Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Wow! This is really wonderful. God bless our Pope!
It's probably true. In which case all the liberals will be whining and crying and throwing fits Hillary Clinton style.
Also, don't be surprised if we see in the near future the end of "Communion in the Hand". Watch the Pope today at Corpus Christi Mass.
He distributed Holy Communion only on the tongue, and kneeling.
I read that there was an instruction that went out that this is the way it is to be done.
I very much hope that instructions come out very quickly putting an end to these things:
Massive concelebrations
Communion in the Hand
Communion from the "common cup"
Altar-girls.
This is a positive development. I always found Concelebration to be one big "group hug" and a bit off-putting, particularly in light of the alleged "priest shortage." If we're so short of priests then why are these guys all hanging together saying Mass instead of reaching out to the masses and saying individual Masses? Moreover, in my mind (and this is not a theological point because I am not a trained theologian)concelebration seems to undercut the notion that a priest is "alter Christi" when saying Mass. It's like multiple Santa Clauses at the Department Store at Christmas time. So bravo, Pope Benedict. I'm with you on this one! Tom
Wonderful ! God bless His Holiness our Holy Father.
We know that " Portas Inferi non praevalebunt " , but we must give thanks to God our Lord and Saviour for all the marvelous and excellent decisions our Beatissimo Padre is taking.
Deo Gratias.Adoramus Te DOmine.
"Moreover, in my mind (and this is not a theological point because I am not a trained theologian)concelebration seems to undercut the notion that a priest is "alter Christi" when saying Mass..."
We are all for limiting concelebration in the Roman Church, but please, let's not make sweeping statements that end up devaluing the equally legitimate treasures of other traditions (I am thinking here of the Eastern Churches, for whom concelebration is THE tradition)
Excellently stated, Mr. Palad. Yes, we often risk doing this when we try to over-theologize the particular disciplines and traditions of our own liturgical rite. We Latins must be careful about condemning those things which, innovative as they may be (and therefore perhaps not best suited) to our rite, nevertheless have legitimacy in one or more of the other rites, all Catholic rites being equally valid (and equally Catholic).
Kindly let me add that, of course, there are some things which properly belong in none of our Catholic rites, at least not without a serious rupture of the gradual (organic) development of the liturgy over time, an authentic development led by the Holy Spirit. The eastern rites seem to have fared much better over time in this regard.
About time too. With the exception of ordinations, surely con-celebration is foreign to the western tradition?
Please correct me if i get this wrong but I believe that we have to distinguish two different traditions. The 'concelebration' in the East means that all priests attend e.g. the Divine Liturgy in their vestments. However, virtually all the texts are read by the most senior priest, the Protos, so that the concelebrants have little more role than our clergy attending in choir. There are traces of this ancient type of concelebration in the West. In the traditional Papal Mass, for instance, the Cardinal Priests attend in full Mass vestments in the choir Stalls of St Peter's, and in many places, e.g. Lyon, there were similar rules for canons. More widespread, the Maundy Thursday Liturgy needs 12 priests, 7 deacons and 7 subdeacons, all in Mass vestments, but apart from the consecration of the oils they have to my knowledge no active role in the Mass.
The second type of concelebration, that of the Ordination Mass, may be younger, it primarily demonstrates that the newly-ordained priests have now the power to say Mass.
The Novus Ordo 'concelebration' claims to make the more ancient type more common, and not much can be said against that. However, they tried to combine the early Christian (and still Byzantine) practice of the one daily mass in a church, which all the clergy attend, with the medieval Western idea that every priest should celebrate Mass daily, and so every priest has to join into the words of Consecration that he may say he has done so. As a result, the modern concelebration is quite anachronistic, and it can easily lead to a 'magical' image of the priesthood or the Mass. I hope that these limitations will be a first step to phasing it out.
Berthold,
In the Russian tradition, all concelebrating priests are to read the prayers quietly with the principal celebrant, and are not to be vested spectators. I would recommend watching videos of Liturgies offered at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow to get a sense of how large groups of clergy can serve together with proper decorum.
Ordo Romanus I mentions the presence of bishops and priests at the fractioning rite and at several other places at the pontifical Mass. This manuscript dates to about the year AD 700. This does not necessarily mean that they were concelebrating. However, Ordo Romanus III, written probably fifty years later, mentions the concelebration by cardinal priests on certain feasts of the year. Again, this is the Roman liturgy, not the Eastern liturgy. Even still, modern concelebration seems to be a different beast than what is described in the liturgy of Pope St Gregory the Great.
Isn't it true that in he Byzantine/Orthodox tradition of concelebration, it was a reverent and disiplined concelebration of only those priest around the altar? And not the ridiculous circus of 500-600+ priests in the recent Western tradition concelebrating all at once with the POpe, and vested horribly in just an alb and stole. They look like a mass of Lutheran or Methodist ministers rather than Catholic priests.
no one has really delt with toms point. if the presider is acting as persona christi then a bunch of priests is an embarrasment of riches.
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "a bunch" of priests. If we mean 500-600 priests at some sort of mega-concelebration, it appears that the Holy Father is about to deal with Tom's point. If it means eliminating some so-called "embarassment of riches" by eliminating concelebration altogether, then tradition has already dealt with Tom's point. Properly done, concelebration is an ancient and authentic expression of the one sacrificial priesthood given by Christ to his Church.
I find it most irritating that priests will cancel the only regular daily parish Mass, at the drop of a hat, in order to concelebrate at some large group Mass or at someone's wedding with several other priests.
Many is the time I have showed up for the First Saturday morning Mass, only to find it canceled because the priest has to concelebrate at some favorite friend's or relative's wedding or at some huge conference.
May I suggest that the following texts will shed considerable light on the issue of concelebration both in the East and the West:
1. Archdale A. King, "Concelebration in the Christian Church", London: A. R. Mowbray, 1966.
2. Robert F Taft, "Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding", (Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institue, 2001. Confer with Chapter 6, p111 ff. "Ex Oriente Lux? Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration".
3. "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches", Congregation for the Eastern Churches, 1996, available from Eastern Christian Publications, Fairfax, VA. In section 57 it reads: "Can. 700 # 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches exhorts the concelebration together with the bishop or with another priest "since in such a way the unity of priesthood and sacrifice will be suitably manifested." Many conciliar texts underscore that, doing so, the unity of the whole Church is made manifest. It is, therefore, a very expressive usage. However, there can be reasons which advise against concelebration, particularly when the number of concelebrants is disproportionately greater than the presence of lay faithful. The liturgical celebration, as the "icon" of the Church, should respect the nature of the community hierarchically articulated, composed not only of ministers but the whole flock of those who, under their guidance, live in Christ. Care should be taken that the concelebrants are not only such quantity so as to have to overflow into the nave where the faithful are, and thus outside of the Sanctuary itself, or to occupy the space of the Sanctuary in such a way that impedes the dignified celebration of the rite. Of course, concelebration is nevertheless preferable to the so-called individual celebrations without the people. Individual, independent celebrations of the Eucharist on multiple altars in the same place at the same time are categorically prohibited. Such restriction is not applicable, obviously, to the simultaneous and synchronized celebration sometimes permitted, particularly in the Western Syrian and Ethiopian traditions.
Can. 701 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches establishes the ways in which the concelebration between bishops and presbyters should be carried out in the different Churches sui iuris. It is worth repeating here the exhortation to avoid any liturgical syncretism, but the appropriate vestments and insignias of their own Church sui iuris should be worn. It is a most eloquent way of showing the variety of the ecclesial traditions and their coming together in the unity of the Church. This is a meaningful symbol of the future unity in multiformity and an instrument to protect the Eastern Churches and their specificity against every assimilation, especially in places where they are in the minority.
Addressing the different forms of participation in the eucharistic celebration, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches reminds us many times of the need to respect the prescriptions of the liturgical books and the particular law. This reuirement also applies to concelebration, considering that the ways of practicing it in the different Churches sui iuris and of the different ritual families vary. It is notable that the practice recently established in the Western liturgies was inspired largely by the Byzantine usage, interpreted, though, in the light of their own concerns and thus with some different outcomes. Participation in the same eucharistic Sacrifice can express itself in various forms, each of which has a specific value that should be organically preserved and developed. Reference to the prescriptions of the liturgical books is an invitation to attentively examine the data of each tradition and formulate directives which respect the authentic lineage."
Actually, Thomas Aquinas answers the point about "in persona Christi" by arguing (ST, III, Q. 82, art. 2 ad 2)that
If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28); consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.
This is just to say of course, that having more than one priest saying the act of consecration is not theologically or symbolically problematic. Large concelebrations (and frequent ones in the west) however, are another matter altogether, and I am glad the Pope has done something about them.
Also we must be careful of making arguments beginning from symbolism (which is not to say that they must be avoided). I know someone who once argued that the priest must face the people because that more appropriately represents the nature of Christ as Bridegroom.
The Byzantine tradition provides some sensible guidelines on this matter. Our concelebrants completely encircle an altar. If you can lean your belly up against the square altar, you are a concelebrant. If not, you are in choir.
There is something far more sensible about this than hundreds of priests in a field who can't even see the eucharistic elements being fancied "concelebrants".
In the Byzantine Rite when concelebrants completely encircle the altar, this prevents orderly movement in the sanctuary and hinders the deacons and subdeacons in their liturgical roles. It also shifts those who stand on the east to adversus orientem, a very non-traditional stance in the Byzantine Rite, [although, I know that the Greeks and Melkites at times do this].
At a conclebration where both bishops and priests concelebrate, the bishops stand on the west side of the altar facing east. The priests stand on the south and north sides facing north and south, however when a priest offers an ecphonesis [the concluding doxology of a presidential type prayer], he turns eastward.
The concelebrants generally stand about 1 meter from the altar in order not to impede the actions of the deacons: waving the liturgical fans, censing the altar, lifting the chalice and diskos, etc.
This distance from the altar prevents it from being used as a stand for books, papers, eyeglasses, etc. A small analogion is provided for the 1st concelebrant while the others hold their books in their hands. If a bishop serves, a bookbearer holds the bishop's service book.
The above is the practice with the Russians and non-Latinized Ukrainians.
Commenting by HaloScan
