his own see (unless, in the East and Orient, the Patriarch is principal celebrant). The same is true even outside his own see unless he is invited to concelebrate by his brother bishop.

I see, thank you!

Incidentally, yesterday I was at this: easternchristianity.com/

(It was an academic conference on Iraqi and Syriac liturgy)

 

[ac_claire]

If that’s the case, why doesn’t the celebrant break the bread at the point in the words of institution?

There’s reasons for it…I’ve heard it before, something about breaking the bread at the Agnus Dei instead, but I can’t get into the theological reasons. Not sure what your point is, though. Are you denying that the consecration is in part a re-creation of the Last Supper?