I remember having several visceral reactions (internally since I was in polite company) at word "Concelebration". It pops up periodically in conversations, such as when an SSPX / FSSP priest was visiting his home parish the Pastor saw him and asked if he wanted to concelebrate Mass. The priest politely declined with an excuse.
A recent comment by Fr. Hunwicke (link & below) got me thinking about the topic again in a more critical manner.
I do not believe that Concelebration is something which we all need to avoid, totally and invariably, as an absolutely essential matter of conscience. From time to time, I republish old pieces which make clear the Magisterial basis of my belief. Fr.Hunwicke
Any Traditional Catholic who has attended an priestly ordination will know that the newly ordained priests concelebrate the Mass with the Bishop. (Ref Link_SSPX_A, Link_SSPX_B). So in principle Concelebration isn't an evil or even a novelty (see Wikisource link and below). It remains in the Eastern Rites and was also practiced in the Latin Rite.
Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine. It was once common in both East and West. As late as the ninth century priests stood around their bishop and "consented to his sacrifice" (Corp. Jur. Can., Decr. Grat., Pars III, dist. I, cap. 59). 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 ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; see also Dechusne, "Liber Pont.", I, 139 and 246). 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 ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; Duchesne, "Origines", 167). On other days the priests assisted but did not concelebrate. Innocent III (1198-1216) says that in his time the cardinals concelebrate with the pope on certain feasts (De Saer. Altar. Myst. in Migne, P.L., CCXVII, IV, 25). Durandus, who denied the possibility of such a rite (Rationale Div. Off., IV, d. xiii, q. 3) is refuted by Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg., I, xviii, 9). St. Thomas defends its theological correctness (Summa Theol., III:82:2). Concelebration is still common in all the Eastern Churches both Catholic and schismatic. In these, on any greater feast day, the bishop says the holy liturgy surrounded by his priests, who consecrate with him and receive Holy Communion from him, of course under both kinds. So also, at any time, if several priests wish to celebrate on the same day, they may do so together.
In the Latin Church the rite survives only at the ordination of priests and bishops. <This note was added by some editor :-) [Note: Concelebration was fully restored to the Latin Church after the Second Vatican Council.]> The newly-ordained priests say the Offertory prayers and the whole Canon, including the words of consecration, aloud with the bishop, kneeling around him. The words of consecration especially must be said "slowly and rather loud" and "at the same moment with the pontiff" (Pont. Rom., do Ord. Presb., rubric). They must say the words significative, that is with the intention of consecrating (Benedict XIV, de SS. Missæ Sacr., III, xvi, 6), and must be careful not to say them before, but exactly with, the bishop (op. cit., loc. cit., 7). They receive Holy Communion under one kind. The same rite is used at a bishops consecration, except that in this case the new bishop communicates with the consecrator under both kinds (Pont. Rom., de Cons. Electi in Episc., rubric in the text).ADRIAN FORTESCUE
But concelebration has been a big issue for the SSPX for a long time. Digging deeper it isn't necessarily about concelebration per-se, but primarily about the attempts to force the SSPX to concelebrate the Novus Ordo Missae - i.e. The New Mass.
Already, as we can see, the crux of the conflict between Rome and Ecône is the explicit acceptance of the whole of the Second Vatican Council, of all its decisions and of the reforms that came out of it, beginning with the acceptance of the new Mass. It would have sufficed if Archbishop Lefebvre had accepted to concelebrate only once in the new rite, and all difficulties would have been resolved. For the sake of the whole Church, Archbishop Lefebvre did not give in. (Another Hot Summer link)
I suppose that the argument could also be that the SSPX's charism is continuing the pre-conciliar liturgy - in which the Rite of Concelebration had been long suppressed.
So ... what did the authors of Sacrosanctum Consilium (link) write / decide about Concelebration?
- 57
- 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:
- 57.1.1a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
- 57.1.1b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;
- 57.1.1c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.
- 57.1.2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:
- 57.1.2a) 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;
- 57.1.2b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.
- 57.2.
- 57.2.1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con-celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.
- 57.2.22. 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.
- 58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.
So ... basically a priest should always have the right to celebrate Mass on their own, although not on Holy Thursday - when only one Mass can be said in each Church. I suspect that Bishops will try to leverage 57.2.22 to force priests to concelebrate ... and that has happened (see link)!
He claimed that, meanwhile, the archbishop (of Dijon) had told a delegation of Catholics that the reason he was expelling the FSSP -- a society of apostolic life founded in 1988 -- was that its priests don’t concelebrate Mass.
“He wanted to concelebrate for the Chrism Mass during Holy Week, but we haven’t done it for years, as we have reservations on the New Mass and we don’t celebrate at the same pace,” Perrel said.
The priest emphasized that Canon 902 of the Code of Canon Law provides that no one can be forced to concelebrate.
My conclusion is that concelebration used to be a valid rite within the Latin Rite, but hasn't been for hundreds of years.
So, don't expect to see the SSPX concelebrating in your church any time soon!
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment