Concelebration

[Advocatus_Fidei]

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.

The simple answer is that it was never traditionally practised as part of the tridentine rite, it was reintroduced at Vatican II by Pope Paul VI, before that it had not been used except in very rare circumstances for over 1000 years. Instead each individual priest offered mass at an individual altar, that is why in places like Durham Cathedral built in the 11th century there are 10 altars to cater for all the priests there.

As to why it stopped been practised all those centuries ago I would surmise at least one of the reasons was simply due to “waste” for want of a better term of having say six priests offer just one mass rather than six priests offering six masses. With six masses each mass could be offered for a different intention.

Quite simply the more masses said the better, why then introduce something the effect of which will be to reduce the number of masses offered?

The council of Trent teaches us that EACH mass, each enactment of the mystical oblation on the altar which is also the renactment of the last supper done in memory of Christ as He commanded is a renewal and application of the graces won for us by our Divine Saviour by His sacrifice on the cross and as such wins further pardon and real and actual graces for mankind each and every time it is offered.

As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us “In many masses, the offering of the sacrifice is multiplied, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and the sacrament is also multiplied”

Each and every mass advances the salvation of souls and the world.

Why then reduce the number of masses said by encouraging priests to concelebrate?

Has expressing the unity of the priesthood become more important than the salvation of souls whcih relies completely on the graces from the sacraments?

 

[ChristusVincit]

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?

No I’m not denying that aspect of the Mass and consecration. But as someone who is not an expert in liturgy (but is willing to be corrected), I am denying that being in part a re-creation of the Last Supper requires only one celebrant without concelebrants.

We break the bread at the Agnus Dei (I too have forgotten the reason), we have a congregation of mixed gendered laity rather than all males, and of them only Bishops. We also don’t eat lamb or do other Passover-y things. My (possibly wrong, please correct me any liturgists) understanding is that the Mass, particulary the Canon, is the re-presentation of the life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension and everything to do with Christ, particularly on the passion and death part of it. After all, wasn’t the Last Supper a (p)re-presentation of the Crucifixion anyway?

Given that it seems to be unnecessary to reenact the Last Supper in a stage-like fashion, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to not have more than one concelebrant. Given that this is what the Church does, and has done outside of the Latin Church, I’m happy to just go along with it. If they get rid of it we’ll go along with that too.

 

[ac_claire]

No I’m not denying that aspect of the Mass and consecration. But as someone who is not an expert in liturgy (but is willing to be corrected), I am denying that being in part a re-creation of the Last Supper requires only one celebrant without concelebrants.

We break the bread at the Agnus Dei (I too have forgotten the reason), we have a congregation of mixed gendered laity rather than all males, and of them only Bishops. We also don’t eat lamb or do other Passover-y things. My (possibly wrong, please correct me any liturgists) understanding is that the Mass, particulary the Canon, is the re-presentation of the life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension and everything to do with Christ, particularly on the passion and death part of it. After all, wasn’t the Last Supper a (p)re-presentation of the Crucifixion anyway?

Given that it seems to be unnecessary to reenact the Last Supper in a stage-like fashion, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to not have more than one concelebrant. Given that this is what the Church does, and has done outside of the Latin Church, I’m happy to just go along with it. If they get rid of it we’ll go along with that too.

Fair enough re: your description of what the Mass is. The Church doesn’t say that the re-creation of the Last Supper *requires *only one celebrant. It just seems to make the most sense. In reasoning, and in the history of the Mass, where concelebration is a recent inovation in the Latin rite, as Advocatus Fidei pointed out.

(Also, it might not be fair, but the fact that many schismatic Catholic sects tend to utilize concelebration and are big fans of the practice makes me personally a bit more wary of it as well. In fact, I first heard of the practice while researching Call to Action.)

 

[MarkThompson]

. . . concelebration is a recent inovation in the Latin rite, as Advocatus Fidei pointed out.

Actually, no, concelebration is a very, very old practice. Fortescue describes the history in his Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic:
The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202-218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice. In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter. [Citations omitted].
Subsequently the practice fell more out of favor, except in the Eastern rites and for Masses of ordination and episcopal consecration.

 

[ChristusVincit]

Fair enough re: your description of what the Mass is. The Church doesn’t say that the re-creation of the Last Supper *requires *only one celebrant. It just seems to make the most sense. In reasoning, and in the history of the Mass, where concelebration is a recent inovation in the Latin rite, as Advocatus Fidei pointed out.

(Also, it might not be fair, but the fact that many schismatic Catholic sects tend to utilize concelebration and are big fans of the practice makes me personally a bit more wary of it as well. In fact, I first heard of the practice while researching Call to Action.)

I totally understand your concern about the schismatic connection! Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater - but let’s make sure we do throw out the bathwater!

 

[AJV]

The simple answer is that it was never traditionally practised as part of the tridentine rite, it was reintroduced at Vatican II by Pope Paul VI, before that it had not been used except in very rare circumstances for over 1000 years. Instead each individual priest offered mass at an individual altar, that is why in places like Durham Cathedral built in the 11th century there are 10 altars to cater for all the priests there.

As to why it stopped been practised all those centuries ago I would surmise at least one of the reasons was simply due to “waste” for want of a better term of having say six priests offer just one mass rather than six priests offering six masses. With six masses each mass could be offered for a different intention.

Quite simply the more masses said the better, why then introduce something the effect of which will be to reduce the number of masses offered?

The council of Trent teaches us that EACH mass, each enactment of the mystical oblation on the altar which is also the renactment of the last supper done in memory of Christ as He commanded is a renewal and application of the graces won for us by our Divine Saviour by His sacrifice on the cross and as such wins further pardon and real and actual graces for mankind each and every time it is offered.

As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us “In many masses, the offering of the sacrifice is multiplied, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and the sacrament is also multiplied”

Each and every mass advances the salvation of souls and the world.

Why then reduce the number of masses said by encouraging priests to concelebrate?

Has expressing the unity of the priesthood become more important than the salvation of souls whcih relies completely on the graces from the sacraments?

Yes, but Trent does not actually pronounce on the opinion that became widespread and held that the satisfactory and propitiatory effects of the Mass are quantified. , I think that the theory does pose some legitimate difficulties. For example, why does the Church limit the offering of Mass to one a day (or 2/3 in special cases)? Surely, it would then be better to have as many said to win more grace. And as far as respect for the Mass goes, yes, but the honour paid to God in the Mass would outstrip that, and even so, one could say that a higher number limit would still maintain respect.

 

[Layman]

Just one more thing to meddle with, in my opinion.

Everyone up on stage, I mean, in the sanctuary, sorry, that’s had the rails removed, so how sacred/set apart is it, anyway, the priest is acting ‘in persona Christi’, except there’s two of them doing the consecration, but it’s still the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, even though they’re facing us while they’re doing it …

Since the 60’s, the exception is the rule. If it’s been done anywhere, at any time, stick it in. ***Except the TLM. We don’t want that. [shudders].

---

[note: saracasm].

 

[PacoG]

The following picture is from my parent’s family Bible which was given to them as a wedding present when they married in 1963. The Bible has a whole section on Vatican 2. (I apologize for the quality of the picture. It is the best I could do with my camera phone. My parents don’t have a scanner and they wouldn’t let me take the Bible to my house to have it scanned.)

The cutline of the picture reads: “A NUMBER OF PASTORS from various parts of the world concelebrating the Mass of the Holy Spirit in St. Peter’s. The principle celebrant is Archbishop Pericle Felici, the secretary-general of the Second Vatican Council.”

Evidently, there was an ancient concelebration rite in the Tridentine Mass since this Mass was either said with the 1962 or the pre-1962 Missal. Note also, the Council Fathers are wearing Gothic chasubles. And remember this is pre-Missal of 1965 and Pre-Ordinary Form. This is an old fashioned TLM.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ac_claire]

Actually, no, concelebration is a very, very old practice. Fortescue describes the history in his Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic:
The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202-218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice. In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter. [Citations omitted].
Subsequently the practice fell more out of favor, except in the Eastern rites and for Masses of ordination and episcopal consecration.

You’re right, it is a very old practice. What I was referring to is what a pp explained: that it was hardly ever used, except in rare circumstances, for over 1000 years and was reintroduced at VII. Not that that alone makes it evil lol.

 

[boatbearer]

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.

Even at Papal Masses with a dozen concelebrants?

 

[Filioque]

When we focus on the fact that the priest of Bishop when celebrating the Mass, or administering any of the Sacraments is acting in Persona Christi and as an Alter Christus, (another Anointed) we must also recall that the primary minister of each Sacrament is Jesus Himself. So at every Mass, be it celebrated by a single priest in a far flung Mission, or a grand Concelebration in a Roman Basilica. A Solemn Papal Mass celebrated by Pope St, Pius X, (of beloved memory) or any other priest or bishop, it is the Christos Himself who is the primary priest, and the victim each time. It is Christ sharing His Sacerdotal priesthood with the ordained, that makes the action possible, be it by a single priest or a group concelebrating. It is also within the legitimate authority of the Church to regulate how the Sacraments are administered, and guard that the essential elements are retained. One rite, Eastern or Western, pre-concilliar or post-concilliar are of equal and infinate value because it is Jesus Himself who supplies the Graces that are dispensed through the sacraments that He himself instituted.

When a priest abuses what the Church has established, (I’ve seen it done in both the TLM and the Novus Ordo) he sins. As long as he does not eliminate either the matter form or intention, even if the priest sins in not following the rubrics, it remains a valid sacrament, and is a source of grace.

The great former communist, and convert to the Faith Dorothy Day realized this when at one of her institutions she witnessed a priest use a coffee mug to celebrate Mass. After the Mass she took the mug and buried it in the garden. When asked why she buried the mug, she replied that it was no longer a mug, it was a vessel that had held the precious blood of Jesus. It could no longer be used as a common mug, and needed to be disposed of properly so it was not misused again. She knew, even if the priest had done something wrong by flaunting the rubrics, Jesus was still present, and the Mug was no longer a common object. I would imagine the priest must have if he had any faith left have learned from this event.