CONCELEBRATION: A Historical Synopsis and Canonical Commentary

The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies No. 450

A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Canon Law of The Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctorate in Canon Law

By Rev. Harmon Daniel Skillin, AB., JCL., Priest of the Diocese of Stockton

Washington, D.C. 1966

Nihil Obstat: Reverend Frederick R. McManus, AB., JCD., Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur: Most Reverrend Hugh A. Donohoe, DD. PhD.

July 18, 1966

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I : THE HISTORY OF CONCELEBRATION

 Article 1. Early Legislation

Article 2. The Middle Ages

Article 3. Writers and Commentators

Article 4. The Code and Concelebration

 CHAPTER II: THEOLOGY AND CONCELEBRATION

 CHAPTER III: THE NEW RITUS SERVANDUS

 Article 1. The Decretum Generale

Section 1. Motives for the Rite

Section 2. Preparation of the Rite

Section 3. Approbation of the Rite

Article 2. The Ritus Servandus

Section 1. Preliminary Remarks

Section 2. General Norms

Article 3. Specific Forms of Concelebration

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

INTRODUCTION

The reason for this study is the new rite for concelebration promulgated on March 7, 1965. That rite is also the subject of this study. It is difficult to think of a liturgical institution which has existed for so long and yet at different times has been the object of such universal disinterest or intense enthusiasm. During the late Middle Ages and up until the early twentieth century, the rite was included among the venerable liturgical treasures of the Church more by legislation than by use. Every priest knew what concelebration was. But generally he knew as a person who has only done a thing once knows what he has done. Bishops knew the rite such wore intimately. Not only did they concelebrate at the time of their own ordinations and consecrations, but every time they ordained new priests they concelebrated. It is very possible, on the other hand, that a large part of the laity never heard of or witnessed a concelebrated Mass at any time in their life.

But In the early 1900’s, for various reasons, certain attitudes and thoughts began to appear and dominate ecclesiastical writing. One major concept was the necessity for waking public worship a very relevant part of the Church's activity. The ecclesiastical calendar, the style of Mass vestments, the liturgical chant, congregational participation, the rubrics of sacramental services were among the many specifies considered. The interest in the liturgy sparked theological considerations connected with liturgical activities.

The theological studies thus begun centered on the celebration of Mass. There were related re-evaluations of the nature and role of the priesthood and the episcopacy. Similarly, the position and functions of the laity were also investigated, all in a period of biblical, catechetical, doctrinal progress.

The everyday life of the Church could not escape being affected by these discussions. The rising swell of renewal and relevancy reached a crest when Pope John XXIII convoked the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. It was here that all the ideas which had preceded the Council were purified, consolidated, and expressed in practical, pastoral form.

The restoration of the rite for concelebration was specifically provided for by the Council. As to why this was so, it is submitted here that concelebration best represents In liturgical eucharistic form the spirit and direction of the aggiornamento. The local laity and clergy surrounding their bishop and offering the prayer of thanks to the Father unmistakably represent a relevant charity. As a matter of fact, as will be seen later, this is specifically referred to in the general decree by which the new rite was promulgated.

The more completely this rite is known, the more fruitful will be its practice. There has been a great deal of writing on concelebration, most of it since the early 1920's. Furthermore, the point of view taken by most of the authors when discussing concelebration is theological or ascetical. It is the purpose of this work to examine the rite, past and present, from a canonical point of view. There has been, and now is, legislation concerning the practice of concelebration. It is hoped that a consideration of this legislation will help to complete the understanding and practice of the rite.

To begin to thank everyone who was Influential and helpful in the completion of this work would be to begin the impossible. The author would therefore rather mention the four most proximate sources of aid and influence. The faculty of the School of Canon Law at Catholic University, Fr. Frederick McManus who directed the work, and Mrs. Alfio Maszaglia and Mrs. Carolyn Costa who typed the manuscript are all gratefully commended for their patience and their assistance.

In this work the translation of the conciliar documents used was: Walter M. Abbott, the Documents of Vatican II (New York: The American Press, 1966). The conciliar documents of Vatican II will be cited by reference to their title, followed by the number of the specific article.

CHAPTER I

THE HISTORY OF CONCELEBRATION

 Article 1. Early Legislation

From the time of the last Supper, the eucharistic prayer has been considered a community action. [1]  The apostles gathered with our Lord, watched what He did, and then joined with Him in eating the blest bread and drinking from the blest cup. Immediately after our Lord's ascension, it was characteristic of His followers to come together and participate in a unique worship service. "All those who had taken his words to heart were baptised, and…occupied themselves continually with...their fellowship in the breaking of bread...."[2] The early Christians recognised the fact that they, though many, were one body through their participation in the one bread.[3]

The pseudo-apostolic authors witness to the continuance of the practice of community worship, and, at the same time, express increasing awareness of this hierarchical element in the eucharistic act. Philip Hughes describes the wind of the early church this way.

Unity is of the highest importance, is willed by God. Unity in each local Church, unity by unity of belief between all the Churches of the world. The test of this unity is the belief of the local bishop, obedience to the bishop its guarantee. There where the bishop is should all believers be gathered too, as where Jesus Christ is there is the universal church (Katholike ecclesia). [4]

The unity of the faithful around their teacher, the bishop, is mirrored by the communion of the faithful with the bishop, their priest.

When you come together on the lord's day, break bread and give thanks after you have confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be spotless…Set up for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…for they shall minister to you.[5]

Unity and hierarchy were both elements of early Christian worship. Even visiting bishops were invited to speak to the assembly and to say the prayer of thanksgiving, at least over the cup. And contrary to what one might expect, the existence of a hierarchical structure did not prevent the Christians from forming a community and acting as such.[6]

As time went on, the role and duties of the various ranks of the hierarchy became more specific.[7] The local bishop was exhorted to gather his deacons and presbyters around himself when he took part in the mysteries. Furthermore, certain ritual actions were prescribed. For instance, according to the Apostolic Tradition, when a candidate for the office of bishop had been selected, the people and presbyterate vara to assemble on the Lord's day for his consecration, followed immediately by the eucharistic sacrifice.[8] On the day of the Pasch, the assembly united with their bishop, who "eucharistized." The bread was then broken by presbyters and deacons into fragments and distributed.[9] Thus, from the earliest days there was a community activity intimately connected with the consecration of the bishop.

Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions contains a detailed description of the eucharistic celebration. The Liturgy was definitely episcopally oriented. The bishop, surrounded on the left and right by his priests, after the deacons had presented the offerings, made the sign of the cross, and began a prayer similar to our preface. When the people responded, the bishop continued the prayer by himself. He recited the proclamation of the several mysteries of the Lord's life, ending with the ascension. Hs continued to the narrative of tha Last Supper, repeating tha words of the Lord. Finally, he communicated himself, and, saying "Corpus Christi," gave Communion to all, presbyters, deacons, and the laity.[10] In the same document, social hierarchical activity was again prescribed for the consecration of a bishop.[11]

By the time of the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council fathers saw a need to legislate against certain unsuitable practices connected with the eucharistic act. They decreed that an order of precedence should be observed during the reception of the body of Christ. Deacons were not to bring Communion to the priests, but were to receive Communion from either the bishop or the priests, after the priests had received the body of Christ.[12]

The Council of Carthage (398) repeats a law seen before: the law of courtesy; priests or bishops visiting another church are to be invited both to give a talk and to consecrate the offering.[13] Unity, hierarchy and Christian charity were all expressed by the one eucharistic act. The legislation of the time indicated a strong tendency to preserve this reality.

It is no wonder, then, that offences in this context were considered most grave. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) contain the allegation of a crime of kidnapping committed against the bishop of Ephesus, Bassianus. The bishop, pointing out the special gravity of the matter, reported that, in spite of the fact that his kidnapper, a priest named Stephen, had constantly offered the sacrifice of the Mass with him, this priest could still find it within himself to commit such a crime. Bassianus reported as follows:

In the morning, after the imperial and patriarchal letters of my confirmation had been received and publicly read, we all celebrated Mass together and after Mass, laying hands on me, they imprisoned me. Stephen was my priest. For four years he celebrated Mass with me, he communicated with me, and he received Communion from me as from a bishop. And on the very day on which he imprisoned me, we communicated together, and he seized me.[14]

The fact of the capture of bishop Bassianus is not of importance here. What is to the point, however, is the incidental description of the eucharistic celebration. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how this liturgy was performed ritually. But the participation of the assisting clergy seems to have been much more intimate than anything described thus far. Celebrabimus omnes simul…Missas mecum celebrabat. Furthermore, there was invoked a distinction here which may or may not be crucial. The bishop referred twice to receiving Communion, and each time he used a different expression: mecum communicabat et communicabat a me tamquam ab episcopo. Now, there are two explanations for this. The bishop could simply have been using a rhetorical device to emphasise the union that should exist between himself and his priest. Or it is possible that he was alluding to two different ways in which Stephen had received the body of the Lord. Mecum communicabat could indicate that both the bishop and the priest received Communion from another officiating prelate or communicated themselves as co-celebrants of the Mass. Communicabat a me tamquam ab episcopo could mean that Stephen received Communion from the hands of the officiating prelate as any cleric attending the Mass would.

At any rate, by the middle of the fifth century the practice of priests and deacons, the sacerdotalis catalogus, coming together with the faithful under the leadership of the bishop was well established within the Church.[15]

It is difficult to say whether similar ritual actions were used in each Church. Presumably there were differences developing from place to place. The distances between major Metropolitan areas, the slowness of communication, and the differences of social structure and historical background indicate the existence of much variety throughout the Christian world.

At the Council of Clermont in Auvergne (535) something new was added to the notions of community and hierarchy. Canon 15 legislated that on the great feasts of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and other solemn days, priests who were not attached to urban parishes should return to the see city to celebrate the divine mysteries with their bishop.[16] Thus the gathering of all the priests with the bishop and his people was singled out as a special method of celebrating feasts of greater importance. There were specific days when the bishop, his priests, and the adults subject to that bishop were to come together to celebrate the sacred mysteries. And these days were the richest days of remembrance the Church possessed. They were the days of great solemnity, and therefore had to be observed in the most solemn ways possible. And so the bishops called their people to them on these days, and together the united Christian community prayed to the Father.

It was during the sixth century that Dionysius Exiguus put forth his collections of laws, among which were the Canones Apostolorum.[17] Canon 9 makes it clear that every bishop, priest, and deacon was expected to communicate after the offering has been completed so that he would not cast any suspicion on the ritual act of the celebrant.[18] Thus, by the sixth century, there existed a fairly well established liturgical practice known to both East and West. It was the celebration of the eucharistic liturgy, the bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons, and people. A basic ritual had been established, and distinctive positioning around the altar was often required. In some areas, the assembling of the presbytery was obligatory on specific solemn days, including Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and on the occasion the consecration of bishops. Although there does not seem to have been any legislation requiring this form of solemn celebration at other times, there also was none that forbade it outside of the more solemn feasts.

Very little mention was made in these decrees and directives concerning who was to say what words when a group of priests was present at the eucharistic prayer. The indication seems to have been that no one considered it important enough to distinguish. The bishop was the chief orator, his priests and his people were with him, and Christ, the sacrifice, was being offered to God, the Father. That was the important factor.

Finally, there was legislation concerning the order of precedence in the reception of the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone, clergy and laity, was expected to partake of this communion, and nowhere was it indicated that the presbyters were acting in a manner inferior to their office when they participated in this fashion.[19]

Article 2. The Middle Ages

From the fifth through the eleventh centuries, wars, unrest, destruction and decentralisation swept over Europe in the Barbarian invasions. Thus, the Western Church began more and more to develop its own social, ritual, and legal institutions. As these Barbarian Invasions occurred,

Increasingly the isolation of the locality set in. Communications became more and more difficult as the roads ceased to be maintained. Life was less urban, more rustic…In these very centuries when the Church was ceasing to be an Asiatic and Oriental thing, it was ceasing also to be something that belonged to the cities. By its origins and its previous development it was an urban thing and now it had to face the problem of adapting itself to the new rustication of general life...[20]

During the period of this historical molding of the Holy Roman Empire, the liturgy of the western Church began to develop as an independent reality. Conciliar decrees ceased to be the instrument of the formation of liturgical practices.  Liturgical texts and books became tha places for finding tha established and maintained Christian liturgy. At Rome the practice of the use of set formularies arose. These prayers were compiled into liturgical books and used year after year. "By the seventh century the development of the Roman liturgy, by that time written down in books, was in all essentials complete."[21] From that time on, the Frankish royalty and clergy endeavored to bring the Roman liturgical books to their own soil and establish there the practices of Rome. And then, interestingly enough, this same liturgy, having absorbed practices, customs, and prayers from the Frankish empire, found its way through liturgical books back to Rome, and there deposited the influences it had absorbed.[22]

One set of books which played a large part in the transmission of the liturgical practice of the communal hierarchical Mass was the Ordines Romani. In the early days the compilations which bear the name of Ordines were a necessary concomitant to the sacramentaries. They give the order of the ceremonies for which the sacramentary normally gives only the words, whether prayers, blessings, or consecrations.

Turning to the texts themselves, we find Ordo Romanus, III stating:

But on these feast days, that is, Easter, Pentecost, the feast of St. Peter, and Christmas, on these four days, the cardinal-priests meet together, each one holding a corporal in his hand, and the archdeacon comes and extends to each one three oblations. And when the pontiff comes to the altar, they surround the altar on the right and on the left, and say together with him the canon, holding the oblations in their hands, but not upon the altar, so that the voice of the pontiff is heard better, and they consecrate together the body and blood of the Lord. But only the pontiff makes the sign of the cross over the altar to the right and to the left.[23]

Of the descriptions of the Mass seen thus far, this one is undoubtedly the rite most similar to concelebration as It is known today. Andrieu (1886-1956) dated this Ordo before the end of the eighth century.[24]

Ordo Romanus IV, composed in the last decades of the eighth century,[25] contains another description of concelebration with a few innovations.

On Christmas, or the Epiphany, on Holy Saturday, that is to say, Easter Sunday, and on Easter Monday, on the Ascension, on Pentecost, or on the feast of St. Peter and the feast of St. Paul, the bishops stand behind the pontiff with heads bowed, while the priests stand to the right and to the left, and each one holds a corporal in his hand, and the archdeacon gives to each of them two oblations; the pontiff says the canon in such a way as to be heard by all and they bless, as does the pontiff, the oblations which they hold.[26]

In both these Ordines the practice of the concelebrated Mass is required on specific days. There are certain ritual acts prescribed for various members of the hierarchy, according to their rank and position. It is also in these Ordines that is seen for the first time the explicit prescription that those in priestly orders who are present at the celebration with the bishop are to speak the words of the consecration of the offerings.[27] This is not to say that it had never happened previously. One would expect that it had, for these Ordines mention it in a matter of fact fashion, just as offhandedly as they mention the fact that the pontiff is surrounded by priests and bishops. However, up to this point no concrete evidence seems to indicate verbal co-consecration of the bread and wine at the eucharistic sacrifice.[28]

This practice of verbal co-consecratory concelebration at Rome influenced the rest of the western Church.[29] However, this rite seems to have been more limited numerically than the concelebration practiced in earlier centuries. It is now suggested that concelebration be practiced seven times a year. No specific mention is made of this practice in connection with Holy Thursday, ordinations to the priesthood or episcopal consecrations.

By the middle of the ninth century, we find the practice mentioned again in decretal law and by legalists. An early (ninth century) reappearance is in the Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae. Within this collection the author included a letter allegedly composed by Pope Anacetus, in which the Pope urged bishops not to offer the sacrifice by themselves. Rather they were to take several witnesses with them, more than one priest, to prove that they offered the sacrifice perfectly. Then on more solemn days, the clerical hierarchy, dressed in vestments, was: to gather about the bishop, protect him, consent to his sacrifice, and receive Communion.[30]

Two centuries later, in his treatise De Sacro Altaris Mysterio Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) discussed a problem that could arise during a concelebrated Mass. Suppose that one or another priest should speak the words of concelebration before the principal celebrant. Has the act of concelebration been destroyed? No, said the Pope, for it seems that, whether the priest says the words before or after the principal celebrant, the intention of the priest must be referred to the instant when the principal celebrant speaks the words. Innocent then went on to describe concelebration at Rome:

It is the custom for the cardinal-priests to surround the Roman pontiff and to celebrate equally with him. When the sacrifice has been completed they receive communion from his hand, signifying the Apostles who likewise, reclining with the lord, received the Holy Eucharist from His hand. And in the fact that they concelebrate they show that at that time the Apostles learned the rite of this sacrifice from the Lord.[31]

A few years later, another reference to Innocent III was made in one of the decretals of Pope Gregory II (1227-1241). Treating of the election of bishops and the power of the elected bishop, the collector listed a canon which forbids a bishop or archbishop to confer orders before his own Mass of consecration is over, or before he receives the pallium. As a source for this canon, he quoted a letter from Pope Innocent III to his cardinal-legate Stephen. That letter reads in part,

. . . but others who are consecrated between the epistle and the gospel, because once they have been consecrated they concelebrate with the principal celebrant, ought not to confer the orders, in order that the mystery of unity be not divided.[32]

It is evident that the rite of verbal concelebration was known to Innocent and he mentioned at least two occasions when this rite was practiced. The first was a Mass which the Pope concelebrated with the cardinal-priests of Rome on the occasion of a great feast. The second was the Mass at the consecration of a bishop. A major commentary on this rite was that of Hostiensis (Henry Cardinal de Segusio of Ostia, d. 1271). In his commentary, he discussed this same decretal of Gregory IX. In order that his reader might understand what was meant by concelebration, he explained that it occurred when a priest receives ordination.[33] The practice was evidently known to his readers. He also mentioned but disapproved of a practice in England where the newly consecrated bishops celebrated Mass at a different altar from that of the consecrator.[34] He then discussed the problem of recitation with the principal celebrant. One case which could arise was that of the principal celebrant who did not pronounce the words of consecration. There was really no problem, he said, since the words of the concelebrants will confect the sacrament.[35] Next he warned the concelebrants not to speak the words of consecration before the principal celebrant.[36]

Finally, he presented an interesting case. What would happen if a priest, hearing Mass in the church, should speak the words of the Canon with the intention of confecting the Sacrament before the celebrant says the words of Consecration? It would be ridiculous, he said, to think that the transubstantiation would occur, since such a priest, neither standing at the altar nor dressed in priestly vestments, was acting contrary to the general form of the church. And if this form was not kept, there was no true sacrament.[37]

Although St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1271;) was not a canonist, he was an Interesting witness to the existence of the rite of concelebration in his lifetime and to the theology and liturgical piety connected with it. He stated that it was the practice in some churches (not all) for the newly ordained to concelebrate. He then commented on the practice:

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 (Gal. III, 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. . . . The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being one in Christ.[38]

The tradition of concelebration from the ninth through the thirteenth century was manifested by another vehicle besides the Ordines Romani and the decretalists. During this time, standard books of ceremonies were drawn up by local bishops for use in their churches, and for the most part these books contained ritual directives for liturgical functions that occurred rather infrequently.[39]

The see of Rome was no different in this matter from other sees, and thus the Roman pontifical developed. In the reconstructed Pontificale Romanum of the twelfth century, the following rubric for the Mass at the ordination of a priest appears:

 All who have been ordained shall bring offerings to the hands of the bishop, and afterwards they shall communicate from him. According to the custom of the Roman Church each priest and cardinal-deacon must hold two lighted wax candles, one in his right hand, the other in his left, and two loaves of bread in a linen cloth placed between his wrists, which gifts the newly ordained together must offer to the bishop.[40]

No mention is made of repeating the Canon with the bishop.

However, the rubric for the Mass at the consecration of a bishop reads:

When the Gospel has been read and the Creed sung, the newly consecrated bishop offers his consecrator the same wax candles (still lighted), and two loaves of bread in a linen cloth placed between his wrists add a small cask of wine which an acolyte holds over the aforementioned bread; and then returning to the high altar, he completes the Mass with him.[41]

The newly consecrated bishop received Communion from the consecrating prelate, and, accepting a chalice from the deacon, received the Precious Blood.

Further on, in the rubrics for Thursday of Holy Week, this directive is given,

At the hour of terce, the priests and clerics shall put on solemn vestments, the deacons dalmatics, and the subdeacon white silken garments, and each shall stand according to his order in the church, waiting for the lord bishop to come in full procession for the Mass.[42]

The practice of the communal hierarchical celebration of the Eucharist thus still continued in the Roman Church.

In the second volume of his work, Andrieu considered the Roman Pontifical of the thirteenth century. In the rubrics concerning the ordination of priests, as well as those for the consecration of a bishop, verbal concelebration was clearly required. At the ordination Mass, "...after the offering has been made the priests go to the altar to stand at the left and right of the altar with their missals, and they say everything in a low tone of voice as if they were celebrating."[43]

The rubric for the Mass of episcopal consecration reads:

When the pontiff comes to the altar after the offertory, the one who has been consecrated, who most concelebrate with the celebrating consecrator, comes to the right corner of the altar, and there takes his stand…The pontiff follows the office of the Mass according to custom and, when he raises his voice to say the preface, the one who has been consecrated pronounces the same words quietly, and reads the rest, and does whatever follows in the canon of the Mass up to the Communion.[44]

In the same volume, the rubrics for Thursday of Holy Week direct that, when all the clergy has gathered, the pontiff comes to the church, and there celebrates the Eucharist, pronouncing the words of the Canon by himself.[45]

In the last decade of the thirteenth century, a pontifical was drawn up by William Durandus (1237-1296), bishop of Mende and canonist of the Roman curia.[46] One century after its compilation this pontifical had practically replaced the pontificals at Rome and Avignon, and two centuries later it became the official text for the Roman Church, through the action of Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492).[47]

In his pontifical, Durandus set down the following rubric for the newly ordained:

And, those who have been ordained, if they wish, may have books before then, saying quietly the canon and whatever part of the Mass the one who ordains says.[48]

Paul Tihon says of this rubric:

According to Durandus’…Roman Pontifical, concelebration (if it can really be considered as such) on the part of the newly ordained priests seems optional.[49]

Commenting on the words si velint Martimort says that the option belonged to the individual churches, rather than the individual ordinands. Should a local church decide that the ordinands recite the Canon with the bishop, then they all do so.[50]

Further on in the Pontifical, Durandus described the following actions of the newly consecrated bishop and his consecrator:

After this, when two hosts have been made ready to be consecrated, the consecrator begins the secret, while he who has been consecrated stands at the right corner of the altar with hands joined, and concelebrates, and makes the signs, and in a quiet voice says all the things that the consecrator says and does.[51]

A little further on, the direction for Communion is given: 

The one who has been consecrated, or those who have been consecrated, standing at the corner of the altar, as they stand at the concelebration of the Mass, can receive Communion over the altar while standing there.[52]

With these rubrics as established by Durandus, the practice of concelebration became firmly attached to the rite of ordination. As the pontifical developed, the practice of verbal concelebration in the Mass of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration remained. It is likely that in Durandus’ time the practice of the newly ordained concelebrating with the ordaining prelate was not universal practice. This, according to Tihon, is indicated by the statement of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

It is the custom of some churches for priests newly ordained to concelebrate with the bishop ordaining them.[53]

However, as the popularity and use of Durandus’ pontifical spread, so did the practice of concelebration at the ordination Mass.[54]

Durandus’ pontifical was known to the papal sacristan in the middle of the fourteenth century and, although not the sole official text yet, it was recognized as an authoritative source of rubrics.[55] When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) requested that the Roman Pontifical be revised and re-edited as the authentic pontifical for use in the Latin Church, Augustinus Patricius de Piccolominibus (Piccolomini, d. 1516) undertook the work, and used as his basic sources the Roman Pontifical and the Pontifical of Durandus.[56] This work, published in 1485, was the one, says Martimort, which removed the hesitation and option concerning the verbal recitation of the canon by the ordinands. Martimort bases his opinion on a rubric which directed the bishop to speak a little louder so that all the ordinands could speak with him.[57] This edition of the Pontifical was republished in Rome in 1497; in Venice and Lyons in 1511; and again in Venice, in an edition published in 1520, by a Dominican named Albert Castellani.[58] In the sixteenth century, a council and a Pope brought it about that the traditions presented in the Pontifical of Durandus and the Roman Pontifical, and passed on for two countries in various editions, would become firmly placed among the official liturgical rites of the Church.

The council was the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Canon 13 of session VII stated:

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.[59]

Included among these “received and approved rites” was the practice of concelebration as presented in the Pontifical then at use in Rome. This general usage was a result of the actions of Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492).[60] Directives of the Council of Trent prompted various Popes to revise, refine and publish the liturgical books. In 1588, the Congregation for Sacred Rites and Ceremonies undertook the correction of the liturgical books. Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) saw to it that this work was continued. Finally, on February 10, 1596, he promulgated the official Pontificale Romanum, suppressed all private existing Pontificals and replaced them with this one. The suppression, De Puniet added, was a “distinct novelty.”[61] This revision was based on the edition of the Pontifical edited by Castellani in 1520.[62]

Next, Urban VIII (1623-1644) in 1644 appointed a commission to revise and re-edit the work of Clement VIII. These efforts resulted in yet another edition of the Pontifical.[63] Again, in 1752, Benedict XIV (1740-1758) promulgated an edition of this Pontifical with further revisions.[64] In neither case was there any indication that the rite of concelebration was affected.

Thus, through five centuries of revisions and editions, the Pontifical of Durandus was substantially passed on. With it, and suffering few changes in these years, came the practice of newly ordained priests surrounding their bishop and pronouncing the words of the Canon with him at their ordination Mass. The rubric concerning concelebration as it appears in the Pontificale Romanum today reads as follows:

The bishop will say the secret prayers in such a way that those who have been ordained to the priesthood can say them with him: for they must concelebrate, as is the custom, and also say the words of consecration.[65]

The rubric for the concelebrated Mass at the consecration of a bishop is:

Then the consecrator . . . comes to the altar, and the one who has been consecrated comes to the edge of the Epistle side at the same altar; and standing there in between the assisting bishops, having his own missal before him, he says and does everything together with the consecrator, as it is in the missal. And there is placed there one host to be consecrated by both the consecrator and the one who has been consecrated, and sufficient wine for both is placed in the Chalice to be consecrated.[66]

The rite of verbal co-consecratory concelebration was prescribed in liturgical books of the Latin Church from the middle of the fifteenth century. It was a rite at which the newly ordained priests or newly consecrated bishops surrounded or stood with their consecrator, and pronounced with him the words of the Canon of the Mass. It is less now a sign of witness or agreement with the principal celebrant. It is more a sign of unity between neophyte and veteran, between father and son. It seems more like a ceremony which initiates worthy candidates into the rights and duties of the priesthood.

It should be noted that the ancient tradition of a common hierarchical non-consecratory celebration of the Eucharist occurs in the pre-Code Pontifical at the Mass of the blessing of an abbot. The new abbot is to kneel with a Missal, and read the whole Mass with the bishop, except for the words of consecration.[67]

In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, too, is found another ancient tradition being continued. When the bishop celebrated the Eucharist with solemnity, he was to surround himself with his clergy and laity. A book of episcopal ceremonies printed in the year 1600 contains a chapter which is entitled in part: the number, quality, and duties of ministers serving the bishop at divine services.[68] There, the rubrics directed that, when a bishop celebrated solemn vespers, besides the assistant priest and two assistant deacons, he was to have seven other ministers if it is possible. When he solemnly celebrated mass, he was to be attended by the same number of assistants as were required at solemn vespers as well as six more ministers. These offices could be filled by means of an episcopal summons made to the parishes and to the churches of the city.

The second book of the Caeremoniale devoted a chapter to a solemn episcopal mass. The procession to the altar was made up of various people including the clerics and canons of the church (who were arranged two-by-two according to seniority), followed by the subdeacon, then the deacon with the assistant deacon.[69] The rubrics for the distribution of Communion at this Mass were the same as those given in the chapter dealing with the solemn celebration of the feast of Easter. There, the rubric for Communion simply stated that the same procedure for the reception of Communion was followed as was prescribed for the distribution of blessed candles.[70] The order of precedence was the following: the canons (arranged according to their order), the magistrate and chief officials of the city, the priests and clerics of the church, the bishop’s household, and so forth.[71] The rubrics for the distribution of Communion on Holy Thursday indicated that the deacon and subdeacon were the first to communicate after the bishop, then the canons and other priests of the church, then the clerics and others as directed in the rubrics for general Communion.[72]

Finally, the rubrics established certain days on which the bishop was to celebrate the sacred mysteries with solemnity. The chapter is entitled: a general list of feasts which are to be celebrated solemnly, beyond those mentioned thus far.[73] The latter included the Sundays of Advent and Lent, the Vigil of the Nativity, the Feast of the Purification, the feasts of Holy Week and others. Those listed in chapter thirty-four included Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Annunciation and Assumption, the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Non-consecratory concelebration was still very much alive, according to the rubrics of this ceremonial book.

These rubrics are generally the same in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum today. The order for the procession is re-organized, but the clergy and canons are mentioned. The order for the reception of Communion is still based on the order for the reception of blessed candles. In that particular rubric the method and procedure for the reception of Communion at the Mass of holy Thursday remains unchanged. There are specific days listed on which the bishop is to celebrate the sacred mysteries (or at least attend those celebrations) with solemnities found in the rubrics for the solemn Mass celebrated by the bishop. This solemnity is partially established by the attendance of priests, clergy, and laity at these ceremonies.[74] As will be seen later, disciplinary laws related to these rubrics were included among the norms of the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1918.[75]

There are two decrees from the Fourth Provincial Council of Milan (1576) which indicated some form of concelebration. It may not be the verbal type where all the words of the canon were pronounced by the attending priests, but it did call to mind the concelebration practiced in the early middle ages.

In chapter ten of the second part of this Council’s Constitution, the following observation was made:

How much more intensely must the bishop warn the minds and hearts of the faithful to the duties of the Christian religion by their own religious solicitude and the example of their own most holy piety; they shall see to this as a duty of their pastoral office; so that on certain days they shall concelebrate the solemnities of the Mass in their cathedral basilica; and on the very same days they shall keep with solemn rite the office of vespers and matins which are of ancient institution and custom.[76]

Further on the statement was made:

Except in Masses for the dead, when the sacrifice of the Mass is solemnly celebrated and the bishop is present, at the time when a hymn, the Gloria in excelsis, the Creed, and anything else like that is sung, let the canons and those who have received any dignity in his church come to the bishop according to their order, and forming a circle before him, let them say each of those parts of the Mass with him, according to the rite and nature of the ceremonies.[77]

It is not possible in either canon to determine whether the legislators had co-consecratory concelebration in mind. But it is evident that the practice of a common hierarchical celebration of the Eucharist was being fostered by this legislation. 

Article 3. Writers and Commentators

From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, there was very little legislation concerning the matter of concelebration. There were, however, a few lengthy treatises on the matter.

Christianus Lupus (1612-1681) in his appendix to the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon gave the following testimony concerning the practice of concelebration in his days:

Even today, on the day of his consecration, the new bishop consecrates the same host with his consecrator. This very rite the Roman missal prescribes for new priests, and many churches retain this rite.[78]

This author did not speak of any instances of concelebration other than at ordinations and episcopal consecrations. At least, this was the only type of concelebration he described when presenting the practice existing in his own day. The thoroughness, detail, and length of his writings on the subject in general would give rise to the presumption that he would have mentioned any other occasions of concelebration known to him. The absence of any such mention points to the rarity of the practice of concelebration except at consecrations and ordinations.

In 1655, a lengthy work on ordinations was published by Joannes Morinus (1591-1659). Dealing with the rite of concelebration, the author first presented the history of the development of the rite. His purpose, he said was to show how the practice of concelebration dwindled from daily to occasional occurrence, and this because of the loss of piety and the tepidity of the “canonical discipline.”[79]

In concluding his first chapter on concelebration, he made the following remarks:

That common celebration of Mass, which was always in conjunction with the Communion of all the ministering clerics, was properly celebrated as an ecclesiastical communion by the ancient fathers in which the clerics of various ranks were deprived according to the degree of the crime they had committed;...The cessation of this custom, and the ignorance that arises from its cessation, gives an occasion to some writers to rage furiously, to some it is an occasion to say it must be totally removed, to some it is very dangerous, to some it is an occasion to deny it was ever used by the Church, and to some it is an occasion for twisting beyond recognition what vestiges of the rite remain. In an absurdity of this type, it is necessary that dangers arise whenever they dispute about the rites of the Church without consulting the ancient words and by relying solely on the genius of their own thought. Some have been so tenacious in their proposals that, having been warned and convinced about the ancient custom, and when they are not able to deny it, they prefer to turn things upside down rather than adapt to present ceremonies, so that if you believe them, nothing ever happened in the Church, nor ever could happen, unless we see it in the Church today…Ecclesiastical ceremonies are not eternal. For various reasons they can change and they can become outdated simply by the changing times. No danger to the faith lurks in this fact. In vain do they sweat and fight bitterly with ghosts, when, in order to avert this danger, they stand fast in their anxiety and solicitude.[80]

Morinus appeared to be somewhat upset by the opponents of the liturgical practice of verbal concelebration. He also seemed to recognize an adaptability and versatility in the Church. His comment seemed to be a seventeenth century expression of the doctrine of aggiornamento. Furthermore, his use of the word vestigia in relation to verbal concelebration is interesting. Evidently he felt that the liturgical rite as he knew it was second best (or even less than that) to what had been the practice in past times. Just why he thought so is not clear. Two possibilities are that he either thought the practice did not occur often enough in his day, or thought the rite itself was too specific in requiring the verbal participation of the concelebrants.

Twenty years later, Giovanni Cardinal Bona (1609-1674), in his Rerum Liturgicarum Libri II, when dealing with concelebration, mentioned the work of Morinus, and used Morinus’ material. As a result, most of what he said added little to what had been previously written.[81]

Although the practice of concelebration occurred infrequently in the seventeenth century, there are two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites that are pertinent. The first reply is reported in Muhlbauer’s edition of the authentic decrees, but does not appear in later collections. It reads:

The Brothers of the Order of the Most Holy Trinity on the Island of Majorca, at seven altars erected in the rotunda of the chapel, under the title of the Seven Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin Mary and endowed by an apostolic privilege for the deceased, celebrate seven Masses all at once while one priest recites the whole canon in a loud voice, so that the other celebrants consecrate together, elevate the host together, and end the Mass together. The response of the Sacred Congregation: the aforementioned abuse is to be abolished.[82]

The only other decree on the matter recorded as coming from this Congregation is one to a bishop of Hungary who asked whether the newly ordained priests were to begin the recitation of the Mass with the ordaining bishop from the very start of the Mass, or at the prayer, “Suscipe sancte pater.” The reply was that they were to start at the “Suscipe.”[83]

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) discussed the rite of concelebration in his encyclical Allatae Sunt (July 25, 1755). He listed authors who had treated the subject, and mentioned that, except for the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops, the practice was obsolete in his day.[84] Benedict XIV also explained that what was so rare in the West was a common occurrence in the East, and that concelebration, with either a priest or a bishop as principal celebrant, was practiced there quite frequently. This practice, he declared, “is not only approved, but it is commanded that it be retained.”[85]

In another work, the Pope devoted a whole chapter to the practice of concelebration at episcopal consecrations and ordinations to the priesthood.[86] In this treatise the Pope discussed the problem of stipends in connection with the concelebrated Mass. The passage is fairly long, but it must be quoted here for two reasons. First, it shows the practical approach of Benedict XIV to a complicated problem. Second, it is a passage that will be referred to later by many canonists who feel that his statements here underwrite a position they consider basically fundamental to the right to accept a stipend at a concelebrated Mass.

 Just a little before this we spoke of Greek priests celebrating with their bishop, as well as of Latin priests who also concelebrate when they receive the order of priesthood or are consecrated bishops. We understand that quite recently the question arose whether priests celebrating Mass with the bishop can accept a stipend by applying the Mass for the one who offered the stipend. Cardinal de Lugo…clearly teaches that ‘if two priests together consecrate one host there are two offerings, and each can apply the Mass for different persons.’ Suarez…seems to support this opinion.

Father la Croix…, after he sets forth the opinion of those who think recently ordained priests must apply the Mass according to the intention of the bishop who is the principal celebrant, disagrees with this opinion and states that the newly ordained is not indeed the principal celebrant, but, on the other hand, he certainly is a celebrant, and there exists no reason why the right of applying the Mass for whomever he may choose can be denied him. In contrast to this on another page he thinks that it is not permissible for a priest to accept a stipend, since the one who offered the stipend asked that the customary Mass be offered at the altar, and also since it remains a controverted question whether the concelebrating priest consecrated, for it could happen that he would pronounce the last word of the consecration after the bishop had pronounced all of those very words. Now, we demonstrated a little before that this second reason has no validity. But there is some truth in the first reason. However, it cannot be inferred from this that priests of the Greek Church who concelebrate cannot receive a stipend and apply the Mass for the one who offers the stipend. This is especially true if these priests, having put on the priestly vestments, recite the whole Mass, consecrate, and receive Communion.

The difficulty can only be in this question: whether those who put on the usual vestments and yet are simply present at the Mass and receive Communion can legitimately accept a stipend, as is understood in a reply from Gregory XIII. Father Thomas of Jesus treats this questions…and, in the case mentioned, those present cannot be prevented from receiving a stipend as long as they do not receive it on the title of application of the Mass. In the Western Church, when priests celebrate with their bishop, they are participators in the offerings. Indeed, since the stipend is the basis for the offerings, it is easy to understand that, wherever the rite of concelebration exists, the concelebrant cannot be deprived of his right of receiving a stipend for a Mass to be applied for the one who offered the stipend, especially if the latter is fully aware that the priest is concelebrating the Mass with the bishop. If we should say anything different from this, the priests of the Oriental Church in the majority of cases will not have stipends.[87]

The questions discussed are whether the concelebrant may take a stipend, and whether he may apply the Mass for the one who gave it to him. The answer to both questions, he says, is affirmative. He bases his answer on an existing theory of the nature of a concelebrated Mass at which two or more priests consecrate the offering. According to this theory (proposed by Cardinal de Lugo and apparently in agreement with what Suarez held) two consecrating priests offer two sacrifices. Inasmuch as there are two sacrifices, each priest may take a stipend. This theory on the nature of a concelebrated Mass is used by the pope to solve the question concerning the acceptance of a stipend. As will be seen later, Cardinal Gasparri (1852-1934) dealt with the same problem of the stipend, and solved the problem with an appeal to this same theory on the nature of the concelebrated mass. Gasparri cited this passage of the writings of Benedict XIV as the source of his statement. In the passage we have just quoted, however, the Pope gave no indication that he either accepted or rejected the explanation of Suarez or de Lugo. Nor did he indicate that their reasoning carried the weightiest argument in favor of the acceptance of a stipend by the concelebrant. As a matter of fact, the Pope seemed to be moved more convincingly by the practice of the Oriental Church. This is especially obvious in his last sentence. “If we should say anything different from this, the priests of the Oriental Church in the majority of cases will not have stipends.” In the last analysis, the Pope felt that the best thing to do was simply to continue the accepted practice.

There were no significant changes in the status of the rite of concelebration in the nineteenth century. As a matter of fact, Hendrik Manders feels that during the period from the medieval theologians to the present liturgical renewal the interest in concelebration

was a rather incidental interest and mainly concerned with a somewhat recent form of concelebration, namely, that taking place at the ordination of a priest or the consecration of a bishop. This interest was not very favorable to concelebration. The most that could be said in favor of it seems to be St. Thomas’ phrase nihil refert. It contained no encouragement and it may well be that the strict line taken by the Codex is due to that perspective. The reason is that the theologians were not interested in the meaning of concelebration, but rather in the validity of the consecration; moreover, they lived in a spiritual climate where concelebration could not really be understood.[88]

Alphonse Honre has written a very interesting article on the status of concelebration.[89] His purpose was to show that the practice of this rite was more widespread than one would first imagine. The key to understanding this fact is the distinction between consecratory and non-consecratory concelebration.

In discussing the practice of attendance at a common Mass at a priests’ retreat, he describes a practice which existed in France in the nineteenth century. At that time the priests refrained from saying Mass and simply attended the Mass of the bishop.[90] Honre feels that, although this practice was fostered by Jansenistic notions of the penitential value of not celebrating Mass privately, it still could be classified as a form of concelebration. He lists as well the Mass of the Holy Oils on Holy Thursday, and quotes from the rubric of the Pontifical where the bishop is described as assisted by priests who are his witnesses and by ministers who are his cooperators.[91] Also mentioned are the assistance and reception of Communion by the clergy at the Mass of Holy Thursday, the Mass celebrated at the beginning of diocesan synods, and the concelebrated Mass of Holy Thursday in the Lyonese rite.[92]

It can be stated then that, despite the testimony of authors indicating the scarcity of the rite of consecratory concelebration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, other types of concelebration were being practiced as a result of the rubrics of the Pontificale Romanum or of local custom.

At the end of the nineteenth century in his De Sanctissima Eucharistia, Peter Gasparri discussed the matter of concelebration. The fact is of interest here, insofar as this same canonist twenty-one years later was to be involved in compiling the Code of Canon Law. Having stated that no reason existed to impede the practice of concelebration, he then asserted: 

Christ the Lord becomes present at the word of each priest, who then partakes of the consecrated species. It is not a case therefore of a single sacrifice which is offered at one and the same time by all, but there are as many sacrifices as there are consecrating priests.[93]

He then cited Benedict XIV and described how the Pope had cited Suarez (1548-1617), De Lugo (1583-1660), and La Croix (1652-1714). Next, he added that Saint Alphonsus (1696-1787) called this opinion the common opinion. A little farther on[94] he continued in the same vein, discussing the validity of accepting a stipend for a concelebrated Mass. This problem, he said, is based on the question whether each priest offers a distinct sacrifice or whether all together offer one sacrifice.

For if only one Mass were celebrated by all, then either one stipend could be accepted if all would apply the Mass for that single donor; or only one celebrant would apply the Mass while the others in no way applied the Mass. But, when each priest applies the Mass for different donors, they cannot receive a different stipend except with the consent of each donor; and it is the same case as if one and the same priest wished to satisfy many stipends with only one sacrifice. On the contrary, if each priest (concelebrant) celebrates his own Mass, there is no reason why he cannot receive a stipend for its application. Since therefore the opinion has been accepted that as many Masses are celebrated as there are priests, it follows that each priest has free application and can receive a stipend for it. So says Benedict XIV…[95]

Gasparri accepted the doctrine repeated by Benedict XIV, added the fact that Alphonsus called the opinion of Suarez a common opinion, and then used this theory to support the validity of the receipt of stipends by concelebrants. Besides the argument from authority, his second argument against the “many priests-one sacrifice” theory is that concelebrants do not get the consent of the donors for applying their stipends at a concelebrated mass. The inference is that if there were only one Mass being celebrated at a concelebration, the donor would have to be informed that his stipend was going to be applied at a Mass celebrated by a number of other priests who had also accepted stipends.

It should be noted, however, that the author was treating two matters: the first was the nature of a concelebrated Mass, and the second was the condition on which a stipend was accepted. Gasparri knew the Church allows and protects the right to take stipends, but he seemed to indicate that the basis for the acceptance of a stipend depended on the number of Masses the celebrant applied, the basic principle being: one Mass, one stipend. This was the condition on which the stipend was usually accepted. If, at a concelebrated Mass, each priest was saying his own Mass (concelebration then being a grouping of many Masses), then each priest could take a distinct stipend. In this case the basic condition holds: on Mass, one stipend. But if the concelebrants together celebrated but one Mass, the basic condition would be violated. There would be one Mass and many stipends. This situation could be allowed, said Gasparri, only with the consent of the donor. However, the celebrant did not have to resort to this procedure, since it was the accepted opinion that there are as many Masses as there are celebrants. The condition for accepting the stipend (one Mass, one stipend) was verified in the nature of the concelebrated Mass (as many Masses as there are celebrants). It was not until some time later that this argument was questioned.[96]

Thus, as the Code of Canon Law was in preparation, many problems connected with the rite of concelebration has been brought up for discussion: the value of the rite and whether or not it should be allowed to exist; whether or not the intention of the concelebrants should be the same as that of the principal celebrant; what happens if a concelebrant pronounces the words of consecration after the principal celebrant; how many Masses are celebrated at a concelebrated Mass; whether concelebrants can take a stipend. The solutions to these questions had been mainly practical ones, set forth with little theological controversy, and based largely on the accepted practices connected with concelebration.

Article 4. The Code and Concelebration

On May 19, 1918, the new Code of Canon Law became effective for the Latin Church.[97]

One of the general principles laid down in the first book of this Code is that all pre-existing liturgical laws retain their effect unless they are otherwise expressly corrected in the new Code.[98] Thus, the pre-existing laws on concelebration would be the same as in pre-Code times unless the Code itself specifically changed them.

Canon 803 of the Codex Iuris Canonici deals with verbal co-consecratory concelebration:

It is not permitted to several priests to concelebrate except in the Mass of the ordination of priests and in the Mass of the consecration of bishops, in accordance with the Roman Pontifical.[99]

It appears, therefore, that the new Code limited the possibilities of the practice of verbal co-consecratory concelebration in the Latin Church. Prior to the Code, there was no legislation limiting the practice of verbal co-consecratory to ordinations and consecrations. There was simply the Council of Trent with its statement that none of the accepted rites of the Church could be changed, and the promulgation by Pope Clement VIII in 1596 of the Pontificale Romanum.[100] There existed no legislation directly prohibiting the practice of concelebration (co-consecratory or otherwise) outside the times of ordinations and episcopal consecrations.

With the new Code, however, this situation changed, From the time of its effective enactment it became unlawful to practice verbal co-consecratory concelebration except on the two occasions mentioned. That the Code was speaking of verbal co-consecratory concelebration is evident, for surely the rubrics of the Pontificale Romanum for Holy Thursday were not suspended; nor were the practices of communal clerical celebrations of Mass.[101] What was made unlawful was the practice of the rite of verbal co-consecratory concelebration except at the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops.[102]

Canon 862, on the other hand, although it deals directly with the reception of Communion, is indirectly concerned with non-consecratory concelebration. It states:

It is desirable that on Holy Thursday all clerics, inclusive of priests who do not celebrate on that day, should be refreshed with the most holy Body of Christ during the solemn or conventual Mass.[103]

Though this canon does not require the celebration of a communal celebration of the Eucharist, it certainly does presuppose it. Canon 862, therefore, does not change in any way the pre-Code practice of non-consecratory concelebration. It simply writes into the law a prescription of the Pontificale Romanum.[104]

The canons dealing with the cathedral chapter also include norms concerning non-consecratory concelebration.[105] They require the presence of the canons of a cathedral or collegiate chapter, if invited to assist and serve the bishop at the celebration of a pontifical high Mass or other pontifical function in other churches of the city, provided that a sufficient number of canons and ministers, in the bishop’s estimation, is left at the cathedral or the collegiate church. The ceremonies connected with these activities are established in detail in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, and have already been discussed.[106]

Naturally, the promulgation of the Code was the signal for the commentators to move forward. In an appraisal of these authors and their works, a slight pattern is evident. The post-Code commentators on concelebration follow two main theories: one based on the writings of St. Thomas, and the other on the works of Benedict XIV.

Although one of the earliest commentators, Augustine, (1872-1943), used Benedict XIV as source material, he stayed out of the stipend controversy, and simply repeated the Pope’s wise admonition that the newly ordained need not worry about the difficulties proposed by some authors. Concerning himself with the controversy about the simultaneous pronunciation of the consecratory words, he states simply that “...the form they (the newly ordained) employ is morally one with the form pronounced by the bishop…”, and therefore if they finish a little before or behind him the consecration is still valid.[107]

A Spanish commentary by Juan Ferreres (1861-1936) presented the opinion that concelebration occurs when there are many priests who simultaneously say, as it were, one and the same Mass, all consecrating at once the same bread and the same wine. And yet the author maintained that there are as many sacrifices as there are consecrating priests. Then he cited Benedict XIV and Gasparri as sources for this doctrine. He seemed hard put to combine the notion of many celebrants with the notion of one Mass.[108] He brought up another problem, not yet expressed in so many words, when he mentioned that the ancient rite of concelebration in which the assistants co-consecrated with the principal celebrant was a rite analogous to what the newly ordained do when they concelebrate with the ordaining prelate.[109]

The commentary of Werns (1842-1914) - Vidal (1867-1938) contains the principle which Benedict XIV supposed that Suarez had held: that there are as many sacrifices as there are priests. Furthermore, according to the commentary of Wernz-Vidal, the right to take a stipend at a concelebrated Mass depends on the intention of the donor. Among other things, this principle was supported with a quotation from the Ruthenian Synod of 1891, which decreed that, unless the donor consents to the fulfillment of the stipend duty at a concelebrated Mass, the stipend must be fulfilled at a “particular Mass” - that is, a Mass at which there is only one celebrant.[110]

A year later, Felix Cappello (1879-1962) in his De Sacramentis discussed concelebration, and made no mention of stipends. Nor did he quote from Benedict XIV or from Gasparri. He simply gathered the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites concerning concelebration which had been passed to that time, said a few words likening concelebration to the Last Supper, and then without quoting from him, cited St. Thomas Aquinas.[111]

The sixth edition of the Epitome of Vermeerch-Cruesen, repeated the “tot Missae quot concelebrantes” theory, and concludes that therefore each concelebrant could receive a stipend. It also mentioned a distinction between concelebration by many ministers only one of whom confects the sacrifice and concelebration when the many confect it. Again, by a historical error, the latter type of concelebration was accepted as once commonly used, whereas in reality it was used only at papal Masses.[112]

Conte a Coronata (1889-1961), in his work De Sacramentis, defined concelebration as the rite in which many priests at one and the same time offer the eucharistic sacrifice, and then reiterated the tot…quot principle, with a citation of Benedict XIV and Suarez. In Conte a Coronata’s work the theory is proposed and the statement made that, if the concelebrants finish the words of consecration before or after the principal celebrant, they have not consecrated. The reason given is that consecration in this rite requires more than the recitative and material intention. It also demands a significative intention, and this intention is expressed by the speaking of the last word of the consecratory phrase at exactly the same time as the principal celebrant. If the word is not spoken at that time, the significative intention is lacking, and therefore the concelebrant has failed to consecrate.[113]

Sylvius Romani discussed concelebration in his commentary. It has been shown, he said, that the sacrament and, therefore, also the sacrifice can be confected by many ministers acting at once. But since the number of sacrifices depends not on the victims but on the sacrificers, there are as many sacrifices as there are sacrificers.[114]

By the middle of the twentieth century, about thirty years after the Code of Canon Law, the discussion on concelebration had expanded immensely.[115] In canonical circles the problems that were treated generally fell under the following headings: the types of concelebration (that is, verbal or non-verbal, sacramental or ceremonial, consecratory or non-consecratory); the origin and value of the rite; the intention of the concelebrants; the confection of the sacrament; the number of Masses celebrated at a concelebrated Mass; stipends; the distinction between concelebration at episcopal consecrations or at sacerdotal ordinations and concelebration at any other time. Of course, the primary problem was the theological one: what is concelebration?

Between 1954 and 1958, Pope Pius XII became involved directly in these discussions through very significant statements.

The first of these was made during an allocution given on November 2, 1954, to an assembly of cardinals and archbishops.[116] The general topic the Pope chose to consider was the controversy whether a “private mass” was the same as a Mass celebrated by one priest with priests and laity in attendance.[117] In this context the Pope went on to say that it is erroneous to think that one Mass celebrated by one priest with one hundred priests attending is the same as one hundred Masses celebrated by one hundred priests. He then said:

With regard to the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice, there are as many actions of Christ the High Priest as there are priests celebrating, but not as many as there are priests piously attending.[118]

It is evident that Pius XII took a principle which had been applied to verbal co-consecratory concelebration and simply said that it applies to non-consecratory concelebration. Nowhere did he state that that principle applies to verbal co-consecratory concelebration. He simply said that the tot…quot principle applies when one hundred priests celebrate one hundred Masses. Noteworthy also is the fact that the Pope did not condemn the practice of priests’ assistance at Mass. He simply insisted it is wrong to say this is the same as one hundred priests celebrating one hundred Masses.

Two years later Pius XII spoke at Rome to a group which had just attended the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy at Assisi in 1956. At one point in that allocution, and while speaking in general of concelebration, he said:

Even if the consecration of the Mass takes place without ceremonial and in a simple fashion, it is the central point of the whole liturgy of the sacrifice, the central point of the action of Christ whose person is put on by the priest-celebrant, or the concelebrating priests, in the case of true concelebration.[119]

The Pope here touched indirectly the problem of the number of Masses at a concelebrated Mass. The group of concelebrating priests “put on” the singular person of Christ. Though the celebrants are many, they are acting in the person of one individual, Christ.

Pius XII then stated that to have true concelebration and what he called “simultaneous consecration”[120] the concelebrants must say the words of consecration over the bread and wine, and that it is not sufficient to have and to manifest the desire to make one’s own the words and actions of the celebrant.[121]

Here, then, another problem connected with concelebration was touched on. It was made clear that there is a difference between consecratory and non-consecratory concelebration. Neither was condemned, but a distinction was pointed out and underscored.[122]

Pius XII also seemed to limit the meaning of the word concelebration to its strictest meaning, that is, to a verbal co-consecratory concelebration. When he spoke of “true concelebration” or of “concelebration in the proper sense of the term,” he meant verbal co-consecration. This, of course, is one of the major problems connected with concelebration. Many authors express a variety of concepts, and yet they all use the word “concelebration” to present their specific concept. Thus, when Pius XII used the word concelebration, he meant verbal co-consecratory concelebration.

It is in this context that he approved in the following year (1957), a solutio dubai presented by the Holy Office. The question was whether priests validly concelebrate if only one of them pronounces the consecratory words. And the answer was in the negative.[123]

An aid in understanding this reply is the article by F. Hürth.[124] He recalls that the concelebration here under discussion is what Pius XII spoke of to the Assisi Congress. This means that what is clarified is that the consecration of the bread and wine is not effected by concelebration is not valid; that is, it does not possess, except in the case of the principal celebrant, the elements required for confecting the sacrament of the Eucharist. It lacks the requirements for a valid co-consecration.[125]

Furthermore, Hürth points out that this reply is not a condemnation. It is solely what its title says it is: a reply to a doubt concerning the validity of concelebration. It would be both illogical and uncanonical, therefore, to conclude that this reply condemns the practice under discussion. As Hürth says, “if the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority is forthcoming, there is no reason why this form of concelebration cannot be carried out, or even why it could not be preferred on certain occasions.”[126]

This consent actually appeared in the Instruction on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy of 1958, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites and approved by Pius XII.

When a number of priests are gathered on the occasion of meetings, it is not forbidden ‘for only one of them to perform the sacred rite and for the others (whether all or many) to be present at this one Sacrifice and during it to receive holy Communion from the hand of the celebrant.’ However, this may be done only ‘for a just and reasonable cause and provided the bishop has not ruled otherwise in order to avoid astonishment on the part of the faithful.’[127]

Finally, and rather interestingly, Hürth discusses the matter of stipends, and suggests that one who is ceremonially concelebrating (that is, who is a non-consecratory concelebrant) may take a stipend for the Mass, as long as the donor realizes what is happening. However, he feels that the permission and consent of the Church is needed before this practice is begun.[128]

As mentioned previously, the Instruction on Sacred Music was promulgated in 1958. In this document serious doubt was thrown on the tot-quot theory of the number of sacrifices offered at a concelebrated Mass. It came in the form of the prohibition of synchronized Masses.

So-called “synchronized Masses,” however, are forbidden. By this term is meant the unusual method of celebrating Mass in which two or more priests, on one or more altars, celebrate the Mass simultaneously in such a way that all their actions and all their words are performed and pronounced at one and the same time. Use is even made of modern mechanisms, particularly if the number of priests thus celebrating is large, the better to ensure this absolute uniformity or “synchronization.”[129]

The concelebrated Mass, however, was not prohibited. There is a difference then between the synchronized Mass and the concelebrated Mass. The difference cannot be the number of words spoken by the celebrants, for in the ordination Mass the ordinandi said the whole canon with the bishop. It cannot be the position of the priests, for the synchronized Mass even at one altar was prohibited, not, however, concelebration. The synchronized offering of a number of Masses at one altar (where the principle tot sacrificia quot sacerdotes was definitely true) was prohibited. Yet, concelebration remained. Evidently, the principle tot sacrificia quot sacerdotes could not be applied to concelebration. For if it were, concelebration would be nothing more than a synchronized Mass and therefore prohibited.

At the time of the death of Pope Pius XII (Oct. 9, 1958) and the election of Cardinal Roncalli to the papacy (Oct. 28, 1958) the problems connected with concelebration were coming closer to solutions. While all agreed that the concelebrants could take a stipend, some felt that the donor should be clearly informed of the circumstances connected with its acceptance. The different types of concelebration, consecratory and non-consecratory, were more clearly distinguished. The question of the number of Masses that existed at a concelebrated Mass had been put into proper focus by Pope Pius XII.

On Christmas day, 1961, Pope John XXIII solemnly convoked the second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Its opening meeting was the public session of October 11, 1962.[130] A year later, on Dec. 4, 1963, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was promulgated by the assembled bishops.[131] The stated purpose of the Constitution was to promote and reform the liturgy primarily by recalling to mind certain principles and establishing certain norms.-[132] In article 57 of this Constitution, principles were recalled and norms were established concerning the rite of concelebration. The principles were these: concelebration is a fitting manifestation of the unity of the unity of the priesthood; it has an unbroken tradition in both the East and West. The norms established were primarily two: the opportunities for the practice of concelebration were greatly increased, and the rite itself was to be revised.

A commission was established to carry out the directives of the Constitution,[133] and on March 4, 1965, Pope Paul VI approved the new Ritus Servandus in Concelebratione Missae.[134] The new rite and the decree by which it was promulgated ended the gradual tendency whereby the rite was becoming practically extinct in the western Church. Analysis will show that they constitute a very positive official recognition of the value of the practice of concelebration. In anticipation, however, it will prove helpful to review a few related truths.

Chapter II

 Theology and Concelebration

“Canon Law, both as a body of norms and as a science, has too long suffered from its divorce from theology, too long appeared as something foreign to the inner mystery of the Church.”[135] Because of the truth of this statement, and in order to set this canonical treatment of the rite of concelebration in its proper perspective, one should offer some pertinent theological considerations at this point. The notion of concelebration has been under such intense discussion for the last thirty to forty years, that a modern canonical treatment would be both unintelligible and anachronistic if presented in the theological context of just one generation ago. Therefore, four principal observations will be made here, and they will be correlated in a conclusion.

The first notion which is important to the understanding of concelebration in general (unless indicated otherwise, “concelebration” will hereafter be taken to mean everything from co-consecratory concelebration to the “messe communautaire”) is the fact that each of the individual sacraments can be administered in various forms. This phenomenon results, as a matter of fact, from the symbolic nature, the sign value, of the sacramental system. Each of the seven sacraments signifies one particular phase of the individual’s relationship with the saving Christ. But, although the basic and primary sign is the same every time the sacrament is used, there is a variety of ways in which the sacrament may be presented. For example, baptism is one and the same sacrament wherever it is performed and no matter who is baptized. However, there are numerous forms which the rite of baptism takes. The Collectio Rituum lists the rite of baptism for a child, the rite of private baptism, the rite for the baptism of adults before the altar, the rite for the baptism of adults arranged according to the stages of the catechumenate. These are all rites for the conferral of baptism, and the rebirth of the subject is the primary and basic sign common to each rite. However, each of these rites is arranged for specific occasions on which a special emphasis is desired. Thus, the baptism arranged according to various stages of the catechumenate will primarily sign forth the rebirth of the adult. But it will also signify very clearly, impressively, and effectively the progressive nature of an adult’s conversion as well as the radical nature of the change in the subject. This sign value is not found to this degree in the rite for the baptism of an infant. The rite can be selected to suit the occasion.

Similarly, the rite for the administration of Communion has three forms. Now, although it is the same sacrament in each case, the sign value for the administration of Communion at Mass is quite different from the sign value of the administration of Viaticum. The same thing can be said of the sacrament of matrimony. Although the exchange of vows is common to each form, the rites themselves differ greatly.

Each sacrament signifies a single reality, and the same reality, every time it is given. But it may be administered a different way each time, and the totality of the variant ritual administration signifies a different aspect of that same reality.

The Eucharist is basically and primarily “...the sacrifice of Christ made present as our nourishment, putting thus at our disposition the unique act of his self-offering to the Father for us on the Cross,”[136] “...the sacrament in which the unity of the Church becomes real in a communal and hierarchical celebration.”[137]

Now, just like the other sacraments, the eucharistic ritual can be effected in a variety of ways. The most common are the low Mass and the high Mass. But there are also requiem Masses, solemn high Masses, pontifical Masses, and concelebrated Masses. The latter, in turn, take a variety of forms: the ordination Mass, the new Mass of the Ritus for concelebration, the Mass described by Nicolan at which the priests of Mallorca wear vestments but do not consecrate,[138] and the “messe communautaire.” Each of these presents the essential activity of the Eucharist but each puts special emphasis on a different phase of Christian existence. The former ritual of the ordination Mass, in the context of a celebrating community, was in part a fitting expression of episcopal paternity, the father constituting his sons in their office, instructing them in its rights, duties, and performance, and guiding them through their first Mass. The Mass of the new Ritus, on the other hand, expresses more vividly the unified hierarchical structure of the Christian community, the bishop (or his delegate) offering the sacrifice together with his priests, who according to their offices read certain prayers of the mass and join verbally with their bishop at the moment of consecration of the offerings, at all times supported, sustained, and joined by the faithful in the presentation of Christ to his Father.

The second characteristic of the sacramental system is that every sacramental administration is affected by means of an ecclesiastically determined ritual which is made up of several parts. Thus, the rite of baptism consists of exorcisms, anointings and donations as well as the pouring of the water and the pronouncing of the Trinitarian forms; the rite of marriage consists of the exchange of promises and vows, the blessing and administration of rings; the rite of penance consists of the confession, the assurance of contrition, the absolution, the conferral of the penance. To isolate any one of these parts for study, emphasis, or any other reason, is to get a very limited view of the total sacramental reality. To omit any one of these parts in the administration of the sacrament is to destroy the total sign value; such an omission may even prevent the sacrament from coming into existence. Therefore, for the sacrament to be confected, administered, received, and understood in its fullness, every part of the ecclesial rite must be performed.[139]

The Mass, like the other sacraments, is divisible. There is, for instance, the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. Each of these in turn has its own constitutive parts: the confession, the prayer, the epistle and the gospel; the offertory, the consecration, and the communion. And as with the other sacraments, an isolated concentration or over-emphasis on any one part of the Mass (the consecration, for example) could throw the total understanding of the rite out of balance. “The sign of the Eucharist is not only the bread and wine; it is the entire celebration and the assembly that takes part in it.”[140]

The third element to be considered here is the present discussion concerning the nature of the priesthood. Because of the statements of Pius XII, various theologians are at work on an effort to explain the sacerdotal activity taht takes place when a priest is present at mass in a non-consecratory role. If the priest does not consecrate, does he or can he act in a priestly mode?

To approach the problem with “the idea that the only strictly sacerdotal action at mass consists in performing Christ’s sacrificial act “in eiusdem persona,” and thinking that “this sacrificial act consists in pronouncing the two formulae of consecration signifying the separation of body and blood” is to approach with “a far too narrow view of both the nature of the Eucharistic sacrament and the sacramental function of the priesthood.”[141] Today, these narrow approaches and attitudes are being broadened by theologians. Yet the resultant new approaches prudently take into account the statements of Pius XII.[142]

Thus, Manders gives us an indication of the direction in which the theologians are going:

There have been for some time tendencies in the theology of concelebration which did not limit its sacramental sense to the collective confectio sacramenti or to the collective performance of Christ’s sacrificial act by a group of individual priests. From the beginning all informed authors have pointed out that the first sense of concelebration is that it is the manifestation of the hierarchical unity of the Church…Five recent authors…may be credited with having provided a sacramental basis for this statement. Most important here was a consistent application of the old ecclesial view of the sacrament as a celebration (sacramentus est celebratio) . . .

The whole community celebrates the mysterium Passionis Domini, but each member according to the function he has in the community as a whole. And this sheds special light on the sacramental position, in this celebration, of the college of those whose mission it is to serve the Body of the Church. The Eucharist is the sacrament in which the Church experiences the mystery of Christ in its fullness. It is therefore also the sacrament in which the unity of the Church becomes real in a communal and hierarchical celebration. And here concelebration – whether there is collective consecration or not is really of minor importance – plays an important part. For concelebration makes real the unity of the college of priests in the one spirit of the ministry in the midst of the community for which their function was given. Each functionary, performing the sacramental task for which the Church ordained him, cooperates sacramentally with the bishop or his delegate as the center of this unity . . .

Precisely because in this celebration the unity of priests and bishop becomes a sacramental reality, it is true, as Daneels said, that “the oneness of the principal celebrant is the norm for eucharistic celebration which adequately reflects the nature of the Eucharist.”[143]

The point seems to be that there is a place for the celebration of the Eucharist at which the sacerdotalis catalogus functions as such, in a consecratory way or not. The statement has gone beyond the utterances of Pope Pius XII, and has taken the Mass in its totality.

Since an understanding of the nature of concelebration depends on a clear concept of the priesthood, another theologian, Paul Tihon, points out that if concelebration takes into account the collegial nature of the priesthood, then “...the fact of not personally pronouncing the words of consecration does not ipso facto exclude any properly sacerdotal role of the assembled priests in the constitution of the sacramental sign.”[144]

The author then continues to develop at some length the theological problems of concelebration from this point of view. He says:

 It is obvious that in concelebration without the common recitation of the anaphora the principal celebrant performs a part of the rite that is alone necessary and sufficient to constitute a valid Eucharist. But from this it does not follow that what one person does fully the others do not do in any way whatsoever…It is still possible to envisage a ‘concelebration that is sacramental yet non-consecratory’ in which one priest acts fully while all the other nonetheless participate in persona Christi, in virtue of their sacerdotal character.[145]

Later on, he elaborates this idea:

To imitate together what Christ did does not necessarily demand – as the practice of the Church now shows – that all perform all his gestures and say all his words. The sacramental sign is not indivisible as are certain physical realities. In virtue of this principle, a concelebration like that of the first centuries, wherein the anaphora is reserved to the principal celebrant, can be considered a properly sacramental concelebration – not in the sense of the “valid concelebration” of recent documents because the concelebrants do not each posit the rite that the Church has defined as necessary for “validity” – because the moral and ritual unity of the presbyterium as such, expressed throughout the celebration, permits each one of its members to contribute his share to the representation, entirely sacramental, of Christ the priest who is presiding at the eucharistic assembly which he nourishes with his flesh. A visibly sacerdotal participation is obviously required, not a pure union of intention by which a priest can not be distinguished exteriorly from the faithful…[146]

Next, Tihon says a few words about an entirely different subject, namely, the legislative activity of the Church in establishing rules for validity in the confection and ritual celebration of the sacraments. This is the fourth and last element to be considered in this theological discussion:

It is clearly up to the magisterium to determine the forms in which it judges it appropriate to concelebrate on any given occasion and to establish the “conditions for validity.” Again, the word ‘validity’ is to be taken here in its juridical sense: it expresses the rule to which the sacrament must conform in order to be recognized as such by the Church at a given moment. Such a rule is not to be identified either with the essential rite (the essence of the sacrament) instituted by Christ (although it necessarily includes this), or with the properly sacramental rite (as distinguished from a ceremonial rite that some like to call at times a sacramental).[147]

In addition to the nature of the Mass and the nature of the priesthood, the ruling authority of the Church is a factor involved in the rite of concelebration. The conditions for the valid exercise of this ritual act depend on the authority of the sanctifying Church. These conditions are broader in scope than the essence of the sacrament, and therefore include that essence as instituted by Christ. It is also true that, although the essential requirements set forth by Christ cannot change or be changed by the Church’s authority, the other conditions for validity can and have been changed. In the sacrament of penance, for instance, all the elements necessary for the confection of the sacrament may be present, but the parties would act invalidly if the actions were performed contrary to the prescriptions for required jurisdiction or those which forbid the absolutio complicis.[148] The same principle is evident in the history of ecclesiastical legislation of marriage. The Church had made various requirements for the validity of a marriage in the decree Tametsi, the Ne temere law, and the Code of Canon Law.[149] This authority is operative again in regard to the valid administration of the sacrament of confirmation in the Eastern Churches.[150]

The inter-relationship of these items, and what is their relationship to the rite of concelebration must be considered.

First, it is a fact that priests gather in a college for the celebration of Mass. This gathering takes various forms and is characterized by various ritual actions. But it is a fact that priests gather at Mass.

Second, it is also a fact that Pope Pius XII stated that priests do not act in persona Christi if they do not speak the words of consecration at Mass.

To conclude that priests do not act sacramentally, modo sacerdotali, because they do not consecrate is an illogical conclusion. Furthermore, to conclude that priests do not act sacramentally because they do not consecrate involves a failure to consider the Mass as a whole – the celebration of the Christian community. It also involves a failure to consider the nature of the priesthood – participation in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The new rite for concelebrated Masses presents practical regulations for carrying out these celebrations. In the light of the concepts seen here and in the historical context previously described, the present rite becomes a very full and enriching celebration.

Chapter III

 The New Ritus Servandus

Article 1. The Decretum Generale

The new rite for concelebration was promulgated by a general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, dated March 7, 1966, with a vacatio legis until holy Thursday, April 15, 1966.[151]

Section 1. Motives for the Decree

Doctrinal

First to be considered here are the reasons for the restoration and promulgation of the rite for concelebration. The first reasons are doctrinal, and are enumerated in the decree itself

The Church has always taken care in ordering and renewing the celebration of the sacred mysteries, that the rites themselves in the best way possible manifest the inexhaustible richness of Christ, which they contain and communicate to the well disposed, and in this way more easily fill the souls and life of the faithful who participate in these rites.[152]

The right and duty of the Church to sanctify her members are thus acknowledged.[153] This right and this duty stem from the mission of the Church to manifest to others the mystery of Christ.[154] The Church carries out this mission by regulating, confecting, and administering the sacraments.[155] Furthermore, the Church has always exercised this right and this duty.[156]

 The Church attends to this with special application when it regulates the celebration of the Eucharist. For it prepares and orders the different forms of this celebration in such a way that they express and instill in the faithful the different aspects of the eucharistic Sacrifice.[157]

In other words, as stated in the Constitution on the Liturgy, the Church takes special care to see to it that the pastoral efficacy of the Mass is fully achieved for the faithful.[158]

It should be noted here that the decree speaks of the forms of the Mass. This expression is to be distinguished from other terms. Rubrics are the rules which are contained in the Liturgical books.[159] Ceremonies are the outward and accidental acts of worship,[160] while rites indicate the manner of performing externally the sacred functions according to the prescriptions of laws of God or the Church.[161] The form of Mass is any complete yet specific type or kind of celebration of the Eucharist which comprises all the essential qualities and properties of Mass, but in variant rites and ceremonies. Such forms would be the sung Mass, the Requiem Mass, the solemn Mass, and so forth.[162]

In every form by which Mass is celebrated, however simple, those characteristics and properties hold the place of honor which belong to the Holy Sacrifice necessarily and by its very nature.[163]

Then the decree enumerates those qualities and properties of the Mass which belong to it in a particular way. The unity of the sacrifice of Christ, the unity of the priesthood of Christ, and the unity of the action of the people of God, taken together, form a tripartite sign which belongs necessarily to every Mass.[164]

The three parts of this sign are discussed in the decree: The first is the unity of the Sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as many Masses represent nothing more than the unique Sacrifice of Christ, and they share the nature of that Sacrifice in that they are a memorial of the bloody immolation performed on the Cross, the fruits of which are gathered by this unbloody immolation.

 The next is the unity of priesthood. For there are indeed many priests who celebrate Mass. And yet each one is no more than the minister of Christ who exercises His own priesthood through them, and who, for this purpose, causes each of them through the Sacrament of Orders to become partakers of His own very same priesthood in a most special way. Even so, when each one offers the Sacrifice, all nevertheless do it in virtue of the very same priesthood and each acts in the person of the high Priest to whom it belongs to consecrate the sacrament of His own Body and Blood either by one or by many at the same time.

 Finally, the action of the whole people of God appears very clearly. Because every Mass, more so than any other liturgical action, is the action of the entire holy people of God, hierarchically ordered and acting, inasmuch as it is the celebration of that same Sacrament by which the Church continuously lives and grows, and in which the very brotherly nature of the same Church is chiefly manifested.[165]

Each of these three unities is present at each Mass, no matter what its form.

Continuing, the decree expresses in detail the meaning of Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution of the Liturgy. These articles state:

The pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in the liturgical celebrations, especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers.[166]

But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful.[167]

The decree goes on to state that this threefold sign is placed before the eyes in a singular way in the rite by which many priests concelebrate the same Mass.

Before explaining how concelebration expresses this multiple sign, however, the decree contains a definition of concelebration.

 For in this type of the celebration of Mass, many priests, in virtue of one and the same priesthood and in the person of the High Priest, act together with one will and one voice. They confect and offer the one Sacrifice in one sacramental act, and together they partake of that sacrifice.[168]

It is clear the concelebration here does not mean non-consecratory concelebration. The phrase simul conficiunt indicates the subject of this decree is verbal consecratory concelebration. The rubric in the rite itself says the same:

 From the Hanc igitur to the Supplices inclusive all the concelebrants together sing everything or say everything in a loud voice.[169]

It is also clear that the decree settles with finality any question concerning the number of Masses celebrated at a concelebrated Mass. The old principle tot sacrificia quot sacerdotes is absolutely denied here. There is one Mass celebrated, one sacrifice, no matter how many concelebrants.

Because there is only one sacrifice, concelebration signifies in an excellent way the unicity of Christ’s sacrifice, the unicity of His priesthood and the unicity of the action of the people of God.

 Wherefore, this type of celebration of the sacrifice at which the faithful participate together, consciously, actively, and in a manner proper to a community, especially if the bishop is present, is truly the chief manifestation of the Church in the unity of Sacrifice and Priesthood, in the one action of thanksgiving around one altar with the ministers and the people of God.[170]

Concelebration, consecratory or non-consecratory, is a greater manifestation of the unified hierarchical Church than is the singular Mass, simply because the presence of a group of priests represents visibly the college of priests associated with their bishop. And although the unity of the priesthood is represented at a non-consecratory concelebrated Mass, co-consecratory concelebration makes clearer and more visible the sign of the unity of the priesthood, by the simple fact that priests confect the one Sacrament by one act.[171]

Ascetical

Another motive for the restoration of the rite is its value for the spiritual and pastoral life of priests and the Christian education of all the faithful.[172] In this matter, the decree echoes the norm of article 33 of the Constitution on the Liturgy:

Although the Sacred Liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine majesty, it likewise contains abundant instruction for the faithful.

The value of this rite for the faithful is frequently taken into consideration in the Ritus,[173] and the active participation of the faithful is well provided for. The norm of number 4 provides that the concelebrants position themselves in such a way that they do not obstruct the view of the faithful. Number 11 provides for a previous instruction of the faithful so they will be able to participate in the rite more fully. Number 58 provides for the Communion of the faithful.

These provisions bring into specific effect the directive of article 27 and 28 of the Constitution on the Liturgy.

It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred as far as possible to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

This applies with special force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.[174]

 Concelebration, therefore, is always to be thought of in terms of celebration with a congregation present. This is true even of non-parochial celebrations. Insofar as possible concelebration should not take place with the concelebrants acting alone, without a congregation. It should be a community celebration in the sense of articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution.

Thus, as the decree itself intimates, the new rite is not primarily a practical solution to the logistical problem of providing an opportunity for many priests to say Mass.[175]

Traditional

After this enumeration of the doctrinal and ascetical realities which motivated the restoration of the rite of concelebration, the decree makes mention of the fact that these same realities prompted the retention of the rite throughout the history of the Church in both East and West.[176] Now, although the tradition of both East and West is acknowledged, the difference in these traditions is mentioned. The various forms the rite of concelebration took as well as the various modes in which the practice of the rite evolved are evident from the actual practice of the present day. Until quite recently, only two forms of concelebration were permitted in the West, while in the East concelebration occurred in various forms and quite frequently.[177]

Liturgical Scholars

Another factor which prompted the restoration of this rite is the activity of liturgical scholars.[178] The initial activities of these specialists consisted mostly in a thorough investigation of the rite: its history, its nature, its theological impact.[179]

The results of these inquiries led to requests from the liturgists for the restoration of the rite, and to specific proposals as to the form the rite should take.[180]

Vatican II

The final and proximate action for the restoration of the rite was taken by the Second Vatican Council. 

Finally, the Second Vatican Council having carefully considered the matter, extended the faculty for concelebration to many cases and decreed that a new rite for concelebration be drawn up.[181]

Not only was this rite to be drawn up, but it was also determined by the Council that this rite was to be inserted into the liturgical books, that is, the Pontifical and the Roman Missal.[182]

Section 2. Preparation of the Rite

The decree next contains a description of the method by which the new rite was drawn up. 

After the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had been solemnly approved and promulgated, His Holiness Pope Paul VI ordered the Commission which had been deputed to execute the Constitution to prepare as soon as possible a rite to be observed at the concelebration of Mass.[183] 

First, the statutes of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had become law on February 16, 1964.[184]

The directives of Article 58 prescribing the preparation of a new rite and its insertion into the service books then became obligatory. The preparation of the rite was committed by the Pope to the already established Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.[185]

 On June 19, 1964, the Commission unanimously agreed that the rite was ready for experiment, after it had been repeatedly subjected to the examination and refinement of the consultors and members. The Commission declared that, if it pleased the Holy Father, before the rite was definitely approved, there should be practical experiments with it in various parts of the world and under different sets of circumstances.[186]

 In keeping with Article 23 of the Constitution on the Liturgy, a period of pastoral experimentation became a part of the drafting of the new rite.

The experiments first took place in a small number of monasteries throughout the world. Reports and suggestions were forwarded from these communities to the Commission. The experiments were then extended by means of faculties permitting concelebration in individual cases, and indults for concelebration were given to Episcopal conferences in various localities.[187]

The rite was revised for the last time in the light of the requests and suggestions which resulted from the experimentation, and the schema was presented to the Holy Father by the Commission.

Section 3. Approbation of the Rite.

The Holy Father, after he examined the rite of concelebration and Communion under both kinds, assisted in this matter by the Commission and the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in an audience granted to Arcadius Mary Cardinal Larraona on the 4th of March, 1965, approved the rite in a special way in each and all its parts, confirmed it by his own authority and ordered it to be promulgated…and accurately printed in the Pontifical and Roman Missal.[188]

The acts of the Roman Curia become the proper acts of the Pope himself in two cases: when they result from his special mandate or order, and when they are approved in forma specifica, that is, when it is expressly declared or signified that the Pope intends to do these things himself.[189] Since the specific execution of the directive of Article 58 of the Constitution on the Liturgy took place on the Pope’s order,[190] and since the Pope approved the rite speciali modo and confirmed it on his own authority, it can be said to be pontifical law.

Section 4. The Promulgation of the Rite

The rite, approved by the Holy Father was then promulgated on March 7, 1965, by a general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.[191] Although the decree did not appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis until May 31, 1965, it was promulgated by publication in a separate booklet and included in its text a vacatio legis. The rite was to be observed beginning on Holy Thursday, April 15, 1965.[192] This decree, establishing the new rite as a part of the liturgical books, does not indicate that the provision of Article 25 of the Constitution on the Liturgy has been definitively carried out. This rite is only one of many contained in those books. Furthermore, there is nothing expressed in the decree which would prevent further revisions of concelebration taking place in connection with the general revision of the liturgical books.[193]

It should also be noted that the Ritus should be inserted into both the Pontifical and the Missal. Otherwise, it would seem that the word vel would have been used (et in Pontificali vel Missali Romano). Furthermore, the increased opportunities for the concelebration of Mass makes the presence of the new Ritus in the revised Missal necessary.

The decree contains an abrogating clause: “all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”[194] The principle of abrogation is expressed in canon 22 of the Code of Canon Law, namely, that a subsequent law, enacted by competent authority, abrogates a former law if it thoroughly rearranges the content of an earlier law. Articles 57 and 58 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy did just that in regard to canon 803 of the Code. The occasions for the practice were greatly increased and provision was made for a new rite. Now, by this general decree, the new rite is promulgated and becomes general liturgical law for the Latin Church.[195] The expression “all things to the contrary notwithstanding” clarifies the extent to which this rite is law in the Latin Church. For generic clauses abrogate only general laws and customs, but not particular or special laws unless the abrogating clause expressly says so.[196] Thus, this decree fulfills the prescription of Article 58 of the Constitution on the Liturgy and completes the abrogation of the general law prescribing the old rite of the Pontifical to be used at concelebrated Masses in the Latin Church, by replacing the rubrics of the Pontifical for concelebration.[197] However, there exist particular laws governing liturgical actions of the non-Roman Latin rites. These non-Roman rites include the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.[198] The liturgical laws for these rites are to be found principally in their liturgical books.[199] There are, as well, lesser Roman rites, including those of Lyons and Braga, and the monastic rites (Benedictine, Cistercian, Carthusian, Premonstratensian, Dominican, and Carmelite). These too possess legitimate liturgical laws peculiar to themselves.[200] None of these particular laws which pertain to concelebration are abrogated by the generic abrogating clause of the present decree.[201]

Finally, this decree is not legislation for the Oriental Churches. To begin with the Congregation for the Oriental Church has competence over the rites of the East. Furthermore, 

The competence of the Congregation (of Sacred Rites) extends to the liturgy of the entire Latin Church and to it alone. Just as the Oriental Churches are excluded from the Latin Code, which is the Code of the Western Church, so their sacred rites are excluded from the power of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.[202]

Article 2. The Ritus Servandus

Section 1. Preliminary Remarks

De facultate concelebrandi

1.     Concelebratio, qua unitas sacerdotii opportune manifestatur, in Ecclesia usque adhuc in usu remansit tam in Oriente quam in Occidente. Quare facultatem concelebrandi ad sequentes casus Concilio extendere placuit.

Concerning the faculty to concelebrate

1.     Concelebration, by which the unity of the priesthood is suitably manifested, has remained in use in the Church, in both the East and the West, until the present time. For this reason, the Council is pleased to extend the faculty to concelebrate to the following cases

This section of the Ritus repeats exactly the first part of Article 57 of the Constitution on the Liturgy. It indicates that it was conciliar action which extended the ability to concelebrate.[203]

As was seen previously, the word concelebration used in this Ritus and in the Decretum signifies verbal, consecratory concelebration.[204]

A faculty is the ability or power to do something validly, licitly or safely.[205] Every priest possesses the ability to celebrate Mass. The decree promulgating the Ritus acknowledges this fact.

For when Mass is celebrated in this way, many priests, in virtue of the same priesthood and in the person of the high Priest, act at one and the same time.[206]

However, this ability is not one that can be exercised indiscriminately at will. It is subject to the regulatory power of the Church. Positively, the general law obliges the exercise of this power in general terms: all priests are bound by an obligation to celebrate Mass several times a year, while the bishop and religious superiors are to see to it that priests celebrate at least on Sundays and holy days of obligation.[207] Negatively, the universal law limited the exercise of the ability to celebrate mass under various conditions. It was unlawful for priests to concelebrate except at ordinations and episcopal consecrations. With certain exceptions, it was unlawful for a priest to celebrate Mass more than once a day.[208] However, the right to celebrate the Eucharist twice or three times a day can be granted under certain conditions.[209]

In a similar way, by conciliar legislation the ability to concelebrate licitly has been extended to certain cases.

The term facultas in the Ritus does not seem to have the same meaning as the term facultas in canon 66. That canon describes a habitual faculty which can be granted either forever, for a specific time, or for a specified number of cases. Faculties of this type are to be considered privileges beyond the law (privilegia praeter ius).[210] Should the faculty of concelebration fall into this category, the implication would be that canon 803 limiting the lawful practice of concelebration is still the general law and that the new rite is simply a privilege which extends beyond the law. However, as was seen previously, canon 803 and the old ritual for concelebration in the Pontifical have been abrogated.[211] Therefore the facultas concelebrandi cannot be considered a privilege beyond the law.

The Faculty, Its Extension and Regulation

1.     a) Feria V in Cena Domini, tum ad Missam Chrismatis, tum ad Missam vespertinam;

b) ad Missas in Conciliis, Conventibus Episcopalibus et Synodis;

c) ad Missam in Benedictione Abbatis.

The faculty to concelebrate is extended

1.     a) to Holy Thursday, both to the Mass of Chrism and to the Evening Mass;

b) to Masses at Councils, meetings of bishops and Synods;

c) to the Mass at the blessing of an Abbot.[212]

Since the law is in itself an extension of a faculty and not the imposition of an obligation, the consecratory concelebration of the Mass of Chrism is not obligatory. However, the only alternative provided for in the law is the traditional non-consecratory concelebrated Mass of the Pontifical and the Restored Rite for Holy Week.[213] Therefore there are two forms of the Mass of Chrism from which to choose.

There is also a choice of forms for the evening Mass of Holy Thursday. The first form is that of verbal concelebration provided for by the new Ritus. The law extends the faculty to concelebrate to the evening Mass. Again, however, since verbal concelebration is not obligatory, there are alternatives. Priests may assist at mass and receive Holy Communion.[214] Or, there may be a single celebrant, with no other priests present at the evening Mass.[215] The only alternatives provided for in the liturgical books therefore are the communal celebrations. For this reason, and according to the norm of Article 57 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Ritus itself prohibits a singular or non-communal celebration of Mass on Holy Thursday.[216]

The concelebration (in one form or another) of Mass on Holy Thursday is extremely fitting.[217] It is evident that the choice of forms of concelebration leaves optional the particular sign of the Sacrament which is to be stressed. Should the principal celebrant alone confect the Sacrament, while surrounded by the college of priests and by the laity, the historical act of Christ presiding at the Last Supper and distributing his Body and Blood to his Apostles is clearly signified.[218] On the other hand, the collegiate action of the college of priests, making present, for and in the assembly, the sacrifice of the one High Priest presents very clearly the sign of the unity of the people of God and of the priesthood,[219] as well as the dependency of the college of priests on the bishop.[220]

The existence of the opportunity to choose between these two forms of Mass could conceivably come into conflict with the right of a priest to concelebrate on this day. However, since the priest possesses this right in virtue of the law itself, he cannot be denied the right to concelebrate at the Masses of Holy Thursday.

The next group of Masses at which one may concelebrate are those at councils, episcopal conferences and Synods. Here again, the faculty is extended by the law itself and no permission is necessary.

There are various types of councils and synods mentioned in the Code; namely ecumenical,[221] plenary[222] provincial[223] and diocesan synods.[224]

The term “Meeting of bishops”[225] is a broad term. It includes, first of all, the meetings of episcopal conferences defined in Article 38 of the Decree concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops.

 An episcopal conference is a kind of council in which the bishops of a given nation or territory jointly exercise their pastoral office to promote the greater good which the Church offers mankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate which are fittingly adapted to the circumstances of the age.

Secondly, the term “meetings of bishops” includes the provincial conference of canon 292 at which the bishops of a province gather every five years to deliberate concerning the affairs of their dioceses. As a matter of fact, since there is no restriction placed on the term by the Ritus, concelebrations may take place ipso iure at the Mass in connection with any meeting of bishops.

Those who participate in these synods, conferences and councils are designated in the law and may concelebrate the Masses celebrated in connection with these meetings.[226] The Masses at councils and synods are those mentioned in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and the Pontificale Romanum.[227] These conciliar or synodal Masses are the ones to which the faculty to concelebrate has been attached. The traditional community Mass remains as an alternative to the consecratory concelebrated Mass,[228] yet here too the individual participant is enabled ipso iure to concelebrate and may exercise that right without permission.

It would not have been surprising if some of the other great feasts of the Church (Christmas, Pentecost and Easter) were listed among those when concelebration is allowed by the law itself.[229] However, for the present, the concelebration of Masses on these days has been left to the permission of ordinaries and certain major superiors.

The Mass for the consecration of a bishop and the ordination of priests is not included in the list when concelebration is allowed without permission. However, the rubrics of these Masses already required those who were ordained and the one who consecrated to concelebrate.[230] There is, therefore, no need of an extension in these cases.

This was not true at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot. The new abbot, as a matter of fact, was to say all the canon with the exception of the words of consecration. Otherwise, in most respects, the Mass for the blessing of an abbot was very similar to that for the consecration of a bishop. Now the similarity has been extended. The Mass for the blessing of an abbot is a concelebrated Mass in virtue of Article 57 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, number 1 of the Ritus, as well as number 133 of the Ritus which requires that the Mass at which the abbot is blessed be ordered according to the norms for concelebration, thus including the abbot among the concelebrants.

The concelebration of these three forms of Mass, therefore, not only requires no permission, but obliges the following to concelebrate: the consecrating and consecrated bishops, the blessing bishop and the newly blessed abbot, the ordaining bishop and the newly ordained priests.

The Ritus makes provisions for those who may concelebrate at these three Masses without further permission:

At the consecration of a bishop it is extremely fitting that the co-consecrators concelebrate the Mass with the consecrating bishop and the newly consecrated bishop. Similarly, at the blessing of an abbot, it is expedient for the assisting abbots  to concelebrate the mass with the bishop and the blessed abbot. At the ordination of priests, all the new priests must concelebrate with the bishop. In all of these cases, the principal celebrating bishop can admit the others to concelebration.[231]

According to this norm, at the consecration of a bishop, it is extremely fitting that the co-consecrators concelebrate. This is obvious, in the light of their constitution as members of the episcopal body[232] and their participation in the one Priesthood of Christ.[233] This norm of the Ritus, however, is exhortatory and not obligatory. On the other hand, since the law itself urges concelebration, the co-consecrators may not be prevented by the principal celebrant from so doing.

Similarly, those abbots who assist at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot are also urged to concelebrate. Here, too, the norm is exhortatory and not obligatory, but those who wish to concelebrate may not be prevented from concelebrating.

The same exhortations to concelebrate are not made for priests who attend ordinations. This can be partially understood in the light of the great numbers of priests who attend ordinations. The concelebration might thus become impossible or undignified. However, the principal celebrant is empowered to admit assisting priests to concelebrate at the Mass of ordination. And again, in the light of the participation of these assisting priests in the act of the imposition of hands, it would be most fitting for the ordaining bishop to invite them to participate in the concelebration of the Mass. The sign of the unicity of the Priesthood of Christ, as in the case of the consecration of a bishop, would be greatly enhanced.[234] It should be noted that at all of these Masses, the right to admit others besides the consecrators and assisting abbots to the concelebration is given to the principal celebrant, whether he is the local ordinary or not.

2.     Praeteres, accedente licentia Ordinarii, cuius est de opportunitate concelebrationis iudicare.

 Moreover, with the permission of the ordinary, whose place it is to judge concerning the suitability of concelebration, the faculty is extended.

The term ordinarius is defined in canon 198. It includes the residential bishop for his own territory, the abbot and prelate nullius for their respective territories, their vicars general, apostolic administrators, vicars apostolic, prefects apostolic, those who take the place of the foregoing either by the prescriptions of law or by Constitutions, and, for their subjects, major superiors of exempt clerical institutes.[235] These ordinaries are empowered by number 1 of the Ritus to grant permission for concelebration.

a) Ad Missam conventualem et ad Missam principalem in ecclesiis et oratoriis, cum utilitas Christi fidelium singularem celebrationem omnium sacerdotum praesentium non postulat;

b) Ad Missas in conventibus cuiusvis generis sacerdotum tum saecularium tum religiosorum.

a) The faculty is extended to the conventual Mass and the principal Mass in churches and oratories when the need of the faithful does not demand the singular celebration of each priest present;

b) To Masses at priests’ gatherings of any type, of both secular and religious priests.

The Ritus then lists the occasions on which permission to concelebrate may be granted. The first group of Masses included in this general classification are the main, chief, or principal Masses. Specifically, the Ritus enumerates the conventual Mass and the principal Mass of the day.

The conventual Mass is that mass which must be celebrated daily in conjunction with the Divine Office by those who are bound by church law to the choral recitation of the Office. It is usually to be said after Terce.[236] Analogously, the principal Mass is that Mass which is considered the chief Mass in any church or oratory.[237] Thus, it could be the chief parish Mass on a Sunday or weekday; the community Mass in houses of religious not bound to choir.[238] In seminaries it would be the daily community Mass and the sung Mass on Sundays and feast days.[239]

According to the Ritus, concelebration may take place with the permission of the ordinary and designated major superiors at any type of gathering of priests. Included here would be any assembly of bishops not mentioned in the preceding section of the Ritus. Furthermore, this gathering is obviously something other than the assembly that occurs for the principal Mass. These occasions have already been acknowledged in the law.

What is indicated here is the Mass that is said in connection with any meeting of priests for any purpose. The minimum number of priests is two.[240] It would be difficult to imagine a Mass (other than the principal Mass of the day) being arranged in connection with a meeting of two priests. However, it could happen that a regular meeting of priests has been scheduled with the permission of the ordinary or major superior, and the Mass is concelebrated in connection with that meeting. If in such a case only two priests arrived at the meeting, they could still concelebrate.

The nature of these gatherings is undetermined, and therefore a great variety of opportunities exists: Masses scheduled in connection with clerical conferences, class reunions, days of recollection, educational or professional workshops; Masses for the opening of the school year; votive Masses on special occasions.[241]

These votive Masses on special occasions would include Masses at the dedication of a church, Masses at Eucharistic Congresses, Masses at Forty Hours.[242]

The Singular Mass

Salva tamen semper sit cuique sacerdoti facultas Missam singularem celebrandi, non vero eodem tempore in eadem ecclesia, nec Feria V in Cena Domini (Const. de Sacra Liturgia, Art. 57).

Nonetheless, the faculty of each priest to celebrate a singular Mass is always to be safeguarded; not however, if the Masses are at the same time in the same church, nor on Holy Thursday.

The Ritus next repeats the principle of freedom established by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in Article 57. The facility to celebrate a Mass individually is always present, with two exceptions. The first is holy Thursday, when a priest must either concelebrate or assist at the Mass (non-consecratory concelebration). The second restriction on a priest’s right to celebrate individually is that he may not do so at the same time that a Mass is being concelebrated in the church where he wishes to celebrate. Thus, in all of these cases where the faculty to concelebrate has been extended without obligation and with exception of Holy Thursday, the Ritus provides for the right of priests to celebrate a singular Mass.[243] Should they be present on the occasion when Mass is to be concelebrated, they may exercise this freedom by not concelebrating and by celebrating individually to the extent the law allows.

In his recent encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI discussed the right of every priest to celebrate Mass individually. He showed concern for erroneous value judgments relative to communal Masses, Masses celebrated in private, and the public and social nature of every Mass.[244]

It is not allowable to emphasize what is called the “communal” Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private.

Even though a priest should offer Mass in private, that Mass is not something private; it is an act of Christ and of the Church…Hence, although the very nature of the action renders most appropriate the active participation of many of the faithful in the celebration, nevertheless that Mass is to be fully approved which, in conformity with the prescriptions and lawful traditions of the Church, a priest for a sufficient reason offers in private, that is, in the presence of no one except his server.[245]

Pope Paul is clarifying and emphasizing the social nature of any celebration of Mass. His primary interest (as was Pius XII’s when speaking of the same subject)[246] was to correct the tendency to consider the privately celebrated Mass as an inferior action of its very nature and to consider the communal celebration as the only valid form for the celebration of the Eucharist. In view of this, the Ritus upholds the right of each priest to celebrate individually.

Similarly, Article 13 of the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued by the Second Vatican Council, contains the following exhortation:

For this reason, priests are strongly urged to celebrate Mass every day, for even if the faithful are unable to be present, it is an act of Christ and the Church.

Given the inherent value of the Mass celebrated in private, however, there is a definite preference for communal celebrations evidenced in the documents of the Church. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy contains the clearest statement on this point, specifically Article 27:

It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

This applies with special force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature. That priests should learn to develop this preference for the communal celebration of the Sacred Liturgy is very obvious when considered in the light of their role as those who foster and build the Christian community by means of the Eucharist:

 No Christian community . . . can be built up unless it has its basis and center in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. Here, therefore, all education in the spirit of community must originate.[247]

Because of the communal, sacerdotal and eucharistic characteristics of the feast of Holy Thursday, therefore, and specifically because of the rubrics of the liturgical books, the individual celebration of Mass on Holy Thursday is forbidden by the Constitution on the Liturgy and by the Ritus. Similarly, inasmuch as the concelebrated Mass signifies so suitably the unity of the people of God, it would be unfitting for a priest to celebrate individually at the same time a Mass is being concelebrated in the Church.

This paragraph of the Ritus, concerning the individual celebration of Mass while a concelebration is taking place does not forbid the simultaneous celebration of individual Masses in the same church. The wording of the Ritus could be interpreted as forbidding just that if it were read out of its context. However, since it does appear among the norms for concelebration, it must be considered as referring to concelebration and not simultaneous celebrations of individual Masses. Since there does not seem to be any general legislation prohibiting such a practice, it would seem strange to find the prohibition appearing here for the first time.

On Concelebration Each Day

2. Ut unitas sacerdotii opportune manifestetur, concelebratio semel tantum in die in qualibet ecclesia et in quolibet oratorio permittitur. Ubi tamen magnus habetur numerus sacerdotum, Ordinarius vel Superior maior, de quo in numero sequenti, concedere potest ut concelebratio etiam pluries in eodem die fiat, sed temporibus successivis.

2. In order to suitably manifest the unity of the priesthood, concelebration is permitted only once a day in any church or any oratory. Nevertheless, where there is a great number of priests, the ordinary or the major superior who is mentioned in the following number is enabled to allow concelebration to occur repeatedly on the same day, but at successive times.

Finally, in the section of the Ritus dealing with the extension of the ability to concelebrate, the norm is established that there be only one concelebration each day in any church or oratory. This is in keeping with an ancient norm of the Church allowing only one sacrifice at each altar, thereby signifying the unicity of the sacrifice and the priesthood of Christ as well as the union of the people of God around their bishop.[248] Since the physical situation of the altar, sanctuary or church may not accommodate the number of priests who wish to concelebrate, the ordinary and designated major superior can allow concelebration to take place several times during the day, but, at successive times. For as in the case of a priest celebrating privately in the same Church during a concelebration, simultaneous concelebrations would cause a monstrous distortion of the sign of the unity of the Church at prayer.[249]

Concerning the Regulation of the Discipline of Concelebration

3. Episcopi est ad normam iuris concelebrationis disciplinam in sua dioecesi moderari, etiam in exemptorum ecclesiis et oratoriis semipublicis.

3. The bishop is to regulate the discipline of concelebration in his own diocese even in churches and in semi-public oratories of exempt religious.

The term episcopus applies strictly to residential bishops who are the ordinary and immediate pastors in the dioceses committed to their care.[250] Vicars and prefects apostolic, as well as abbots and prelates nullius rule over territories which are their own,[251] and at the same time are equated in the law to residential bishops.[252] Therefore, since the Ritus makes no provisions to the contrary, the norm given here for the regulation of concelebration by bishops applies to these persons also, and they exercise the same authority over concelebration in their territories as residential bishops do in theirs.

The authority which the bishop possesses is a regulatory power.[253] This is the same authority which is mentioned in Article 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and is in keeping with the role of the bishop as high priest of his flock.[254]

In general this power is described in Article 15 of the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops:

They should constantly exert themselves to have the faithful know and live the paschal mystery more deeply through the Eucharist…They should devote their labor to this end that all those who are committed to their care may be of one mind in prayer.

Specifically, then, with regard to concelebration, the bishop is to promote the practice in his territory according to the norms of the Ritus[255] and according to the general rubrical and liturgical norms of the Church or of the competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.[256] In keeping with these norms, he may extend or limit the practice of concelebration according to the needs of the faithful or their theological and spiritual formation.[257]

The regulatory power of the bishop extends to all the churches and oratories (public, semi-public and private) in his diocese, even to those of exempt religious.[258] Although canon 1261 upholds the authority of the ordinary over divine cult even for exempt religious,[259] his authority is more clearly defined here. For number 3 of the Ritus, by adding the words “even in churches and semi-public oratories of exempt religious,” changes the wording of Article 57 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to which it corresponds. Thus, the authority of the bishop over the liturgy in his diocese is defined in terms of his role as high priest of his flock.[260]

Est autem omnis Ordinarii et etiam superioris maioris Religionum clericalium non exemptarum et Societatum clericorum in communi viventium sine votis, de opportunitate concelebrationis iudicare atque licentiam in suis ecclesiis et oratoriis dare, necnon concelebrantium numerum, ad normam articuli sequentis, definire, si, attentis adiunctis id censuerit ad ritus dignitatem exigi.

Every ordinary, however, and major superior of non-exempt clerical religious as well as of societies of clerics living in common without vows is to judge concerning the suitability of concelebration and to give permission in his own churches and oratories, and to determine the number of concelebrants according to the norm of the following Article, if after a consideration of the circumstances he feels that this is necessary to preserve the dignity of the rite.

The first paragraph of number 3 of the Ritus refers to the power of the bishop. The second paragraph delineates the authority of all ordinaries, that is, the residential bishop as well as all the others named in canon 198.

The vicar general, in virtue of his office is competent in those jurisdictional matters which pertain to the bishop except for those things which the bishop reserves to himself or which require a special mandate.[261] The Ritus makes no provision for special mandates regarding the vicar-general’s authority over concelebration. Therefore, his authority depends on and is restricted by the bishop’s reservation or the general norms of law which govern the actions of the vicar general.[262]

To this broader group of persons, as well as to the major superiors of nonexempt clerical religious and of societies of clerics living in common without vows, the right to give permission for concelebration is granted.[263]

The Ritus clarifies and changes the norm established in Article 57 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The addition of the word oratories to number 1 of the Ritus only explains what had been the understanding of the Fathers of the Council, namely, that the permission to concelebrate could be given for oratories of every kind as well as for churches in the strict canonical definition of “church.”[264] By adding major superiors (of non-exempt clerical religious and societies of clerics living in common without vows) to those who may give permission in their churches and oratories, however, the Ritus changes and broadens the norm of Article 57 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.[265]

The authority of these ordinaries (including the residential bishops) and designated major superiors includes the judgment concerning the suitability of concelebration. This judment will be based primarily on the needs of the faithful[266] and their spiritual formation.[267] Depending on their judgment, they can then give or refrain from giving the necessary permission.

In virtue of this authority, the ordinaries and designated major superiors may grant permissions in general form or for specific cases. They may expressly refuse the permission according to the norms of law. However, they may not forbid the practice of concelebration when the law allows it without their permission. In such cases, however, they may assert the right to verify that the conditions required by law are being fulfilled, and if they are, no refusal may be made.[268]

Thus, the ordinary or designated major superiors could refuse to allow concelebration to take place if the norm of Article 34 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy were not being fulfilled. It is stated there that the liturgical rites should be within the people’s power of comprehension. It could happen that because of ignorance a concelebrated Mass would be very incomprehensible in certain areas. The condition of intelligibility would not exist, and the concelebration could be prohibited.It could also happen that the people might be deprived of the liturgical actions while priests celebrated Mass. In order to forestall this neglect of the faithful the ordinaries and designated major superiors could prohibit those priests from concelebrating even when the general law allows concelebration.

Finally, the ordinaries and designated major superiors have the authority to determine the number of concelebrants, to the degree that it is necessary, and according to the norm of the Ritus. The criterion on which they are to base their determination is the dignified celebration of this form of Mass.[269]

The Number of Concelebrants

4. Numerous concelebrantes, singulis in casibus, definiatur ratione habita tam ecclesiae quam altaris in quo fit concelebratio, ita ut concelebrantes circum altare stare possint, etsi omnes mensam altaris immediate non tangunt. Provideatur tamen ut sacer ritus a fidelibus bene conspici queat; quare opportunum erit ut concelebrantes circa latus altaris, quod versus populum respicit, non consistant.

4. In each case, after a consideration of both the church and the altar where concelebration is to take place, the number of concelebrants is determined in such a way that the concelebrants can stand around the altar, even though they do not all immediately touch the table of the altar. Nonetheless, it is to be provided that the sacred rite can be seen easily by the faithful. For this reason, it is insisted that the concelebrants should not stand in front of the side of the altar which faces the people.

In general, the principles here established are self-evident. However, the notion of standing around the altar should be clarified. The position of the priests around the altar is part of the sign of the unity of the college of priests. Therefore, this should be evident from the positioning of the concelebrants. In some churches (for instance, fan-shaped churches with no communion rail) it would be possible for some of a large number of priests to be placed in some of the pews near the altar, and still be intimately connected with the altar. However, as the Ritus provides, the size and the construction of the church will be the primary factor in determining the number of concelebrants.

The Ritus itself sets no numerical or proportional criteria for determining the number of concelebrants. Indirectly the minimal number of two priests concelebrating can be arrived at from the rubrics for the blessing of an abbot, the consecration of a bishop, or the ordination of a priest. For, in those situations the only ones obliged by the rubrics to concelebrate are the bishop and the one to be blessed, consecrated or ordained.[270] There is no way of arriving at a set maximum number of concelebrants. As has been said, the determination is to be made in consideration of the size of the altar, the sanctuary and the church, as well as the dignified and fruitful execution of the rite.

In order that the manifestation of the riches of Christ[271] might be affectively carried out, so that the faithful will be able to participate more intelligently and therefore more completely in the celebration, the concelebrants are directed not to stand between the faithful and the altar. In this way, the sacred rites will not be obscured from the faithful who assist.

The ordinary or designated major superior whose place it is to determine the number of concelebrants when necessary, has certain criteria to use in making the judgment. The Ritus establishes the dignified performance of the rite as one basis for deciding.[272]

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presents another norm:

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.[273]

Thus dignity, comprehension, and the physical plan of the Church and sanctuary must all be considered for a determining of the number of concelebrants.

Concerning the Rite to be Observed at Concelebration

6. Normae quae sequuntur servari debent quotiescumque Missa iuxta ritum romanum concelebratur; applicari autem debent, servatis de iure servandis, etiam ad alios ritus latinos.

6. The norms which follow must be observed whenever Mass is concelebrated according to the Roman rite. These norms must be applied as well to other Latin rites, all the prescriptions of law being observed.

7. Quilibet sacerdos ritus latini potest cum aliis sacerdotibus ritus latini concelebratre, etiamsi Missa alio ritu ac suo celebretur.[274]

7. Any priest of the Latin rite can concelebrate with other priests of the Latin rite can concelebrate with other priests of the Latin rite, even if the Mass is celebrated in a rite other than his own.

Number 6 of the Ritus establishes that each of the norms which follow are to be observed whenever concelebration takes place according to the Roman rite. Thus, the obligatory force of the subsequent norms is expressed. To the degree that these norms are preceptive, to that degree must they be observed.[275]

These norms are to be observed at all forms of concelebration. Thus, the Mass of Chrism, the evening Mass on Holy Thursday, the masses at Synods, Councils and Conferences of bishops, Masses at episcopal consecrations and ordinations to the priesthood when concelebrated, are all ordered according to the rites of the Mass contained in this Ritus.

With regard to the other Latin rites, however, this norm makes special provision. Non-Roman Latin rites are to apply these norms to their own rite for concelebration while preserving those parts of their own rite which are theirs by law.

Again, these non-Roman Latin rites are the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites, the rites of Braga and Lyons, and the monastic rites.[276] These rites the Church holds to be of equal right and dignity with the Roman rite and all the Oriental rites. Furthermore it wishes to preserve them and foster them. At the same time, it wishes that they be revised, where necessary, to increase their vigor and relevancy.[277] Evidently, from this prescription and that of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy all the liturgical books of the Latin rites are to be revised.[278]

In the case of concelebration the Ritus establishes the norms which are to appear in the liturgical books of the Roman rite. Then a clause is added providing for the application of those Roman rubrics to the non-Roman Latin rites. Those rites and ceremonies of the Mass which these other Latin rites possess (in virtue of legal custom, papal bulls, decrees and constitutions, or in their approved liturgical books) and which pertain strictly to themselves are to be retained. All the other rites and ceremonies are to be revised in accordance with the norms of the Ritus which follow.

This same mode of revision was expressed by Pope John XXIII in the motu proprio by which he promulgated the new rubrics for the missal and breviary.

We order that the new Code of the Rubrics for the Breviary and the Roman Missal be observed by all who follow the Roman rite from the first of January, 1961. Those who observe a different Latin rite are bound to conform themselves either to the new Code of Rubrics or to the new calendar, and to do this in all those things which are not strictly proper to their own rite.[279]

Here is the formulation of the general principle of ritual adaptation which appeared in the Ritus with specific application to concelebration. What belongs to the non-Roman Latin rites strictly and by law they retain. In everything else enacted here they must conform to the Roman liturgical law. Similarly what the non-Roman Latin rites possess in their forms of concelebration strictly and by law they must retain. To all remaining rites and ceremonies the norms of the Ritus for concelebration must be applied. The Ritus does, however, establish the norm for inter-ritual concelebrations within the latin rites. Thus an exception is made to the law of canon 818 in the Code that requires priests to celebrate Mass according to the rubrics of their own ritual. Any priest of any Latin rite may concelebrate at the Mass of any other priest of the Latin rite, all the other prescriptions of law regarding permission having been observed.

Joint inter-ritual liturgical actions are not something new. The rubrics for the breviary allow for inter-ritual recitation in choir or in common.[280] Now this inter-ritual celebration has been extended by law to concelebration. Furthermore, because of the similarities in the canons of Mass, the various rites lend themselves easily to concelebration.[281]

No provision is made in this Article for concelebration by priests of both Latin and Oriental rites. There are seventeen particular Oriental Catholic Churches, each with its own liturgy.[282] Because of this variety in the Oriental Churches themselves, and because of the general difference between the Latin Church and these particular Oriental Churches, the possibility of concelebration becomes very slight.[283]

However, Article 4 of the Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches calls for bishops of particular churches to strive to promote unity of action and to promote common tasks. Clerics and those who are in major orders are to be instructed in the various rites.Concelebration of the Eucharist, the sign of unity in the Church, would be a most suitable means for fostering this union. It is to be hoped, therefore, that in the future provisions will be made for such celebrations. Until now, however, the prescriptions of canon 818 of the Code of Canon Law are still in force for inter-ritual concelebration between Orientals and Latins.

In this connection a question could be raised concerning ecumenism. Since “concern for restoring unity pertains to the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike,”[284] the situation should very likely arise where concelebration between catholics and non-catholics is desired. The probability of such a thing happening seems less unreal in the light of the fact that many churches recognize in each other a share in the one priesthood of Christ and his unique redemptive sacrifice.[285]

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those whom he has regenerated and vivified into one body and newness of life – that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the revered tradition of the Church proclaim.[286]

Therefore, an objective toward which these ministers should strive is the concelebration of the Eucharist,

The chief manifestation of the Church in the unity of Sacrifice and Priesthood, at one act of thanksgiving.[287]

Concelebration could be used for the achieving of this absent communion, for according to the principles of the Decree on Ecumenism:

Common worship…may not be regarded as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. Such worship depends chiefly on two principles: it should signify the unity of the Church; it should provide a sharing in the means of grace.[288]

Common worship can be used as a means to establish unity. In the act of concelebration we have represented that very unity toward which we strive, the Church surrounding the bishop, where all are one, even as Christ and the Father are one.

In any community existing around an altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop, there is manifested a symbol of that charity and ‘unity of the mystical Body without which there can be no salvation.’ In these communities…Christ is present. By virtue of Him the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church gathers together.[289]

Therefore, if an occasion arises in which unity with other Christians should be suitably exhibited, concelebration would be a means for exhibiting this unity. A good example of the possibilities for this would be the Orthodox Churches of the East.

 Although these churches are separated from us, they possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in a very close relationship. Therefore, given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, some worship in common is not merely possible, but is recommended.[290]

Concerning the Exclusion of Concelebrants after the Beginning of Mass

8. Nemo, quacumque ex causa ad concelebrandum admittatur missa iam incepta.

8. No one is to be admitted as a concelebrant for any cause whatsoever once the Mass has already begun.

This Article is self-explanatory. It assures that the concelebrated Mass will be carried out in a dignified manner. But one may ask at what point the Mass is said to have begun. The Ritus gives an indication in the section entitled De Initio Missae under each of the titles. In each case, the procession or movement to the altar is described.[291] Therefore, once this procession has begun, no other priest may be admitted to those who will concelebrate.

If a priest should have the misfortune of having to leave before the Mass is completed, although he may not have celebrated Mass, the Mass will have been celebrated. It would not be obligatory for him, therefore, to continue a Mass from the point at which he left the celebration, nor would the directions of the Missale Romanum be applicable.[292]

The Repetition of Concelebration

9 a) Qui, Feria V in Cena Domini Missam chrismatis celebravit aut concelebravit, etiam Missam vespertinam celebrare aut concelebrare potest.

b) Qui Missam primam in nocte Paschatis celebravit aut concelebravit potest secundam Missam Paschatis celebrare aut concelebrare.

c) In Nativitate Domini, dummodo suo tempore celebrentur, omnes sacerdotes tres missas concelebrare possunt.

d) Qui in Synodo, in Visitatione pastorali aut in coetibus sacerdotum cum Episcopo vel eius delegato concelebrat, alteram Missam in casibus, qui concelebrat non potest alteram Missam eodem die celebrare.

9 a) Whoever celebrates or concelebrates the Mass of Chrism on Holy Thursday can also celebrate or concelebrate the evening Mass on that day.

b) Whoever celebrates or concelebrates the Vigil Mass for Easter can celebrate or concelebrate a second Mass on Easter Sunday.

c) On Christmas, all priests can concelebrate three Masses as long as they are celebrated at the appropriate time.

d) Whoever concelebrates at a Synod, at a Mass on the occasion of a pastoral visitation, or in a group of priests with the bishop or his delegate, can also concelebrate a second mass if that same bishop judges it necessary for the faithful. In other cases, whoever concelebrates cannot celebrate another Mass that same day.

According to the general law of the Church, each priest is allowed to celebrate only one Mass each day.[293] The Mass normally celebrated is the Mass of the Office of that day.[294] Thus, the offering of Christian and the sanctification of the day ideally consist in the celebration of the Mass and office of the day by the bishop (pastor, priest) and his people.[295] Although the Mass connected with the office is not to be repeated, this norm for procedure is not followed, for various reasons, on certain days. On particular days the Church’s worship may be constructed of elements which once were part of a complete independent celebration themselves. Thus, the three Masses of Christmas are each a liturgical celebration which is a unit in itself.[296] Therefore, on that day, priests have traditionally been allowed to celebrate more than one Mass without any permission.[297] Similarly, the Mass of Chrism, the evening Mass of Holy Thursday, the mass of the Paschal Vigil, and the Mass of Easter are all separate offices.[298] And, as at Christmas, whoever celebrated one of these Masses could also celebrate the other without obtaining permission. The bishop who celebrates the Mass of Chrism is allowed to celebrate the evening mass, according to the new order of Holy Week.[299] Bishops and priests who celebrate the Mass of the Paschal Vigil can celebrate the Mass of the Feast of Easter without permission.[300] Thus, the celebration of Masses connected with particular offices represent one exception to the norm of one eucharistic celebration each day.

Another exception occurs as a result of customs and privileges, namely, the celebration of three Masses on the day of the Commemoration of all Souls.[301] In this case, the triple celebration had its beginnings not in three distinct offices, but in a custom that arose in the Church at Aragon, and was eventually extended by Pope Benedict XV to the universal Church by his allowing the Mass of the office to be repeated three times.[302]

Another exception to the general rule of celebrating one Mass each day came about because of the needs of the faithful. Again, it was a case of allowing the Mass (a particular office) to be celebrated more than once. In some places, because of the lack of priests, the law regarding assistance at the eucharistic celebration on Sundays and holy days of obligation was becoming difficult to obey. Therefore, the bishop was empowered to allow more than one celebration by each priest on these days, thus facilitating compliance with the law.[303] A further concession was made by Pope Paul VI in 1963. In consequence of it the bishop could grant permission for the double or triple celebration of Mass on a given day. However, this faculty was granted not for the assurance of the faithful’s compliance with a law, but simply for a just cause, that is, the spiritual good of the faithful.[304]

Finally, the history of the celebration of the Mass has shown that for devotional or theological reasons the repetition of the celebration of the Mass of a particular office has taken place, as in the case of Leo III, who is said to have celebrated nine or ten times a day. Although this particular practice was suppressed by subsequent legislation, it is interesting in the light of a particular subsequent norm of the Ritus to see that devotion or theology was a basis for repeated celebration.[305]

It is thus seen that the normal regulation of one priest celebrating only one Mass each day has suffered exceptions because of the multiplicity of offices, the existence of custom, the extension of privileges, the good of the faithful and theologically centered devotion.

The various bases for a repetition of the celebration of Mass can give rise to a complex situation if Mass is repeated on a given day for different reasons. But, this has happened.

Priests who celebrate the solemn Mass of the Paschal Vigil at its proper hour…can celebrate the festive Mass of the Resurrection on Sunday. And if they should have an indult, they may do so two or three times.[306]

The result is that a priest with an indult to trinate could say four Masses on Easter; the Mass of the Vigil and the Mass of Easter in virtue of the norm of the Ordo (based on the difference in offices) and two more Masses on Easter Sunday in virtue of his faculty to trinate.

These same principles have been applied to the repetition of the celebration of Mass by a priest who concelebrates. The general norm is that whoever concelebrates cannot celebrate again on the same day. This is in keeping with the norm found in canon 806 and the rubrics. The celebration (concelebration or singular celebration) of the Mass is not to be repeated.

There are, however, exceptions to this norm and they are enumerated in the Ritus.

The first exception concerns the Masses of Holy Thursday. Whoever celebrates or concelebrates the Mass of the Chrism may celebrate or concelebrate the evening Mass. This exception is based on the fact that the Masses are two different offices. Therefore, although a priest is empowered by general law to concelebrate the evening Mass of Holy Thursday, he may not concelebrate the evening Mass and then say another evening Mass for a group of the faithful. He may, however, without the permission of the ordinary, concelebrate the Mass of Chrism and then concelebrate the evening Mass with the faithful. Furthermore, if the bishop has given permission for a priest to say the evening Mass twice in a Church,[307] that priest may concelebrate the Mass of Chrism, then say the evening mass in virtue of the distinction between the Masses, and he may say two of the latter in virtue of the permission received from the bishop. However, the permission to repeat the celebration of the evening Mass does not include the permission to concelebrate one of the evening Masses. Consequently, a priest could concelebrate the Mass of Chrism and then celebrate the evening Mass twice, although he could not concelebrate either of those evening Masses.

The next exception made is for the Masses of Easter. The priest who celebrates or concelebrates the Mass of the Paschal Vigil may celebrate or concelebrate the Mass for the Feast of Easter, because they are different offices. A priest, however, who has the permission of the bishop to binate or trinate may also use that permission to repeat the Mass of Easter for the good of the faithful. Here too, however, the permission to binate or trinate does not carry with it the permission to include a concelebration among the repeated Masses. Therefore, a priest who has concelebrated the Paschal Vigil may not concelebrate the Easter Mass and then repeat the celebration as sole celebrant for the faithful. He may however, concelebrate the Mass for Easter day if he is not going to repeat the celebration for the faithful.[308]

The third exception to the general norm of one concelebration by a priest on a given day is the celebration or concelebration of the three Masses at Christmas. These Masses must be celebrated at the times appointed in the rubrics for their celebration.

The last exception to the general norm is based on the nature of the episcopal office, so that there is a theological basis for the exception. Those who concelebrate with the bishop at the Mass in a Synod, or on the occasion of the pastoral visitation[309] or at priests’ gatherings where the bishop is present and celebrating[310] may repeat the celebration of the Eucharist that day as long as in the judgment of that same bishop the needs of the faithful demand it. Since the bishop is the principal celebrant at each of these Masses, the object of this norm is evidently to foster the unity between the bishop and his priests.

With their helpers, the priests and deacons, bishops have taken up the service of the community, presiding in the place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and officers of good order . . .

In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme high Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe . . .

Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop . . . Although priests do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, they are nevertheless united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity…

Let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him. And let the bishop regard his priests, who are his co-workers, as sons and friends, just as Christ called His disciples no longer servants but friends. All priests, both diocesan and religious, by reason of orders and ministry, are associated with this body of bishops . . . [311]

This being the basic teaching on the relationship of the bishop and the priest in the Christian community, it is no wonder that the celebration of the Eucharist may be repeated on a given day so that bishop and priests may celebrate together.

It should be noted here that the subject matter of this number of the Ritus is the repetition of celebrations, not the ability to concelebrate. Therefore, this number of the Ritus does not empower a priest to concelebrate at Christmas or Easter without the permission of the ordinary. It simply establishes the principles for the repetition of the celebration once concelebration (with the permission of the ordinary if necessary) has taken place.

It may be asked whether, in spite of the general law prohibiting the repeated celebration of Mass when one Mass has been or is to be concelebrated, the bishop could give permission for just such a thing to take place. Since the bishop has the power by law and faculty to allow the repeated celebration of Mass on a given day, he may grant this permission when the repeated Mass is to be concelebrated only if he is satisfied that the conditions of number 9d) of the Ritus are verified, namely, that the good of the faithful will be served, and that the principal celebrant is himself or his delegate.[312]

In this number of the Ritus the bishop is considered in his office of chief priest of the diocese. Under this heading, provision is made for the Mass to be celebrated by a delegate. Delegation involves the commitment of a power to one who does not have the power, a commitment certifiable by proof.[313] In the context of this number of the Ritus, the bishop is considered as the principal celebrant surrounded by his priests at a particular type of Mass. Therefore, the delegate is that person who has been commissioned by the bishop to act in his place at this celebration.

In making his judgment as to whether or not the permission for a second celebration should be given to a priest on these occasions, the bishop is given no criteria for the judgment save the needs of the faithful.

Concerning the Stipend

10. Singuli concelebrantes stipendium legitime percipere possunt ad norman iuris.

10. Each concelebrant can legitimately take a stipend according to the norms of law.

With this number of the Ritus the traditional teaching concerning stipends and concelebration is continued. Pope Benedict XIV had upheld the practice of accepting a stipend for concelebrating a Mass, since it was the accepted teaching of Suarez and Cardinal de Lugo.[314]

More than this, it was the accepted practice of the priests of the Oriental Church.[315] Peter Cardinal Gasparri repeated the accepted teaching.[316]

The Code of Canon Law made no specific mention of the taking of a stipend at a concelebrated Mass, but the commentators on the Code agreed that they could be taken.[317]

In the Ritus, no mention is made of the reason why the stipend may be accepted, and the only conditions placed on their acceptance are those which already exist in the law on stipends.[318]

The new Ritus, however, has affected a traditional theory which canonical authors had established as a basis for the acceptance of stipends at a concelebrated Mass. Authors cited the principle tot sacrificia quot sacerdotes and applied it to concelebration.[319]

They reasoned that since each priest said a Mass, he could therefore take the stipend. The Decretum Generale promulgating the Ritus destroys the validity of this application.

For, in this type of the celebration of Mass, many priests, in virtue of one and the same priesthood and in the person of the High Priest, act together with one will and one voice. They confect and offer the one Sacrifice in one sacramental act, and together they partake of that sacrifice.[320]

There are not as many sacrifices as there are priests, at a concelebrated Mass, and therefore the tot…quot theory cannot be the basis for the acceptance of the Mass stipend at a concelebration.[321]

Concerning the acceptance of a stipend at more than one Mass a day, the general law allows a stipend to be taken at each of the three Masses of Christmas.[322] Furthermore, stipends may be accepted for both the Paschal Vigil Mass and the Easter morning Mass.[323]The principle is established, therefore, that a stipend may be accepted for a Mass which is a distinct office or function, but may not be accepted if the Mass or office is repeated. On the basis of this principle, it would therefore be legitimate for a priest to accept a stipend when he concelebrates a Mass which is a specific office. However, he may not accept the stipend if he is repeating the celebration of a specific office.

Concerning Preliminary Instruction

11. Curent animarum pastores ut fideles qui concelebrationi intersunt, per aptam catechesim, de ipso ritu eiusque significatione opportune edoceantur.

11. Pastors of souls should take care that the faithful who are present at concelebration be suitably instructed concerning the rite and its signification.

The desire of the Church to guarantee the effective manifestation of the mysteries of Christ through liturgical actions is evident in its legislation. The Ordo for Holy Week, restored in 1955, is accompanied with an Instructio which concerns itself with the correct execution of this Ordo. The first heading in this Instruction is: Concerning the Pastoral and Ritual Preparation.[324] In it, the bishop and priests are committed to the office of instructing the people in the liturgical sense and pastoral nature of the restored rites. Specific instructions are given for each day of the Sacred Triduum, underscoring the dogmatic and pastoral characteristics contained in that day’s liturgy.

Similarly, the Pontificale Romanum contains rubrics for the pastoral preparation of the faithful in each of the major titles of Part II.[325]

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy expresses a desire for the faithful to take a full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit. Therefore, through the needed program of instruction, pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it in all their pastoral work.[326]

In keeping with this goal, the Ritus contains the principle that the faithful are to be instructed in the rite of concelebration.

This duty is committed to the pastors of souls, that is, the bishops[327] and pastors who care for parts of the diocese in their own name.[328] According to the wording of the Ritus, the responsibility to instruct the faithful is that of the pastors of souls, namely, the bishops and pastors of parishes. To the degree that other persons share in these offices, to that degree is the responsibility theirs also.[329]

The nature of this instruction will depend on the liturgical formation the faithful and the clergy possess, and can be done in innumerable ways: in schools, workshops, clerical conferences, study clubs.[330]

The instruction should be both remote and proximate. Remotely the Christian people must be prepared by instruction for attending concelebrated Masses. They must come to understand the historical background to the rite, its place in the Church’s liturgy, its sacramental value. Proximately, they must be helped during the Mass itself to participate fully, actively and consciously. This can be done by making the actions of the concelebrants visible as prescribed by number 4 of the Ritus and by the use of commentators, who, in the words of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy “exercise a genuine liturgical ministry.”[331]

Section 2. General Norms

12. Omnes concelebrantes sacros vestes induere debent, quos sumere tenentur, cum Missam soli celebrant. Episcopi tamen concelebrantes tantum amictum, albam, cingulum, crucem pectoralem, stolam, casulam, manipulum et mitram sumunt. Sacrae vestes eius coloris sint qui Missae convenit. Attamen, retento colore Missae proprio pro celebrante principali, concelebratnes possunt pro necessitate colorem album, exceptis Missis defunctorum, adhibere. In casibus peculiaribus, res Apostolicae Sedi proponatur.

12. All the concelebrants must wear the sacred vestments which they are bound to wear whenever they are the sole celebrant at Mass. Concelebrating bishops, nevertheless, may wear simply the amice, alb, cincture, pectoral cross, stole, chasuble, maniple, and miter. The sacred vestments are to be of the color which is proper to the Mass. Nevertheless, while the principal celebrant must wear the color proper to the Mass, the concelebrants can wear white, if necessary, except at Masses for the deceased. In particular cases, the matter is to be referred to the Holy See.

The wearing of the vestments at Mass clearly sets off the presbyterate from the rest of the faithful. For this reason, the concelebrants are directed to follow the usual regulations for dress at Mass.[332] However, this wording of the Ritus adapts the prescription of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum concerning the vestments worn at a Mass. Whenever a bishop concelebrates Mass, he wears only the amice, alb, cincture, pectoral cross, stole, chasuble, maniple, and miter. The dalmatic and tunicle are not included.[333]

If it should happen that vestments of the same color or style to accommodate all the concelebrants are not available in sufficient number, provision is made for the wearing of white vestments by the concelebrants. However, the principal celebrant is always to wear the color proper for the Mass. Furthermore, the norms for the color proper in the Mass for the deceased are to be observed by all the celebrants; white, therefore, may not be worn at such Masses.[334]

Prior to the restoration of the Ritus it had been suggested that the concelebrants (with the exception of the principal celebrant) not wear the normal Mass vestments, but something more simple, for example, merely the alb and the stole.[335]

Although this suggestion was not adopted in the restoration, the opportunity was left open for obtaining further permission in this regard upon recourse to the Holy See. It is evident, therefore, that the possibility of such a permission being granted has not been precluded.

The Principal Celebrant

13. Celebrants principalis, nisi aliter in sequentibus rubricis notetur, omnes ritus perficit omnesque preces dicit, quae ipse de more, iuxta varias Missae formas, peragere et dicere debet quando solus celebrat. Proinde se inclinat, genuflectit, altare osculatur, signat oblata et alios gestus facit prout in rubricis habetur. Bene autem attendat ut orationes, quas simul cum aliis concelebrantibus cantare vel dicere debet, distincte et altius quam ceteri concelebrantes proferat, ita ut omnes singula cum ipso simul dicere possint, praesertim autem erba consecrationis, quae ab omnibus et eodem momento proferenda sunt, quamvis sufficiat unio verborum moralis.

13. Unless it is otherwise noted in the following rubrics, the principal celebrant performs all the rites and says all the words which he must perform and say when he is the sole celebrant, according to the various forms of the Mass. Therefore, he bows, genuflects, kisses the altar, signs the offerings and performs the other gestures as prescribed in the rubrics. He will diligently strive to pronounce clearly and in a louder voice than the other concelebrants the prayers which he must sing or say with the other concelebrants. He is to do this in such a way that all can say each word together with him, especially the words of consecration, which are to be pronounced by everyone and at the same time, even though a moral union of the words suffices.

Historically and theologically, concelebration is an episcopally oriented liturgical rite. Concelebration developed in the context of the local bishop surrounded by his clergy and people. Early legislation concerning eucharistic celebrations invariably spoke of a bishop, or at least of bishops and priests. Later in the Ordines the practice was spoken of as occurring around the pontiff. As a matter of fact, at the point in history when the practice of concelebration was reduced to its minimum, the two occasions when it was allowed involved the bishop as the principal celebrant.[336]

Theologically, concelebration is episcopally oriented. The concelebrated Mass, in the words of the Decretum Generale, especially if the bishop is present, is truly the chief manifestation of the Church.[337] Therefore, whenever the principal celebrant is not a bishop, at least he stands in the place of the bishop in a sacramental way.[338] As a result the principal celebrant is to be a true leader of the flock at the concelebrated Mass. He is to be effective in leading the presbyterate and the laity in the eucharistic celebration. The rubrics of number 13 of the Ritus are established in order to enable him to carry out his office.

The principal celebrant, therefore, carries out all the actions which he would perform if he were the sole priest celebrant. As the leader, he must say all the prayers loud enough so that those who follow him or pray with him can do so intelligently. As a result the prayers must be read in a dignified and intelligible way. This is true of the words of consecration.

In this connection, the Ritus clarifies another historical problem connected with concelebration. Quite often the problem arose concerning the pronunciation of the words of consecration by concelebrants before or after the principal celebrant had pronounced them.

The fears that one or another concelebrant might not consecrate the bread or wine should cease with the statement that a moral union of the words suffices for the consecration. That is, the concelebrant must intend to consecrate at the same time as the principal celebrant and to the best of his ability must speak the words of consecration together with the principal celebrant. For a practical approach, therefore, a normal alertness and diligence will reassure any concelebrant that he fulfills the minimal requirements for participating in this act.

Consequently, exaggerated pauses, startling prolongation of words, and excessive exploding of consonants are entirely unnecessary on the part of the principal celebrant or any of the concelebrants when reciting the words of consecration.

Although the Ritus does not mention it, the principal celebrant should also set the tone for the speed and intelligibility of the recital or chant in accordance with the narrative nature of the consecratory prayer of the Mass.

The Other Concelebrants

14. Ceteri vero concelebrantes eos tantum gestus et ritus perficiunt, qui ipsis expresse assignantur. Manus autem tunc tantum extendunt quando aliquas orationes manibus extensis proferendas aut cum celebrante principali aut soli elata voce dicunt; secus eas iunctas teneant. Item eas tantum orationes elata voce dicunt, quas aut soli aut una cum celebrante principali dicere debent; eas autem, quantum fieri potest, memoriter recitent, neque voce tam elata proferant ut ipsorum vox voci celebrantis principalis superimponatur. Orationes vero, quae ipsis expresse non committuntur dicendae, auscultent vel mentaliter dicant.

14. The other concelebrants perform only those gestures and rites which are expressly assigned to them. They extend their hands only when either with the principal celebrant or alone in a loud voice they say some prayers to be said with hands extended; otherwise, they must join their hands. Again, they say only those prayers out loud which they must say alone or with the principal celebrant. These prayers, however, they should say from memory insofar as it is possible, but they should not say them so loudly that their voice overpowers the voice of the principal celebrant. But the prayers which are not expressly committed to them to say they are to listen to or say mentally.

Article 14 presents the other side of the picture. The assisting concelebrants are to follow the lead of the principal celebrant as the presbyterate follows the bishop. They are to allow themselves to be directed, and are not to presume to take over, either by their actions, or by the loudness of their voice. They are to perform only the actions prescribed for them, either by the Ritus itself (numbers 39 and 40) or by the principal celebrant (numbers 29 and 40). The normal position of their hands is folded. They extend their hands only when they are reciting with the principal celebrant and the rubrics call for extended hands, or when they are praying alone and aloud a prayer to be said with hands extended. The only prayers they say aloud are those they are appointed to say alone and aloud, or those which the rubrics direct them to say aloud and with the principal celebrant. The Ritus suggests that the prayers they say aloud should be known by heart if this is possible. At all times, the voice of the principal celebrant is to be heard above that of the concelebrants.

The Ministers and Servers

15. Si quis sacerdos ministerio diaconi, vel diaconi assistentis, vel subdiaconi in Missa concelebrata fungitur, a concelebrando in eadem Missa abstineat. Diaconus autem et subdiaconus et diaconi assistentes sub utraque specie communicare possunt: quod, si sunt sacerdotes, facere possunt, etsi Missam iam celebraverunt vel celebraturi sunt.

16. Diaconus et subdiaconus et reliqui ministri et ministrantes attendant ne inter concelebrantes consistant, nisi quando eorum ministerium requiritur, secundum rubricas: quo facto, statim recedant.

15. If any priest functions in the ministry of the deacon, the assistant deacon, or the subdeacon at a concelebrated Mass, he is to abstain from concelebrating at the Mass. However, the deacon, subdeacon and assistant deacon can communicate under both species. If priests function in these ministries they can communicate under both species, even if they have celebrated or are going to celebrate another Mass.

16. The deacon, subdeacon, ministers and servers should take care not to stand among the concelebrants except when their services are required according to the rubrics. Once they have fulfilled their task, they should immediately stand back.

These two numbers treat of the place and activities of the lower orders of the hierarchy at a concelebrated Mass. There is to be a clear and evident distinction between the concelebrants and the assisting clerics and ministers. Thus, the deacon and subdeacon of the Mass, as well as chaplains and masters of ceremony are to stand apart from the concelebrants, except when their ministrations require the contrary.

The ministers mentioned specifically here are the deacon, the subdeacon, and the assistant deacons. The deacon and subdeacon are those ministers who usually function at a solemn Mass, including a pontifical Mass. The assistant deacons are those who are appointed in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum to attend the bishop during the liturgical services, in addition to the deacon and the subdeacon.[339]

Although properly these offices would be filled by those who are actually in the corresponding clerical orders, the Ritus makes provision for cases when priests will be assigned to these positions. The rubric states that when a priest functions as deacon or subdeacon at the Mass he is not to exercise the fullness of his priesthood and act as a concelebrant as well. To do so would not be compatible with his official ministries in the capacity of deacon or subdeacon.

In the case of the priest who functions as deacon, subdeacon, or assistant deacon, the rubrics say that he may receive Communion (under both species) at that Mass, even if he is to celebrate Mass later on or has already celebrated Mass.

This derogates from canon 857, which allows Communion to be received only once a day, except in danger of death or in danger or irreverence toward the blessed Sacrament.[340] The object of this law is simply the repetition of the reception of Communion, and has no bearing on the faculty to binate or trinate. Therefore, should a priest possess this faculty, he would not on that account be prevented from exercising it even though he has already received Communion under the circumstances presumed in number 15 of the Ritus. Furthermore, the sacred ministers who carry out their functions at two concelebrated Masses on one day are allowed to receive Communion under both species at each Mass.[341] Therefore, even though these ministrations are carried out by a priest, he may receive Communion under both species even if he has celebrated Mass, or is to celebrate a later Mass.[342]

In the case where one who is actually in the order of deacon or subdeacon performs the function proper to that order at a concelebrated Mass, he may receive Communion under both species ipso iure in virtue of number 15 of the Ritus. He is not subject, therefore, to the norm of number 1 of the new rite for the distribution of Communion under both species. The deacon and subdeacon mentioned in number 1 of the rite for Communion under both species are the ministers of a solemn or pontifical Mass, not of a concelebrated Mass, and therefore they need permission to receive Communion under both species,[343]

The Things Which Are to be Prepared

17. Praeter ea, quae iuxta cuiusque Missae formam, necessaria sunt, haec parentur:

a) Omnes vestes sacrae, quas celebrans principalis, iuxta varias Missae formas, sumere debet;

b) Amictus, alba, cingulum, manipulum, stola et casula pro singulis concelebrantibus;

c) Una hostia manga, vel plures, iuxta concelebrantium numerum, postea in particulas frangendae, et hostiae pro fidelium Communione. Si quando communio concelebrantium fit per intinctionem, provideatur ne hostiae sint nimis parvae aut nimis tenues, sed paulum solito spissiores, ut, sanguine partim intinctae, commode distribui possint;

d) Unus calix sufficientis magnitudinis; aut si talis haberi nequeat, etiam alter, ita ut sufficere possint ad Communionem omnium concelebrantium;

e) Bursa cum corporali, vel, si necesse est, cum pluribus corporalibus, palla et purificatorium pro calice, necnon alia purificatoria pro concelebrantibus.

f) Patenae pro concelebrantium Communione;

g) Calami argentei vel cochlearia argentea pro singulis concelebrantibus, et vas cum aqua ad ea purificanda, si sanguis calamo vel cochleari sumitur;

h) Libelli Ordinis Missae, si necessarii sunt, pro concelebrantibus;

i) Vas aut vasa cum aqua ad digitos abluendos;

j) Sedes seu scamna pro concelebrantibus, iuxta sedem celebrantis principalis, aut opportuniore loco in presbyterio.

17. Besides those things which are necessary for the Mass in any form, the following are to be prepared.

a) All the sacred vestments which the principal celebrant must wear according to the various forms of Mass;

b) An amice, alb, cincture, maniple, stole and chasuble for each of the concelebrants;

c) According to the number of concelebrants, one host large enough, or a number of hosts, to be broken into particles, and hosts for the Communion of the faithful. If the Communion of the concelebrants occurs by intinction it should be provided that the hosts are not excessively small or thin, but a little thicker than usual so that when they have been partially dipped in the precious Blood they can be easily distributed.

d) One chalice of sufficient size; or, if there is not one large enough, a second chalice, so that there will be enough for the Communion of all the concelebrants.

e) A burse with a corporal, or, if it is necessary, with many corporals, a pall and a purificator for the chalice, and purificators for the concelebrants;

f) A paten for the Communion of the concelebrants;

g) A silver straw or a silver spoon for each of the concelebrants and a dish with water for their purification if the precious Blood is taken by a straw or spoon;

h) Cards with the ordo of the Mass, if they are necessary, for the concelebrants;

i) A dish or dishes for the ablutions

j) Chairs or stools for the concelebrants next to the chair of the principal celebrant, or in a more suitable place in the Sanctuary.

These seventeen numbers contain all the preliminary remarks concerning the rite for concelebration. They are practical and at the same time they express a great deal of eucharistic theology. If they are understood and if they are followed in the spirit in which they are presented, they will ensure a satisfying, fruitful eucharistic experience for all who participate.

Article 3. Specific Forms of Concelebration

The next section of the Ritus deals with six different forms of concelebration and the ordo to be followed at Masses on the occasion of episcopal consecrations, blessings of abbots and ordinations to the priesthood. The directives contained under each title are quite specific and detailed, and, therefore, lie outside the scope of a canonical commentary. However, there are certain norms contained in the individual sections which deserve attention.

The Rite for a Pontifical Mass

This title of the Ritus gives the general norms for all pontifical Masses which are concelebrated.[344] Furthermore, the offertory, canon and communion of every concelebrated Mass are performed according to the rites described in this title for those parts of the Mass.[345]

One very noticeable characteristic of these norms is the frequency of directive (as opposed to preceptive) norms. For instance, the deacon is to go to the step at the foot of the altar to say the Munda cor meum “at a suitable time;”[346] if there is an offertory procession, the bishop is to be helped to receive the gifts if it is necessary;[347] the approach to the altar by the other concelebrants is made at the beginning of the offertory or before the prayer over the offerings, whichever seems more suitable;[348] and there is a variety of forms presented for the communion of the Mass.[349]

The prayers to be said by the concelebrants other than the principal concelebrant have been affected by the Ritus. Previously whenever concelebration took place according to the Roman rite (that is, at ordinations and consecrations) the concelebrants were required to say the offertory and all the Canon of the Mass.[350] Now, however, number of prayers to be said by all the concelebrants has been greatly reduced.[351]

The canon of a concelebrated mass can be either said or sung according to the rubrics of the Ritus. This is true whether the form of the Mass is pontifical, solemn, sung or recited. For the rubrics of the Canon state: “All the concelebrants, with their hands extended over the oblata, sing or say in a loud voice” and so forth.[352] This directive is repeated in the norm for the Canon given under the title of the Mass for the pontifical rite,[353] which, as has been stated, is the basic norm for every form of concelebrated Mass. The norms given under this title of the Rite for a missa lecta confirm the existence of this option. There the directive is given that at the offertory those things which are proper to a pontifical Mass or a sung Mass are to be omitted. The same directive is given for the communion rite of the Mass. However, the Canon is to be said according to the norms given for the Canon at a pontifical Mass, and no omission of the singing is mentioned.[354]

The kiss of peace may be given at every concelebrated Mass according to the rite described under the title of the rite for the pontifical Mass,[355] with the exception that at the read Mass it is to be given only to the concelebrants.

The Rite for a Solemn Mass

Under the next title of the Ritus are presented the norms for a concelebrated solemn Mass. Thus, at the offertory when all the concelebrants come to the altar, the principal celebrant goes up to the altar. The other concelebrants stand in plano during the offertory rites, and, if it is suitable, ascend to the altar before the prayer over the offering.[356] However, the procedure will be the same as described in similar norms for the concelebrated pontifical Mass and the concelebrated solemn Mass given here.

The Rite for a Sung Mass and a Recited Mass

The rubrics under these titles are few, and are generally the same as the preceding ones. There are a few minor differences besides the usual ones. The prayers at the foot of the altar are ordinarily said by the principal celebrant alone with the server while the people sing. If there is no singing, the principal celebrant may alternate these prayers with all who are present.[357]

It is fitting, say the rubrics, that the principal celebrant, the concelebrants and the faithful (if there are any present) recite or sing together all the parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to the people.[358] In the absence of lectors or servers, the readings may be performed by the concelebrants.[359]

The Rite for Concelebration at the Masses of Episcopal Consecration, The Blessing of an Abbot and Ordinations to the Priesthood.

The changes in these rites brought about by the new Ritus are extensive enough to warrant a comparative chart in the appendix. The major change is that the rites have been simplified. There are some significant specific changes. As was seen previously, attending priests, bishops and abbots can be concelebrants according to the norms of the Ritus. Furthermore, newly ordained priests follow the usual rites for a concelebrated Mass. Therefore, they assume the usual posture for concelebrants, and no longer kneel during the canon and they say fewer of the prayers of the mass than they once did. The newly blessed abbot now recites the words of consecration with the bishop.

The Rite of Concelebration for Priests Who Are Sick

I.         Normae Generales

140. Sacerdotes infirmi, dummodo non decumbant, cum alio sacerdote non infirmo concelebrare possunt, servatis sive ritu concelebrationis sive normis quae infra ponuntur.

141. Etiam sacerdotes caecutientes aut omnino caeci hoc ritu uti possunt.

142. Sacerdos celebrans principalis omnes sacras vestes de more induere debet. Sacerdotes autem infirmi eas, quantum fieri potest, induant; aut saltem albam aut cottam aut habitum choralem et stolam.

143. Sacerdotes infirmi circum altare, loco magis opportuno, disponantur, antequam celebrans principalis ad altare accedit, in sedibus ad hoc paratis. Qui autem licentiam habent sedendi durante celebratione, ea frui possunt etiam in concelebratione.

General Norms

140. As long as they are not bed-ridden, sick priests may concelebrate with another priest who is not sick, observing the rite of concelebration and the norms which appear below.

141. Furthermore, blind priests or those who are nearly blind can use this rite.

142. The priest who is the principal celebrant must wear all the sacred vestments customarily worn. The sick priests, however, shall wear them to the degree they are able. They shall at least wear an alb or a surplice or the choir dress and a stole.

143. The sick priests shall be arranged around the altar in a suitable fashion, in chairs prepared for them, before the principal celebrant comes to the altar. Those who have permission to sit during the celebration of Mass may use that permission in concelebration as well.

Demonstrating a truly pastoral attitude, the compilars of the rite for concelebration have included these norms among those restoring the rite. This rite may be used by sick priests. Although the partially blind or totally blind are mentioned specifically, the term “sick” is an elastic term and should therefore be interpreted broadly. The only sick priests who are not included in this group are the bed-ridden. In the first place, the rite itself excludes them. Furthermore, the saying of Mass in a bedroom is specifically and continually forbidden in legislation.[360]

According to the wording of this section taken it itself, sick priests do not seem to need the permission of the ordinary to concelebrate. Number 140 of the Ritus simply states that sick priests may concelebrate. No qualification is made requiring the permission of the ordinary. Sick priests must follow the rite for concelebration and the special norms included under this title.

In virtue of the Pastorale Munus, permission can be obtained for the celebration of Mass at any hour of the day, for saying Mass in a priest’s home, for saying Mass in a sitting posture. These faculties should make it easier to arrange concelebration for sick priests.

The directions concerning vestments are clear enough. This particular norm is noteworthy in that it indicates the willingness of the Holy See to allow the celebration of Mass, under certain conditions, without the usual requirements for vesting.

Conclusions

1. One very obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding pages is that, after a long period of practical obscurity, the rite of verbal, co-consecratory consecration has been effectively and extensively replaced into the liturgical life of the Church. Since the the thirteenth century the practice had undergone a slow but progressive decline, reaching its lowest point at the beginning of the twentieth century. Now, with comparatively startling speed, the rite has been restored with the hope that it will be widely practiced once again.

2. The new rite for concelebration continues the tradition of being episcopally centered. It is not primarily a device for easily accommodating large numbers of priests who wish to celebrate Mass. This is reflected by the fact that the first special section in the rite concerns pontifical Mass and is the prototype for all concelebrated Masses. The local bishop has the authority to regulate the practice in his diocese.

3. The new rite presents solutions for the problems that have historically been associated with concelebration. The decretum generale asserts, as does the conciliar Constitution, that the rite is valuable and has always been considered so in the practice of the Church; the decretum generale flatly states that at a concelebrated Mass there is only one Mass celebrated; number 10 of the Ritus upholds the right of each concelebrant to accept a stipend; number 13 establishes a moral union of the words of the consecrating concelebrants as sufficient for effecting the consecration. The theological questions concerning synchronized Masses and concelebration, or concerning the nature and role of stipends have thus been touched upon simply in a disciplinary, practical way.

4. The new rite of concelebration is a eucharistic celebration by the union of the Church; bishop, clergy and laity. As a matter of fact, the decretum generale and numbers 4 and 11 of the rite presume an intimate involvement of the laity in this liturgical practice. At the same time, it is a celebration of the union and unity of the priesthood.

5. The new rite for concelebration does not replace silent, non-consecratory eucharistic celebrations involving the bishop, the clergy, and the laity. Each form of celebration represents a specific aspect of the life of the Church, and each therefore retains its place in the prayer life of the Church.

6. The new rite for concelebration is made up of rubrical directions which show great variety and flexibility, with much less rigidity than rubrical norms presented previously. The emphasis is on the quality of the prayer rather than the rigid uniformity of the actions.

7. The new rite for concelebration does not forestall other developments in the practice.

————————————————

NOTES:

[1] See The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, AAS. 56 (1964), 97-!34, Art. 47.

[2] Acts 2:42.

[3] 1 Corinthians 10:17. For a further treatment of the realisation the early Christians had of the communal nature of the Eucharist, cf., for example, Josef A. Jungmann, Public Worship, a Survey (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1957), p. 10.

[4] Philip Hughes, A History of the Church (3 vols., New York: Sheed and Ward. 1947-1949), Vol. I, p. 70.

[5] "Die Dominica autem convenientes frangite panem et gratias agite, postquam delicta vestra confessi estis, ut sit mundum sacrificium vestrum...Constituite igitur vobis episcopos et diaconos dignos Domino....vobis enim ministrant...." Andreas Galante, Fontes Iurls Canonici Selecti: Didache (1906), 10-11.

[6] "Et petes eum tu, Episcope, ut adloquatur plebem tua, quoniam peregrinorum adloquium (et admonitio) iuvat admodum.... Et in gratia agenda ipse dicat; si autem...non velit, super calicem dicat.” -Didaskalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. ed. Franciscus Funk (2 vols, in 1, Paderbornae, 1905), Vol. I. Didaskalia II, 58, 3. The same type of courtesy was demanded by the Council of Arles in 314. Canon 20 reads: “De episcopis peregrinis qui in urbe solent venire placuit eis locum dare ut offerent."- Joannes Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (53 vols. in 60, Vol. II Florentiae, 1759), col: 473. Hereafter cited Mansi. For a commentary on this canon of the Didaskalia, cf. Michel Nicolan, "La concelebracion eucaristica," Salmanticensis, 8 (1961), 279-280.

[7] For a historical survey of the development of the distinction between episcopate and presbyterate, cf. Tomas Barberena, "Collegiality at Diocesan Level: The Western Presbyterate," Concilium, Theology in the Age of Renewal, 8 (Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist Press, 1965), pp. 19-32

[8] Cf. Gregory Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition (London, 1937), pp. 6-9

[9] Dix, op. cit., pp. 40-44.

[10] Mansi, I, 551. For the dates and inter-relationship of the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Constitutions cf. Barthold Altaner, Patrology (New York, Herder, 1961), pp. 57-59. Cf. also JH. Strawley, The Early History of the Liturgy (2.ed., London: Cambridge University Press, 1957), p. 68.

[11] Mansi, I, 539.

[12] Canon 8: "Pervenit ad sanctum Concilium, quod in locis quibusdam et civitatibus, presbyteros saoranenta a diaconis dentur: quod neque regula, neque consuetude tradidit; ut hi qui offerendi sacrificii non habent potestaten, his qui afferent, Christi corpus porrigant. Sed et illud innotuit, quod quidam Diaconi etiam ante episcopum sacramenta contingant. Haec omnia amputentur: et maneant diaconi intra propriam mensuram…Accipiant ergo Eucharistiam secundum ordinem post presbyteros ab Ipiscopo vel a presbytero." Mansi, II, 903-904. For a commentary on this canon, cf. I. M. Hanssens, "De Sacramentali Concelebratione extra Ordinationes,” Periodica da Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, 17 (1928), 117-119.

[13] Canon 33: "Episcopi vel presbyteri si causa visitandae ecclesiae ad alterius ecclesiam venerint, in gradu suo suscipiantur, et tam ad verbum faciendum quam ad oblationem consecrandam invitentur." - Mansi, III, 954. Cf. also Paul Tihon, “De la concelebration eucharistique," Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 86 (1964), 582 and note 15. Hereafter cited Tihon, "concelebration.”

[14] “Crastina, post susceptas et publice lectas imperiales ac Patriarchales meae confirmationis litteras die Missas celebravimus canes simul et post Missas manus injicientes incluserunt me. Stephanus presbyter meus fuit. Quatuor annis Missas mecum celebrabat, mecum communicabat, et communicabat a me tamquam ab episcopo. Et ipsa die qua recluserunt me simul communicavimus et arripuit me." - Christianus Lupus, Synodorum Generalium ac Provincialium Decreta et Canones (12 vols., Venetiis,1724-1726) II, 287. Cf. also Mansi, VII, 280-285.

[15] Cf. Jean Carroll McGowan, Concelebration, Sign of Unity in the Church (Hew York: Herder, 1964, pp. 26-27, and 41-42. The author points here to some related institutions which were common practices by that time, namely, the custom of the fermentum and the practice of having only one Mass at one altar on any given day.

[16] Canon 15 reads: "Si quia ex presbyteris aut diaconis qui neque in elvitate neque in parochiis canonicus esse dignoscitur, sed in villulis habitans in oratoriis officio sancto deserviens, celebrat divina mysteria, festivitates praecipuas, domini natale, pascha, pentecosten, et si quae principales sunt reliquae solemnitates nullatenus alibi, nisi cum episcopo suo in civitate teneat. Quicumque etiam sunt cives natu maiores, pari modo in urbibus ad pontifices suos in praedictis festivitatibus veniant." - Mansi, VIII, 862.

[17] For a study of Dionysius Exiguus, cf. Berthold Altaner, Patrology. A short resume of his life is on p. 574 of his collections, p. 288 and of the source of the Canones Apostolorum. p. 59.

[18] "Si quis episcopus aut presbiter aut diaconus aut quilibet de sacerdotali catalogo facta oblatione non comnonicaverit, aut causam dicat, et si rationabilis fuerit veniam consequatur aut, si non dixerit, communione priuetur, tamquam qui populo causa laeslonis existerlt suspicionem faciens de eo qui sacrificavit, quod non recte obtulerit." Adolph Strewe, Die Canonossannlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion (Berlin: Gruyter, I961), p. 5.

[19] To go beyond this and to say that consecratory (verbal or silent) concelebration existed in the early Church would seem to draw much more from the existing evidence than is actually there. Cf* for example* Nicolan. "La concelebracion." Salmanticences. 8 (1961), 280.

[20] Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Catholic Church (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1962), p. 66. Cf. also Hughes, A History of the Church. I, 57-80. Also, Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, Heresy and Orthodoxy (New York: Collier, 1962), pp. 193, 199, 202, 205, etc.

[21] Jungmann, Public Worship, p. 23.

[22] Ibid., pp. 25-27. Cf. also Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Age (4 vols., Louvain, 1931-1956), II, xlvi. Hereafter cited Andreu, Ordines.

[23] "In diebus autem festis, id est Pascha, Pentecosten, Sancti Petri, natalis Domini, per has quatuor solemnitates habent colligendas presbyteri cardinales, unusquisque tenens corporalem in manu sua et venit archidiaconus et porregit unicuique eorum oblatas tres. Et, accedente pontifice ad altare, dextera levaqae circumdant altare, et simul cum lllo, canonem dicunt, tenentes oblatas in manibus, non super altare, ut vox pontificis valentius audiatur, et simul consecrant corpus et sanguinem Domini, sed tantum Pontifex facit super altare crucem dextra levaqae," - Andrieu, Ordines, II, 131. Cf. also, Tihon, Concelebration, NRT 86 (1964), 583, and note 27.

[24] Andrieu, Ordines II, 127.

[25] Andrieu, Ordines II, 138.

[26] "In Natale Domini, sive in aepyphania et in sabbato Sancto seu in Dominica Sancta, et in feria secunda, in ascensa Domini, et in Pentecosten vel in natale Sancti Petri et Sancti Pauli stant episcopi post pontifices inclinato capite, presbyteri vero, dextra levaque, et tenet unusquisque corporale in manu sua et dantur eis ab archidiacono oblatas duas ad unumquemque et dicit Pontifex canon ut audiatur ab eis et sanctificantur oblaciones quas tenet sicut et pontifex.” - Andrieu, Ordines II, 163.

[27] This action will be referred to from this point as verbal co-consecratory concelebration.

[28] For a concelebrated Mass of this period which gives no clue as to whether it is co-consecratory, cf. Andrieu, Ordines, Ill, 155, Ordo XVII.

[29] Tihon, "Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), 6. For a discussion of the terms used in reference to various types of concelebration, cf. Hendrick Menders, "Concelebration," Concilium, 2(1964), 145, and note 31.

[30] Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilrami, ed. Paulus Hinschius (Liepsiad, Reinpressio, 1963), p.70. For the date of this collection, cf. op. cit., pp. clxxxiii-cciii. Although there are many items in this collection whose authenticity is doubtful, it is not at all unlikely that the author was basing his statements on local practices and concepts. Cf., for example, ibid., p. ccxvii.

[31] "Consueverunt autem presbyteri cardinales Romanum circumstare pontificum, et cum eo pariter celebrare. Cumque consummatum est sacrificium de manu eius communionem recipere significantes apostolos, qui cum Dominus pariter discumbentes sacram de manu eius eucharistiam acceperunt, et in eo quod ipsi concelebrant, ostendunt apostolos tunc a Domino ritum huius sacrificii didicisse." - Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latinae (221 vols., Parisiis, 1844-l855), CCXVII, 873.

[32] C. 28, X, de electione et electi potestate. I, 6: "Ceteri vero, qui inter epistolam et evangelium consecrantur, quia consecrati concelebrent principaliter celebranti, ne dividatur mysterium unitatis, non debent tunc ordines celebrare." - Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, Pars II, Decretalium Collectiones. For a description of the letter of Innocent, see Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Augustus Potthast, 2 vols. (Gras, Reimpressio, 1957) I, 150, No. 1735.

[33] "Simul celebrant…sicut observatur quando presbyter ordinatur." - Hostiensis, Cardinalis Henricius de Segucio, In primum Decretalium Commentaria. 5 vols. in 3 (Venice, 1581) I, p. 55.

[34] "Et hoc est contra Anglicos, qui consecrati in alio altare celebrant ministerium de quo sequitur dividentes. Sed non…approbo…” - Loc. cit.

[35] “…ad verba aliorum concelebrantium conficietur." - Loc. cit.

[36] "Debeant tamen concelebrantes esse cauti ut in verbis consecrationis non praecedant principaliter celebrantem" - Loc. cit.

[37] "Quid enim si plures sacerdotes audiant missam in ecclesia et unus eorum profert verba Canonis cum intentione conficiendi, antequam proferantur a celebrante? Cum tamen primo proferens ad altare stet, nec indutus sacerdotalibus numquid dices ad verba sua fiat transubstantio? Utique ridiculosum videretur hoc sentire, cum et forma ecclesiae contraria sit generalis qua non servata nunquam est verum sacramentam." - Loc. cit.

[38] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Translated by English Dominican Province, 3 Vols. (New York: Bensiger, 1947), II, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 2.

[39] Pierre De Puniet, The Roman Pontifical, a History and Commentary (London: Longmans Green, 1932), pp. 33-36.

[40] "Omnes vero qui ordinati sunt oblationes deferant ad manus episcopi et ab eo postmodnm communicantur. Juxta morem vero romanae ecclesiae, presbiteri et diaconi cardinales quisque duos cereos dextra laevaque tenere debent accensos et duos panes in manutergio inter brachia sue positos quos simul cum ceteris post evangelium offerre debent Pontifici.” Michel Andrieu. Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Age (4 vols., Citto del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana l938-41), I, 137.

[41] "Lecto evangelio et cantato symbolo, eosdem cereos adhuc accensos et duos panes in manutergio positos inter brachia sua et ampullam vini, quam acolitus tenet super predictos panes, offert consecratori suo et rediens ad altare perficit Missam cum ipso.” Andrieu, Op. cit., I, 150-151.

[42] "Presbiteri vero et clerici caeteri hora tercia, induant se vestimentibus solemnibus et diaconi dalmaticis atqe subdiaconi albis sericis induantur. Et stent in ordine suo singuli in ecclesia, expectantes usquedum veniat dominus episcopus cum processione plenaria ad missam." - Andrieu, Op. cit., I, 219.

[43] "Qua oblatione facta presbiteri vadant ad altare, ad standum a dextra et leva altaris cum missalibus suis et dicunt totum submissa voce, sicut si celebrarent.” Andrieu, Op. cit., II, 349.

[44] "Veniente autem pontifice post offertorium ad altare, consecratus qui celebranti consecratori concelebrare debet, accedat ad dextrum cornu altaris et ibi se collocet…Pontifex autem officium missae prosequitur ex more et, cum elevaverit vocem ad dicendam prephationem, consecratus submisse pronuntiat eadem verba et cetera legat et faciat que sequuntur in canone nissae usque ad communionem." - Ibid., p. 365

[45] Andrieu, op. cit., II, 460. Cf. also ibid., p. 545, where in an appendix Andrieu presented the “Ordo qualiter agendum sit feria quinta…ante Pascha ex Ordinario capellanorum Papae et e missale Romano s. XIII.”

[46] De Puniet stated that the Pontifical was published “about 1292”; of. De Puniet, pp. 37-38. Martimort says it was composed about 1294; of. A.G. Martimort, “Le Ritual de la Concelebration Eucharistique,” Ephemerides Liturgicae, 77 (1963), 162.

[47] Andrieu, Pontifical, III, p.v. De Puniet, speaking of the value and influence of Durandus’ pontifical stated: “The pontifical of Durandus…was acknowledged to be authoritative. It became the Liber Pontificalis par excellence.” De Puniet, Pontifical, pp. 40-41.

[48] “Et ordinati, si velint, habeant libros coram se dicentes tacite canonem et quequmque de missa dixerit ordinator.” Andrieu, Pontifical, III, 370-371.

[49] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), footnote 32, p. 584.

[50] Martimort, “Concelebration,” EL 77 (1963), 162.

[51] “Post hoc, paratis duabus hostiis, ad consecrandum, consecrator intrat secretam, consecrato ad dextrum cornu altaris, iunctis manibus, inter duos episcopos stante, et concelebrante et faciente signa et voce submissa dicente omnia quecumque fecerit et dixerit consecrator.” Andrieu, Pontifical, III, 387.

[52] “Consecratus, seu consecrati, stantes circa cornua altaris, sicut concelebrando missam steterunt, possunt ibidem stantes supra illud communicare.” Andrieu, op. cit., III, 388.

[53] “Secundum consuetudinem quarumdam ecclesiarum, sacerdotes, cum de novo ordinantur, concelebrant episcopo ordinanti.” Summa Theologica, III, 82, 2. Cf. also Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), 584.

[54] De Puniet stated: “The custom of concelebrating at the ordination Mass became widespread, thanks to the Pontifical of Durandus of Mende, and the Roman Pontifical adopted it from its first edition onwards. It joins hands across the ages with the usage of the early church…” - De Puniet, Pontifical, p. 228.

[55] Ibid., p. 41.

[56] Ibid., p. 45.

[57] Martimort, “Concelebration,” EL 77 (1963), 162.

[58] Ibid., pp. 47-48.

[59] H. J. Schreeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1941), p. 53.

[60] Supra, p. 38.

[61] De Puniet, Pontifical, pp. 49-51.

[62] Ibid., p. 50.

[63] Ibid., p. 51.

[64] Ibid., p. 52.

[65] “Secretas morose dicat ut Ordinati ad Sacerdotium possint illas cum eo dicere: debent enim ex consuetudine concelebrare, et etiam verba consecrationis proferre.” - Pontificale romanum, tit. II, de ordinibus conferendis; tit. III, de ordinatione presbyteri.

[66] “Deinde Consecrator…accedit ad altare, Consecratus etiam ad posterius coram Epistolae altaris eiusdem accedit; et ibi stans medius inter Episcopos assistentes ante se habens Missale suum, simul cum Consecratore dicit et facit omnia, prout in Missali. Et ponatur una hostia consecranda pro conserante et Consecrato, et vinum consecrandum in calice sufficiens pro utroque.” Pontificale Romanum, tit. XIII, de consecratione electi in episcopum.

[67] “...Abbas vero ante scabellum super quod coram se habeat Missale in loco convenienti, medius inter assistentes suos genuflexus, legit totam Missam, except verbis concecrationis, quae non proferet.” - Caeremoniale Episcoporum, in duos libros distributum, Clementis VIII et Innocentii X auctoritate recognitum a Benedicto XIII in multis correctum nunc vero primis commentariis illustratum ad SS. patrem Benedictus XIV pontificem Maximum, ed. Josephus Catatanus, (2 vols., Parisiis, 1860), I, 463. It is interesting to note that Catalanus (1698-1764) in his edition of the Pontifical made no mention of the history of this rubric or the reason for it. There is no indication in the Pontifical of Durandus of what rubrics should be followed by the Abbot during the Canon of the Mass. Cf. Andrieu, Pontifical, III, 408. Cf. also McGowan, Concelebration, p. 56, and Alphonse Honre, “Les Rites Concélébrés dans la Liturgie Latin Actualle,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), p. 58.

[68] Caeremoniale Episcoporum iussu Clementis VIII Pontificis Maximi novissime reformatum (Venetiis: Nicolai Misserimi, 1600) Liber I, Caput II.

[69] Ibid., Lib. II, Cap. VIII.

[70] Ibid., Cap. XXIX.

[71] Ibid., Cap. XVI.

[72] Ibid., cap. XXIII.

[73] Ibid., cap. XXXIV.

[74] Catalanus, I, cap. XI; II, cap. VIII, XVI, XXIII, XXIX, XXXIV.

[75] Infra, p. 47.

[76] “Quo studiosius autem religiosa sua solicitudine sanctissimaeque pietatis exemplis fidelium animos atque mentes ad religionis christianae officia episcopi inflamment; hoc etiam pro pastoralis officii munere curent, ut quibus diebus missarum solemnia in basilica cathedrali concelebrant; iisdem quod antiqui instituti consuetudinisque fuit, et vesperarum officium et matutinum solemni ritu ipsi obeant.” - Mansi, XXXIV, 249.

[77] “Missae sacrificium, cum solemniter, praeterquam pro mortuis, fit cui episcopus praesens adsit, canonici et aliqua illius ecclesiae dignitate praediti, quo tempore hymnus, Gloria in excelsis, et symbolum, item et alia eiusmodi canuntur ad episcopum ordine veniant in cuius conspectu corona facta tunc simul cum eo singulas illas missae partes dicant pro ceremoniarum ritu ac ratione.” - Loc. cit.

[78] “Etiamnum tamen hodie omnino in suae consecrationis die novellus Episcopus cum suo consecratore eamdem hostiam consecrat: Quod ipsum novellis presbyteris praescribit Romanum missale, et pleraque Ecclesiae servant.” - Lupus, Synodorum Generalium Decreta, II, 290.

[79] “Rem ipsam de qua nunc agimus in ecclesia catholica fuisse vulgatissimam, imo antiquitus ordinariam, et prope quotidianam in ecclesiis maioribus quae presbyteris abundabant; deinde pietate lapsu temporis deservescente, et canonica disciplina tepescente, ad dies festivos et solemnes contractam ex veteribus monumentis demonstrabimus.” - Joannes Morinus, Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus (Parisiis, 1655), III, 160.

[80] “Communis illa Missae celebratio, quae omnium clericorum ministrantium communioni semper conjungebatur erat proprie…communio ecclesiastica ab antiquis patribus tantopere celebrata qua clerici variis gradibus pro criminis perpetrati gravitate privabantur…Antiqui istius moris desuetudo, et ex desuetudinis ignorantia, occasionem dedit nonnullis scriptoribus in ipsum debacchandi, aliis offerentibus omnino tollendum esse, aliis periculosum admodum, aliis negantibus aliquando ab ecclesia usurpatum fuisse, et alio torquentibus quae supersunt illius vestigia. In eiusmodi absurda praecipites egi necesse est quotquot de ritibus ecclesiae inconsultis antiquis monumentis ex solo capitis sui genio disputant. Nonnulli adeo sunt propositi tenaces ut de antiqua consuetudine moniti et convicti eam negare cum non possint, malunt omnia sursum deorsum miscere, quam eam praesentibus ceremoniis non accommodare ita ut si ipsis credas, nihil umquam in ecclesia factum fuerit neque fieri potuerit nisi quod in ea quotidie fieri videmus…Ecclesiasticae ceremoniae aeternae non sunt. Variis de causis immutari possunt, atque etiam sola temporis vicissitudine antiquari. Nullum inde fidei periculum imminet. Frustra sudat et cum larvis acerrime luctatur, qui ut eiusmodi periculum avertat heret anxius et solicitus.” Ibid., p. 165.

[81] P. 137.

[82] “Fratres Ordinis S.S. Trinitatis Insularum Mojorcae in septem altaribus in capella rotunda erectis sub titulo septem mysteriorum dolorum Beatae Mariae Virginis et privilegio Apostolico pro defunctis decoratis septem Missas semel celebrant uno Sacerdote totum S. Canonem alta voce proferente ita ut alii celebrantes simul consecrent, simul elevent hostiam, et simul terminent Missam. S.C. resp. Aboleri dictum abusum. No. 1451 ad. 1; Junii, 13, 1643.” - Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum et actis eiusdem Collecta eiusque auctoritate promulgeta sub auspiciis S.S. Domini Nostri Leonis Papae XIII (5 vols., Romae, 1898-1901). Hereafter cited Decreta Authentica.

[83] “An presbyteri ordinandi ab initio vel solum a Suscipe Sancte Pater, etc. debeant inchoare Missam cum celebrante et ordinante Episcopo? Resp. Teneri solum a Suscipe Sancte Pater. No. 2404.”- Decreta Authentica II, p. 97.

[84] Opera Omnia Benedicti XIV in unum Corpus Collecta, 14 Tom in 7, Sumptibus Josephi Renondini, Antonii Sattae et filiorum, 1788, Tomus VIII, p. 230, para. 38. There did exist, however, at least one other instance of the practice of concelebration. This was the Holy Thursday celebration in the churches which followed the rite of Lyons. Eighteenth century visitors to that city witnessed practices of nonconsecratory concelebration, and contemporary rituals describe the co-consecratory concelebration which took place at the Mass of Holy Thursday, the archbishop celebrating the Mass with six concelebrants. - Cf. Denys Bruenner, L’Ancienne Liturgie Romaine, Le Rite Lyonnaise (Lyon: Vitte, 1934), pp. 243-280. Cf. also Pierre Martin, “Un survivance de la concelebration dans l’Eglise occidentale: la messe pontificale lyonnaise du jeudi saint,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 72-74, and Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1959), pp. 55-58; 75.

[85] Benedict XIV, T. VIII, p. 230, pars. 38.

[86] Opera Omnia VIII, De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, pp. 137-140.

[87] “De sacertotibus Graecis cum Episcopo celebrantibus, item de Sacerdotibus Latinis, qui cum suscipiunt ordinem, aut consecrantur Episcopi, pariter concelebrant, dudum verba fecimus. Excitatam nuperrime intelleximus quaestionem, an Sacerdotes Missam cum Episcopo celebrantes eleemosynam possint accipere, Missam ei applicando qui eleemosynam praebet. Cardinalis de Lugo diserte docet…quod si duo Sacerdotes simul consecrarent unam Hostiam, essent duae oblationes, et singuli possent applicare Missam pro diversis. Huic sententiae subscribere videtur Suares…P. La Croix…postquam sententiam eorum exposuit, qui putant recens ordinatos Missam iuxta intentionem Episcopi, qui celebrans est praecipuus applicare debere, ab hac discedit opinione, aitque ordinatum quidem non esse celebrantem praecipuum, sed tamen revera celebrare, nec ullam esse causam quamobrem illi adimi possit auctoritas applicandi Missam qui sibi libitum fuerit. Verum…rursus existimat, non licere Sacerdoti accipere eleemosynam; tum quia qui ellemosynam praebet, Missam solitam ad Altare postulat celebrari, tum quia in controversia positum est, an Sacerdos concelebrans consecrat, cum contingere possit, ut ultima Consecrationis verba pronunciet, postquam Episcopus eadem verba omnia pronunciaverit. Sed postremam hanc rationem nullius esse roboris dudum demonstravimus. Primae vero rationi similitudo inest aliqua veritatis: sed ex ea tamen inferri non potest Sacerdotes in Ecclesia Graeca concelebrantes non posse eleemosynam accipere, et Missam ei applicare qui eleemosynam praebet; praesertim vero si sacerdotalibus induti vestibus integram recitant Missam, consecrant, et consumant. Difficultas in eo tantum esse potest, an eleemosynam iis liceat accipere, qui usitatis induti vestibus Missae tantummodo adsunt, et Eucharistiam accipiunt, ut ex quodam responso intelligitur Gregorii XIII, quod commemorat P. Thomas a Jesu…quo casu prohibere non possint ab eleemosyna accipienda, modo eam non accipiant titulo applicationis Missae. In Ecclesia Occidentali, quando Sacerdotes cum Episcopo celebrabant, oblationum erant participes; oblationibus vero cum succeserit eleemosyna, facile intelligi potest, ubi etiamnum viget ritus concelebrationis, non posse concelebrantem privare iure suo accipiendi eleemosynam pro Missa ei applicanda qui eleemosynam praebet, quique praesertim probe est conscius, Sacerdotem eo modo Missam Episcopo concelebrare. Quod si aliter dicamus, Orientalis Ecclesiae Presbyteri eleemosyna plerumque carebunt.” - Benedict XIV, ibid., pp. 139-140. The omissions represent the page citations for the authors quoted.

[88] Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium 2 (1964), 136-137.

[89] Honre, “Les Rites Concelebres,” LMD 35 (1953), 56-71.

[90] Ibid., 64.

[91] Ibid., 62.

[92] Honre, “Les Rites Concelebres,” LMD 35 (1953), 62-63. Cf. also McGowan, Concelebration, pp. 54-66.

[93] “Christus D. fit praesens ad verba cujusque sacerdotis qui deinde de speciebus consecratis participat; non est igitur unum sacrificium quod ab omnibus una simul offertur, sed tot sunt sacrificia, quot sacerdotes consecrantes.” Gasparri, De Sanctissima Eucharistia (2 vols., Parisiis, 1897), I, no. 360.

[94] Ibid., no. 547.

[95] “Nam si una tantum ab omnibus celebraretur Missa, una quidem eleemosyna recipi posset, si pro solo oblatore omnes applicarent, aut unus tantum, aliis tamen nullatenus applicantibus; sed singluli sacerdotes, pro distinctis oblatoribus applicantes, non possent distinctam recipere eleemosynam, nisi de omnium oblatorum consensu, et est idem casus ac si idem sacerdos unico sacrificio pluribus eleemosynis satisfacere vellet;...E contrario, si quilibet sacerdos suam celebrat Missam, non apparet ratio qua pro eiusdem applicatione eleemosynam recipere non possit. Cum igitur recepta sententia sit in concelebratione tot celebrari Missas, quot sunt sacerdotes,...sequitur quemlibet sacerdotem liberam habere applicationem et pro ea stipendium posse recipere. Ita Benedictus XIV…” Loc. cit.

[96] Cf. Infra., p. 56. Cf. also McGowan, Concelebration, pp. 100-102.

[97] Codex Iuris Canonici, Pius X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti XV auctoritate promulgatus; Can. I, Hereafter cited CIC.

[98] CIC, Can. 2.

[99] CIC, Can. 803. Translation from John A. Abbo, and Jerome D. Hannan, The Sacred Canons (second revised edition, 2 vols., St. Louis: Herder, 1960), I, 796. Hereinafter cited Abbo-Hannan.

[100] Supra, pp. 24-25.

[101] Cf. Honre, “Les Rites Concelebres,” LMD 35 (1953), 61-71.

[102] The reader is again referred to Mander’s treatment of the various terms used with reference to concelebration. Cf. Concilium, 2 (1964), 145.

[103] CIC, Can. 862, Cf. Abbo-Hannan, I, 865.

[104] Although the Pontifical also directs that at the Mass opening a synod the bishop is to celebrate and the attending clerics are to receive Communion, this rubric did not find its way directly into the Code. Cf. Pontifical Romanum, III, Tit. V Ordo ad Synodum.

[105] CIC, Canons 412-414.

[106] Supra, p. 28. For a comment on the present situation relative to practice, to the Code, and to liturgical books, cf. Barbarena, “Collegiality,” Concilium 8 (1965), 27-32.

[107] Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, (8 vols., St. Louis: Herder, 1918-1921) IV, 128.

[108] Juan B. Ferreres, Derecho Sacramental (4. Ed., Barcelona, 1932), p. 65.

[109] Ibid., p. 218.

[110] Franciscus Wernz, and Petrus Vidal, Ius Canonicum (7 vols. In 8, Romae, 1923-1938), Vol. 4, sect. 1, p. 80.

[111] Felix M. Cappello, Tractatus Canonico Moralis De Sacramentis, 3 vols. In 5 (1. Ed., Romae, 1921-1935) II, 3, p. 523. The decrees cited by Cappello simply state that the newly ordained are to read (even if the bishop sings) the prayers of the Mass starting with the Suscipe Sancte Pater.

[112] Arthur Vermeersch, and J. Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici (3 vols., 6. ed., Romae,1937-1946), II p. 41. One citation pointed to an article by J.M. Hanssens, which appeared in Periodica. It should be noted that Hanssens did not equate the phrase “ceremonial concelebration” with “non-consecratory concelebration,” See, for instance, Manders, “Concelebration”, Concilium 2 (1964), 138-139.

[113] Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutionis Iuris Canonici de Sacramentis, (3 vols., Romae: Marrietti, 1943-1946), I, p. 146.

[114] Sylvius Romani, Institutiones Juris Canonici (2 vols. In 3, Romae, 1941-1945), II, 1, pp. 130-131.

[115] See Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium 2 (1964), 135-144, for an excellent bibliography for the first half of the twentieth century.

[116] AAS, 46 (1954), 668-670.

[117] Incidentally, the Pope uses the term “concelebration” to describe this form of Mass, but it is clear from the context that he is not referring to the same thing Benedict XIV was referring to when he used the term.

[118] “Quoad sacrificii Eucharistici oblationem, tot sunt actiones Christi summi Sacerdotis, quot sunt sacerdotes celebrantes, minime vero quot sunt sacerdotes Missam episcopi aut sacri presbyteri celebrantis pie audientes.” - AAS, ibid., p. 669.

[119] “Meme ai la consecration se deroule sans faste et dans la simplicite, elle est le point central de toute la liturgie du sacrifice, le point central de l’’actio Christi cuius personam gerit sacerdos celebrans’, ou les ‘sacerdotes concelebrantes’ en cas de vertable concelebration.” - AAS, 48 (1956), 717. For the translation, cf. The Assisi Papers (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1957), p. 229.

[120] “Consecration simultanae.” AAS, 48 (1956), 717. Although he used the term, the Pope later indicated by his condemnation of simultaneous Masses that the concept is not exact. Cf. infra, p. 56.

[121] “Il ne suffit pas d’avoir et de manifester la volonte de faire siennes les paroles et les actions du celebrants. Les concelebrants doivent euxmemes dire sur le pain et la vin: ‘Ceci est mon Corps,’ ‘Ceci est mon Sang.’ - AAS, 48 (1956), 718.

[122] Some authors feel that these words of Pius XII are inimical to the practice of priests attending Mass and receiving Communion. Cf., for example, Jean-Pierre Jossua, “note sur l’ontologie de la concelebration,” Paroisse et Liturgie, 47 (1965), p. 564, note 6.

[123] “An plures sacerdotes valide Missae Sacrificium concelebrant, si unus tantum eorum verba ‘Hoc est enim corpus meum’ et ‘Hic est enim sanguis meus’ super panem et vinum proferat, ceteri vero verba Domini non proferant, sed celebrante sciente et consentiente, intentionem habeant et manifestent sua facienda verba et actiones eiusdem. Resp. Negative: nam ex institutione Christi, ille solus valide celebrat, qui verba consecratoria pronuntiat.” - AAS, 49 (1957), 370.

[124] “Annotationes super Dubio ‘De Valida Concelebratione,’” Periodica De Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, 46 (1957), 244-258.

[125] Jossua seems to think this decree simply determines which concelebration the Church publicly and officially admits as certainly valid. However, the reply is not an affirmation. It is a denial of the existence of a consecratory action. Cf. Jossua, “Note sur l’ontologie,” PL 47 (1965), 565.

[126] Hürth, “Annotationes,” Periodica 46 (1957), 250.

[127] Instructio de Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia ad Mentem Litterarum Encyclicarum Pii Papae XII “Musicae Sacrae Disciplina” et “Mediator Dei,” AAS, 50 (1958), 644. For the translation, cf. “Instruction on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy,” Worship 32 (1958), 606.

[128] Hürth, “Annotationes,” Periodica 46 (1957), 256-257. It is interesting to see how the author expresses himself when he speaks of stipends, the intention of the donor, etc. Speaking of the nature of the stipendial contract, he says: “...qui est contractus ‘Do, ut facias.’ Illud ‘facere’ significare autem consent (saltem hucusque), offerre Missam, prout Missa hucusque a fidelibus intellecta et habita est: verum scl. Et plenum Christi sacrificium, prout a Christo fuit institutum.” - Ibid., 257. It is very evident that Hürth recognizes the principle of developing dogma at work in the matter of both stipends and the application of the fruits of the Mass. It is as though he were hoping for the theology of stipends to be thoroughly investigated.

[129] “Instructio De Musica Sacra,” AAS, 50 (1958), 645. For a description and critique of the synchronized Mass, cf. A.M. Roguet, “Les messes synchronisees,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 76-78.

[130] AAS, 54 (1962), 5-13; 785.

[131] AAS, 56 (1964), 97-138.

[132] Ibid., Article 3.

[133] Sacram Liturgiam, Jan. 25, 1964-AAS, 56 (1964), 140.

[134] Ritus Servandus in Concelebratione Missae et Ritus Communionis sub Utraque Specie (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 1965).

[135] Frederick McManus, “The Juridical Power of the Bishop,” Concilium 2 (1964), 33-34.

[136] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), 591-592.

[137] Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium 2 (1964), 149.

[138] Miguel Nicolan, “La Cóncelebracion eucaristica,” Salmanticensis, 8 (1961), 274.

[139] Cf. CIC, canons 731, para. 1, and 733, pars. 1 CIC: “in constituting, administering, and receiving the sacraments there shall be an exact observance of the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church.”

[140] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), p. 593. Tihon uses this sentence in a slightly different context. However, his expression is to the point here.

[141] Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium 2 (1964), p. 147.

[142] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), p. 588.

[143] Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium 2 (1964), 148-149. Karl Rahner’s interpretation of the statements of Pius XII on concelebration are synopsized in McGowan’s Concelebration, pp. 85-86, where Rahner’s own ideas on this subject are thoroughly reviewed (pp. 77-80, 87-93). Most of Rahner’s work on this subject was done in the 1950’s, and has been incorporated into the more recent writings. His influence is seen, for example, in Manders’ article on concelebration in Concilium, and in Tihon’s article in NRT, as well as in McGowan.

[144] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), 589.

[145] Tihon, art. cit., 590.

[146] Tihon, op. cit., 600.

[147] Tihon, art. cit., 601.

[148] CIC, Canons 874 and 884.

[149] Cf., for example, H. A. Ayrinhac, and P. J. Lydon, Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (3rd revised ed., New York: Benziger, 1957), pp. 234-254.

[150] Meletius Wojnar, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” The Jurist, 25 (1965), 208-211.

[151] Sacra Rituum Congregatio, Decretum Generale quo Ritus Concelebrationis et Communionis sub Utraque Specie Promulgantur, AAS, 57 (1965), 410-412. Hereafter cited Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale or Ritus Servandus.

[152] “Ecclesiae semper curae fuit, in sacrorum mysteriorum celebrationibus ordinandis et instaurandis, ut ipsi ritus inexhaustas divitias Christi, quas continent et bene dispositis communicant, etiam optimo quo fieri potest modo, manifestent, atque ita facilius animos et vitam fidelium imbuant, qui eos participant.” Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[153] Camillus Callewaert, Liturgicae Institutiones (2 vols. in 1, 2nd. ed., Bruges, 1925) I, 20. 

[154] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, art. 2.

[155] Alfred Ottaviani, Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici (Romae, 1936), p. 153.

[156] Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani, AAS, 52 (1960), 559. Ottaviani, Loc. cit.

[157] “Hoc autem peculiari studio attendit Ecclesia, quando agitur de celebranda Eucharistia: eius enim diversas formas ita comparat et ordinat, ut Sacrificii eucharistici diversos aspectus exprimant et christifidelibus inculcent.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[158] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Arts. 48-49.

[159] John O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass (4th revised ed., Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963), p. 19.

[160] McManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, p. 73.

[161] Gommar Michiels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici (2 vols., 2nd ed., Tornaci: Desclee, 1949) I, 57-58.

[162] O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass, p. 52.

[163] “In omni enim forma, quamvis simplici, qua Missa celebratur, omnes dotes et proprietates vigent, quae ipsa sua natura, sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio necessario conveniunt.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[164] “Imprimis quidem unitas Sacrificii Crucis…deinde unitas Sacerdotii…Actio demum totius populi Dei…Hae porro triplex praerogativa quae omni Missae convenit…” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[165]“Imprimis quidem unitas Sacrificii Crucis, quatenus multae Missae nonnisi unicum Sacrificium Christi repraesentant, et ex eo rationem Sacrificii sortiuntur quod sunt memoriale immolationis cruentae in cruce peractae, cuius fructus per hanc incruentam percipiuntur.

“Deinde unitas sacerdotii, quatenus multi quidem sunt sacerdotes qui Missam celebrant, singuli tamen non sunt nisi ministri Christi, qui per eos suum Sacerdotium exercet atque, ad hunc finem, singulos per Sacramentum Ordinis, eiusdem sui Sacerdotii participes specialissimo modo efficit. Proinde etiam cum singuli Sacrificium offerunt, omnes tamen id virtute eiusdem Sacerdotii faciunt et in persona Summi Sacerdotis agunt, cui integrum est sive per unum sive per multos simul sacramentum sui Corporis et Sanguinis consecrare.

“Actio demum totius populi Dei clarius apparet; omnis siquidem Missa, utpote celebratio illius sacramenti quo continenter vivit et crescit Ecclesia, et in qua ipsa germana natura eiusdem Ecclesiae praecipue manifestatur, est, magis etiam quam omnes ceterae actiones liturgicae, actio totius populi sancti Dei, hierarchice ordinati et agentis.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[166] Constitution on the Liturgy, art. 41, translation by NCWC News Service, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, DC. The translation in The Documents of Vatican II, edited by Walter Abbott and used throughout this work for consistency, has: “The Church reveals herself most clearly when a full complement of God’s holy people, united in prayer and in a common liturgical service (especially in the Eucharist), exercise a thorough and active participation at the very altar where the Bishop presides in the company of his priests and other assistants.”

[167] Loc. cit., art. 42.

[168] “Nam in hac ratione Missam celebrandi plures sacerdotes, in virtute eiusdem Sacerdotii et in persona Summi Sacerdotis simul una voluntate et una voce agunt, atque unicum Sacrificium unico actu sacramentali simul conficiunt et offerunt, idemque simul participant.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[169] “Ab Hanc igitur usque ad Supplices inclusive, omnes concelebrantes omnia simul cantu proferunt aut elata voce dicunt.” - Ritus Servandus, No. 39. For an earlier expression of this idea cf. Francois Vanderbroucke, “La Concelebration, acte communicative,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 48.

[170] “Quare in huiusmodi Sacrificii celebratione, quam simul fideles, conscie, actuose atque modo communitatis proprio participent, praesertim si praeest Episcopus, vere habetur praecipua manifestatio Ecclesiae in unitate Sacrificii et Sacerdotii, in unica gratiarum actione, circa unicum altare cum ministris et populo sancto.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[171] Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium, 2 (1964), 149-150, where the relation between the two types of concelebration is spoken of in terms of importance. It would seem to depend on exactly what specific characteristic quality of the Mass is to be emphasized in the presentation of the sign. Until this is decided on a specific occasion, the two forms of concelebration are of equal importance because of their traditional acceptance by the Church.

[172] “Hoc modo sane, per ritum concelebrationis veritates magni momenti, quae vitam spiritualem et pastoralem sacerdotum atque christianum fidelium institutionem respiciunt, vivide proponuntur et inculcantur.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[173] Cf. numbers 4, 11, 58 of the Ritus Servandus.

[174] Cf. Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT, 86 (1964), 592-593.

[175] “His itaque rationibus, multo magis quam alliis ordinis mere practici, diversis quidem modis et formis, concelebratio mysterii eucharistici inde ab antiquitate in Ecclesia agnoscitur…” - Ritus Servandus Decretum Generale. Cf. also Nuij, “Le rituel de la concelebration,” QLP, 45 (1964), 208; McManus, “Constitution on the Liturgy, A Commentary,” Worship 38 (1963-4), 491.

[176] “His itaque rationibus…diversis quidem modis et formis, concelebratio mysterii eucharistici inde ab antiquitate in Ecclesia agnoscitur at diversimode evoluta, tam in Oriente quam in Occidente, usque ad praesens tempus in usu remansit.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[177] Alphonse Raes, “La concelebration eucharistique dans les rites orienteaux,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 24-47.

[178] “Iisdem atque ex rationibus, factum est ut iam liturgicae periti investigationes peragerent atque vota proferrent de extendenda facultate Missam concelebrandi et de aptiore instauratione huius ritus facienda.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[179] Cf. Manders, “Concelebration,” Concilium, 2 (1964), 138-144; 147-151.

[180] Vanderbroucke, “La concelebration,” LMD, (1963), 54; P. Weber, “Eucharistic et ministere,” Collectanea Mechliniensia, 48 (1963), 549-572; Nuij, “Le ritual de la concelebration,” QLP, 45 (1964), 206-227; McManus, “The Constitution, a Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-4), 495-496. The role played by the liturgists seems to be allied to what Yves Congar calls the “principle of the consent of the faithful.” Cf. Ives Congar, “Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet,” Revue Historique de Droit Franciais et Etranger, 36 (1958), 210-249. Cf. also Teodore Jimmenez-Urresti, “Communion and Collegial Structures in the Church,” Concilium, 8 (1965), 16-17.

[181] “Demum Concilium Vaticanum II, re probe perpensa, facultatem concelebrandi ad plures casus extendit et statuit novum ritum concelebrationis conficiendum esse…” - Ritus Servandus, Decreturm Generale.

[182] “Pontificali et Missali Romano inserendum,” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale; Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Art. 58.

[183] “Ideo SS.mus D. N. Paulus Papa VI, Constitutione de Sacra Liturgia Concilii Vaticani II sollemniter approbata et promulgata, Consilio ad eandem Constitutionem exsequendam deputato mandavit ut ritum servandum in concelebratione Missae quam primum pararet.” - Ritus Servandus Decretum Generale.

[184] “Haec omnia et singula quae in hoc Constitutione edicta sunt, placuerunt Sacrosancti Concilii Patribus. Et Nos, Apostolica a Christo Nobis tradita potestate, illa una cum Venerabilibus Patribus, in Spiritu Sancto, approbamus, decernimus, ac statuimus et quae ita synodaliter statuta sunt ad Dei gloriam promulgari iubemus. - AAS, 56 (1964) 134. Cf. CIC, canon 227; also McManus, “Constitution on the Liturgy, a Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-4), 315-316. The decree of the Constitution on the Liturgy became effective on February 16, 1964, after the completion of the vacatio legis established by the Holy Father. For the announcement of the vacatio cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 282 (Dec. 6, 1963), 1.

[185] Sacram Liturgiam, AAS, 56 (1964), 140, for the establishment of the Commission..

[186] “Quem ritum pluries examini consultorum et membrorum subiectum et perpolitum, Consilium, die 19 mensis iunii anno 1964, unanimiter ratum habuit, statuens ut, si SS.mo Domino placuerit antequam definitive approbaretur, eius experimenta practica fierent in variis Orbis partibus et diversis in adiunctis.” - Ritus Servandus Decretum Generale. The same action was taken for the rite for Communion under both species. The activities involved in these experiments are described by Braga, “In ritum concelebrationis,” EL 79 (1965), 221-223; also Notitiae, 1 (1965), 102-103.

[187] Notitiae, 1 (1965), 102-103; also Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale: “Sacrosancti autem Concilii voluntati pariter obsecundans, idem Consilium ad Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia exsequendam deputatum etiam ritum Communionis sub utraque specie redegit, in quo et casus formae definiuntur quibus tum clericis tum religiosis tum laicis licet Eucharistiam sub utraque specie sumere.

“Per aliquot igitur menses, tum circa ritum concelebrationis tum circa ritum Communionis sub utraque specie, multa experimenta, optimo quidem cum fructu, ubique terrarum facta sunt, et de iisdem relationes ad Consilii Secretariam Missae, additis quoque animadversionibus et votis, quibus attentis, uterque ritus ultimo expolitus est, atque ab Em.mo Domino Iacobo S. R. E. Card. Lercaro, eiusdem Consilii Praeside, Sanctitati Suae delatus.”

[188] Beatissimus Pater, postquam ea par est consideratione utrumque ritum perpendit, in hac re auxilium ferentibus sive supra memorato Consilio, sive hac Sacrorum Rituum Congregatione, eum in Audientia die 4 martii anno 1965 Arcadio Mariae SRE Card. Larraona, Sacrae Rituum Congregationis Praefecto, concessa, in omnibus et singulis speciali modo approbavit et auctoritate Sua confirmavit, et publici iuris fieri iussit…et in Pontificali et Missali romano accurate exscribendus. - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[189] Christopher Berutti, De Curia Roman (Romae: Catholic Book Agency, 1952), p. 7.

[190] Supra, pp. 72-73.

[191] Decretum Generale quo Ritus…Promulgatum…Die 7 Martii anno 1965.

[192] “...ab omnibus a die 15 Aprilis annno 1965, feria quinta in Cena Domini, sedulo servandum, et in Pontificali et Missali romano accurate exscribendum,” - Ritus Servandus, Dectretum Generale. Cf. also CIC, canon 9.

[193] McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, A Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-4), 340, 466; Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, art. 25.

[194] “Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.” - Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[195] Cf. McManus, Congregation of Sacred Rites, p. 133; CIC, canon 2.

[196] Joannes Chelodi, Ius Canonicum de Personis (3. ed., curavit Pius Ciprotti, Vicenza: Societá Anonima Tiprografica, 1942), pp. 116-17.

[197] CIC, Canon 803; Pontificale Romanum; tit. De Ordinibus Conferendis, tit. De Consecratione electi in Episcopum.

[198] Righetti, Manuale di Storia Liturgica, Vol. I, Introduzione Generale (Milano: Editrice Ancora, 1945), pp. 126, 135.

[199] Van Hove, De Legibus Ecclesiasticis, p. 12; Archdale King, The Liturgies of the Primatial Sees (Milwaukee; Bruce, 1957), pp. 312, 323-329, 522.

[200] Van Hove, De Legibus Ecclesiasticis, p. 12; King, The Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, pp. 44-48.

[201] More will be said of these rites in the treatment of number 6 of the Ritus.

[202] McManus, Congregation of Sacred Rites, pp. 75, 92.

[203] “Concilio extendere placuit.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 1.

[204] Supra, p. 66. Interestingly, no statement is made in the Ritus or in the decree diminishing the validity or value of community Mass at which a group of priests participate (non consecratory concelebration).

[205] Alphonse Van Hove, De Privilegiis, De Dispensationibus, p. 148.

[206] Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale. Cf. CIC, canon 802: “Potestatem offerendi Missae sacrificium habent soli sacerdotes;” Pontificale Romanum, Tit. De ordinatione Presbyteri.

[207] CIC, Canon 805.

[208] CIC, Canons 803, 806.

[209] Canon 806; Motu Proprio Pastorale Munus, AAS, 56 (1964) 7.

[210] CIC, Canon 66, pgra. 1.

[211] Supra, pp. 77-80.

[212] “Utrum ad concelebrandum Missae in Cena Domini requiratur Licentia Ordinarii? Resp: Negative, nisi ob peculiares rationes (v. gr. ne desint Missae pro fidelibus), habeatur dispositio particularis contraria. Nam Constitutio Liturgica, art. 57 1a) et Ritus Concelebrationis, 1, 1a) concedunt ipso iure omnibus sacerdotibus facultatem concelebrandi Feria V in cena Domini ad Missam Vespertinam.” - Notitiae, 1 (1965), 307. The following explanation of the authoritative value of the replies of the Commission is prefixed: “Solutio quae proponitur nullam induit vestem officialem. Solummodo habet valorem orientativum…” Notitiae, 1 (1965), 136.

[213] Pontificale Romanum, Tit. de Officio in Feria V in Coena Domini, cum Benedicitur Oleum Catechumenorum et Infirmorum et Conficitur CHrisma; Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Feria V in Cena Domini, De Missa Chrismatis.

[214] “Servanda est traditio, qua privatarum missarum celebratione interdicta, omnes sacerdotes omnesque clerici, sacris in cena Domini intersint, quos expedit ad Sacram mensam accedere.” - Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Instructio de Ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurato rite Peragendo, no. 17. Cf. CIC, canon 862.

[215] “Ubi deest copia clericorum et sacerdotum, missa celebretur secundum consuetum ritum…” - Ordo hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurata, Feria V in Cena Domini, no. 2.

[216] “Salva tamen sit semper cuique sacerdoti facultas missam singularem celebrandi, non vero…Feria V in Cena Domini.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 1. Also, the following: “It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration…this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, as far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.”-Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, art. 27.

[217] Braga, “In Ritum Concelebrationis,” EL, 79 (1965), 223; Nuij, “Le Ritual de la concelebration,” QLP, 45 (1964), 207.

[218] “Before being a cultic action of the ecclesial body, the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s passover under the form of a fraternal banquet at which Christ Himself presides and in which He distributes to us His body which was given for us and His Blood which was shed for our sins.” - Tihon, “concelebration,” NRT 86 (1964), 592.

[219] Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[220] Constitution on the Church, art. 28.

[221] CIC, Canon 222,

[222] CIC, Canon 281,

[223] CIC, Canon 283,

[224] CIC, Canon 356,

[225] “Conventibus Episcopalibus,” Ritus Servandus, no. 1, 1o b)

[226] CIC, canon 358 lists the participants in a diocesan Synod; canons 285-286, those in a provincial council; canon 282, those in a plenary council, canon 223, those in an ecumenical council; Art. 38 of the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, those in a territorial conference of bishops.

[227] Pontificale Romanum, Tit. Ordo ad Synodum; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Tit. I, cap. xxxi.

[228] “...Pontifex celebrat Missam de Spiritu Sancto, et praebet clero sacram communionem.” - Pontificale Romanum, Tit. Ordo, ad Synodum.

[229] McGowan, Concelebration, pp. 33-34.

[230] Ritus Servandus, nos. 5, 115, 129.

[231] 5. “In Consecratione Episcopi valde convenit ut Episcopi conconsecrantes Missam concelebrant cum Pontifice consecrante et Episcopo nuper consecrato.

            “Item in benedictione abbatis, expedit ut Abbates assistentes Missam cum Pontifice et Abbate benedicto concelebrent.

            “In ordinatione Presbyterarum, omnes neo-presbyteri concelebrare tenentur cum Episcopo.

            “His omnibus in casibus, Pontifex celebrans principalis potest etiam alios ad concelebrandum admittere.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 5.

[232] Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, Art. 4.

[233] Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[234] McGowan, Concelebration, pp. 67-68.

[235] Number 3 of the Ritus adds to these ordinaries the major superiors of clerical non-exempt religious and major superiors of societies of clerics living in common without vows. The extent of the authority of these persons will be discussed under number 3 of the Ritus.

[236] Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani, nos. 285, 287 - AAS, 52 (1960), 646.

[237] Thus, the general decree restoring the rite for Holy Week contains a section dealing with the “principal Mass or liturgical action,” and discusses the major Holy Week celebrations, in some cases requiring that they be celebrated after Terce by those obliged to choral  recitation of the Office. Cf. McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, A Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-64), 491.

[238] AAS, 57 (1965), p. 1012, where in a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites the community Mass is distinguished from the conventual Mass.

[239] The September 26, 1964, Instruction of the Congregation of Sacred Rites says that in the seminary “the priests may concelebrate, especially on the more solemn feast days, if the needs of the faithful do not require that they celebrate individually…” - AAS, 56 (1964). Although this concession is made without qualification, a later Instruction from a different Congregation urges concelebration on Sundays and feast days, with the permission of the ordinary.- Seminarium, 6 (1966), 43. Cf. CIC, canon 1367, no. 4.

[240] Cf. Newsletter, Bishop’s Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate, 2 (1966), 4; “there is no minimum number of concelebrants; a single priest may concelebrate with the principal celebrant, provided concelebration itself is permitted by the proper authority.”

[241] Cf. McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-1964), 492; Nuij, “Le ritual de la concelebration,” QLP 45 (1964), 209; Braga, “In Rituum Concelebrationis,” EL, 79 (1965), 223.

[242] Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis, nos. 270, 331, 335, 378, 390 - AAS52 (1965), 643; Cf. also Notitiae, 1 (1965), 42.

[243] The use of the term “private Mass” is to be avoided. “Sacrosanctum Missae Sacrificium, iuxta canones et rubricas celebratus, est actus cultus publici, nomine Christi et Ecclesiae Deo redditi. Donominatio proinde ‘Missae privatae’ vitetur.” - Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani, no. 269, AAS 52 (1960), 643. Cf also Instructio De Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia, no. 2 - AAS 50 (1958), 633.

[244] AAS, 57 (1965), 753-774.

[245] Ibid., pp. 755-761.

[246] “The priest who celebrates is ‘putting on the person of Christ’...Even if the consecration takes place without ceremonial and in a simple fashion, it is the central point of the whole liturgy of the sacrifice, the central point of the ‘action of Christ whose person is put on by the priest celebrant’ or the ‘concelebrating priests’ in the case of true concelebration,” - AAS, 48 (1956), 717; The Assisi Papers, p. 229. Also: “When a number of priests are gathered on the occasion of meetings, it is not forbidden for only one of them to perform the sacred rite and for the others (whether all or many) to be present at this one sacrifice and during it to receive Holy Communion from the hand of the celebrant. However, this may be done only for a just and reasonable cause and provided the bishop has not ruled otherwise in order to avoid astonishment on the part of the faithful. Nor should the basis of this mode of acting be the error mentioned by His Holiness, Pius XII, namely, that the celebration of one hundred Masses by one hundred Priests.” - Instruction on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, AAS 50 (1958), 644.

[247] “Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests,” Art. 6

[248] Hansens, “Concelebratio,” Periodica, 17 (1928), 97.

[249] Braga, “In Ritum Concelebrationis,” EL, 79 (1965), 224.

[250] CIC, canon 334, pg. 1; cf also the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Art. 11.

[251] CIC, canons 293 and 319.

[252] CIC, canons 294 and 323.

[253] ‘Episcopi est moderari…” Ritus Servandus, no. 3.

[254] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Arts. 22, 41 and 42.

[255] Ritus Servandus, no. 3.

[256] “Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani,” AAS, 52 (1960), 549; CIC, canons 820-823; Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Arts. 19, 22, 41 and 42.

[257] McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, A Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-64), 493; Braga, “In Rituum Concelebrationis,” EL, 79 (1965), 224.

[258] “Etiam in exemptorum ecclesiis etoratoriis semipublicis.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 3. Cf also CIC, canon 1188, para. 2.

[259] McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, A Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-64), 491.

[260] “All religious, exempt and non-exempt, are subject to the authority of the local ordinaries in the things which pertain to the public exercise of divine worship.” - Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, Art. 35; also Articles 41 and 42, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

[261] CIC, canon 368, pg. 1.

[262] CIC, canons 369, pg. 2; 44, pg. 2.

[263] Ritus Servandus, no. 1, 2.

[264] McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-64), 492.

[265] For a listing of the churches which pertain to religious, of Timothy Schaefer, De Religiosis (3. e.d. Romae: Herder, 1940), pp. 163-165; 900-903.

[266] “Cum utilitas Christi Fidelium…postulat.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 1, 20 a.

[267] McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-64), 493.

[268] Michiels, Normae Generales, I, 303.

[269] Notitiae, 1 (1965), 306.

[270] “...si, attentis adiunctis, id censuerit ad ritus dignitatem exigi.” - Ritus Servandus, no. 3.

[271] Ritus Servandus, nos 5, 129, 137, 36.

[272] Ritus Servandus, no. 3, 16.

[273] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, art. 34.

[274] Ritus Servandus, nos. 6-7.

[275] For the obligatory force of preceptive and directive rubrics, as well as for a treatment of the validity of the distinction, cf. McManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, p. 136.

[276] Cf. supra, p. 77.

[277] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Art. 4. Cf. also Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches, Art. 2.

[278] “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible…” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Art. 25.

[279] Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio datae “Rubricarum Instructum;” “Novum rubricarum Breviarii ac Missalis Romani Codicem…inde a die 1 Januarii proximi anni 1961, ab omnibus qui ritum romanum sequuntur, servandum esse praecipimus. Qui vero alium ritum Latinum observant, quam primum sive novo rubricarum codici, sive calendario se conformare tenentur, in iis omnibus, quae illi ritui stricte propria non sunt.” - AAS, 52 (1960), 594.

[280] Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani, Pars II, no. 157; “Quivis tamen clericus dioecesanus, aut quivis religiosus utriusque sexus, officio divino quolibet titulo adstrictus, qui Officio participat in choro vel in communi iuxta aliud calendarium aut alium ritum quam suum, hoc modo suo muneri, quoad hanc partem officii satisfacit.” - AAS, 52 (1960), 624.

[281] Cf., for example, King, Notes on the Catholic Liturgies, (London: Longmans Green, 1930), pp. 241-245, for a description of the Ambrosian canon, and pp. 299-313 for the Mozarabic canon; also p. 63 where it is stated “that the derived Monastic rites are all Roman in essence.”

[282] Wojnar, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” The Jurist, 25 (1965), 181-182.

[283] Cf., for example, King, Notes on the Catholic Liturgies, chapter 9: “Byzantine Rite With Nine Variants,” pp. 301-451.

[284] Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 5.

[285] Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 3; cf. also Wojnar, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” The Jurist, 25 (1965) 237.

[286] Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 3.

[287] Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[288] Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 8.

[289] Constitution on the Church, Art. 26.

[290] Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 15.

[291] Ritus Servandus, Tit. Ritus Missae Pontificalis: De initio Missae, no. 20: Omnibus rite dispositis, Episcopus celebrans principalis incensum imponit et benedicit, et ordinatur processio per ecclesiam…” The same rubric occurs in the sections on the Rite for a Solemn Mass and the Rite for a Sung Mass except that no mention is made of the blessing of the incense. The Rite for a Recited Mass has: “Omnibus rite dispositis, concelebrantes accedunt ad altare…”

[292] Missale Romanum, De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurrentibus, Tit. X, De Defectibus in Ministro Ipso Occurrentibus.

[293] CIC, canon 806, Pg. 1.

[294] Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani, Pars III, Rubricae Generales Missalis Generales Missalis Romani, no. 270: “Missa proinde per se cum officio diei concordare debet.” AAS, (1960), 643.

[295] “Missa cum officio divino summum totius christiani cultus constituit.” - Loc. cit.

[296] Righetti, Manuale di Storia Liturgica II, 53-62.

[297] CIC, canon 806, pg. 1.

[298] Righetti, Manuale di Storia Liturgica, II, 140-156; 168-182.

[299] Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Tit. Instructio de Ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurato Rite Peragendo, No. 21.

[300] Ibid., nos. 20 and 21.

[301] CIC, canon 806, pg 1.

[302] Righetti, op. cit., II, 352.

[303] CIC, canon 806.

[304] AAS, 56 (1964), 7; translated in The Jurist, 24 (1964), 100; for a commentary, cf. in the same volume A.M. Bottoms, “A Commentary on the Forty Faculties of Pastorale Munus,” pp. 426-427.

[305] Cf. Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT, 86 (1964), 583, and note 25. There is no intention here of questioning the validity of either the theology or the devotion. The simple fact of their existence is the important thing.

[306] Ordo hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Tit. Instructio de Ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurato rite Peragendo, No. 20.

[307] Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Instructio de Ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurato rite Peragendo, no. 17.

[308] In general, the same principles apply to the reception of Communion twice on one day by the faithful. Cf. “Instructio ad Exsecutionem Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia Recte Ordinandam,” No. 60, - AAS, 56 (1964), 891. The faithful who receive Communion at the Easter Vigil Mass or the midnight Mass of Christmas are allowed to receive Communion again at the second mass or Easter and at one of the Masses that are celebrated on Christmas day. They may participate fully in the various Masses or offices. However, since they are not bound to receive Communion for the good of any groups of the faithful, they have no permission to repeat the reception of communion at the subsequent Masses or particular office.

[309] CIC, canons 343-346 and Pontificale Romanum, Tit. Ordo ad visitundam Parochias.

[310] “Qui…cum Episcopo…concelebrat,” - Ritus Servandus, no. 9.

[311] Constitution on the Church, Arts. 20, 21, 26, 28.

[312] CIC, canon 806, pg. 2; Pastorale Munus, no. 2, - AAS, 56 (1964), 7. Cf. also Notitiae, 1 (1965), 253-254.

[313] Philippus Maroto, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Vol. I (3. Ed., Romae, 1921). On p. 823 he discusses the notion that delegation involves the transferral of a power; on p. 539 he states that delegation involves more than the commission of an execution; and on p. 550 he points out that the delegation must lend itself to proof.

[314] Opera Omnia Benedicti XIV, Tom. VIII, 139-140.

[315] Loc. cit.; cf. also supra, pp. 37-40.

[316] De Sanctissima Eucharistia, I, No. 360; supra, pp. 42-45.

[317] Werns-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, IV, 1, p. 80; Vermeersh-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, II, 41; Coronata, Institutionis Iuris Canonici, De Sacramentis I, 146.

[318] CIC, canons 824-844.

[319] Gasparri, De Sanctissima Eucharistia, I, no. 360; Vermeersh-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, II, 41; Coronata, Institutionis Iuris Canonici, De Sacramentis, I, 146.

[320] Ritus Servandus, Decretum Generale.

[321] “...The whole question of Mass stipends needs serious rethinking. It would be a real injustice to many priests to suggest that the desire for individual celebration is based on the availability of stipends, but the ordinary explanation is an unfortunate one. Even if the money is properly understood as an offering to God in which the minister of the altar subsequently shares, the whole related development of scholastic speculation upon the fruits of the Mass has certainly hindered rather than helped a sound understanding of the eucharistic celebration as the action of the Christian community in union with its head.” - McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a Commentary,” Worship 38 (1963-4), 494. In this connection cf. Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT, 86 (1964), 600-605, and specifically p. 604; for a general treatment of the subject, cf. Charles Keller, Mass Stipends (Washington, DC. 1925).

[322] CIC, canon 824, pg. 2.

[323] Abbo-Hannon, The Sacred Canons, I, 824.

[324] Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, Instructio de Ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae Instaurato rite Peragendo, I, De Praeparatione Pastorali et Rituali.

[325] Pontificale Romanum, Editio iuxta Typicam (Romae: Marietti, 1962), Tit. Ordo ad Benedicendum et Imponendum Primarium Lapidem, De Praeparatione Pastorali; Ordo ad Ecclesiam Dedicandam et Consecrandam, De Praeparatione Pastorali; Ordo ad Ecclesiam Benedicendam, De Praeparatione Pastorali; etc.

[326] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Art. 14.

[327] “For their part the bishops too have been appointed by the Holy Spirit, and are successors of the Apostles as pastors of souls.” - Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Art. 2.

[328] Pastors, however, are cooperators of the bishop in a very special way, for as pastors in their own name they are entrusted with the care of souls in a certain part of the diocese under the bishop’s authority. - Ibid., Art. 30. Cf. also CIC. canon 451, pg. 2.

[329] “All priests, both diocesan and religious, participate in and exercise with the bishop the one priesthood of Christ and are thereby meant to be prudent cooperators of the episcopal order. In securing the welfare of souls, however, the first place is held by diocesan priests who are incardinated or attached to a particular church, and who fully dedicate themselves to its service by way of pasturing a single portion of the Lord’s flock…” Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Art. 28.

[330] Cf. McManus, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-4), 324-325; McGowan, Concelebration, pp. 20-21.

[331] Article 29.

[332] Missale Romanum, ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Summorum Pontificum Cura Recognitum cum Versionibus Lingua Anglica Exaratis et a Coetu Episcoporum Civitatum Foedaratarum Americae Septentrionalis rite Approbatis, Actis ab Apostolica Sede Confirmatis, Tit. Ritus Servandus in celebratione Missae, no. 1.

[333] Caeremoniale Episcoporum, I, cap. 29; II, cap. 8. Rubricae Generales Breviarii et Missalis Romani, I, Rubricae Generales, no. 134 - AAS, 52 (1960), 620.

[334] Ibid., nos. 128-132, pp. 619-620.

[335] Tihon, “Concelebration,” NRT, 86 (1964), 606; Niuj, “Le ritual de la concelebration,” QLP, 45 (1964), 214-215.

[336] CIC, canon 803.

[337] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Art. 41.

[338] Ibid., Art. 42.

[339] Caeremoniale Episcoporum, I, cap. 8.

[340] CIC, Canon 857. Cf. also Notitiae, (1965), 307.

[341] Notitiae, 1 (1965), 142.

[342] Priests who act as deacons or subdeacons at solemn Masses which are not concelebrated, however, do not enjoy the faculty extended by no. 15 of the Ritus. - Notitiae, 1 (1965), 307.

[343] Notitiae, 1 (1965), 307.

[344] Cf. Ritus Servandus, nos. 109, 122, 133, concerning Masses at episcopal consecrations, blessings of abbots, and ordinations to the priesthood. These Masses are to be celebrated according to the rite established for concelebration.

[345] Ritus Servandus, nos. 30-59. Cf. also Ritus Servandus, Tit. Ritus Missae Sollemnis, nos. 73-75; Tit. Ritus Missae Cantatae, nos. 90-92; Tit. Ritus Missae Lectae, nos. 105-107.

[346] “Tempore opportuno, diaconus cum debitis reverentiis vadit ad altare et, infimo gradu genu flexus, dicit secreto Munda cor meum…” - Ritus Servandus, no. 26.

[347] “Si fideles dona offerunt, Episcopus…ea…recipit, adiuvantibus, si opus est, aliquibus a concelebrantibus…” - Ritus Servandus, no. 29.

[348] “Si opportunum videtur…” - Ritus Servandus, no. 29.

[349] Ritus Servandus, nos. 47-59.

[350] Pontificale Romanum, Tit. De Ordinatione Presbyteri; Tit. De Consecratione Electi in Episcopum.

[351] Ritus Servandus, nos. 30-60.

[352] “Omnes concelebrantes, manibus expansis ad oblata, cantant vel elata voce dicunt.” - Ritus Servandus, Canon Missae.

[353] Ritus Servandus, no. 39.

[354] Ritus Servandus, Nos. 105-107.

[355] Ritus Servandus, nos. 46, 75, 92, 152.

[356] Ritus Servandus, no. 72. Contrast this norm with the one given for the concelebrants at a read Mass. There, the norm simply says the principal celebrant and the concelebrants go to the altar; no separate direction is given for the concelebrants to ascend to the altar. - Ritus Servandus, Tit. Ritus Missae Lectae, no. 104.

[357] Ritus Servandus, Tit. Ritus Missae Cantate; Tit. Ritus Missae Lectae, nos. 80-82, 97.

[358] Ritus Servandus, Tit. Ritus Missae Lectae, no. 98.

[359] Ibid., no. 100.

[360] CIC, canon 822, pg. 4, also Pastorale Munus, nos. 7-10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Sources

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, Romae, 1909- 

Caeremoniale Episcoporum iussu Clementis VIII Pontificis Maximi novissime reformatum, Venetiis, Nicolai Misserimi, 1600. 

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, ed. HJ. Schroeder, St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1941. 

Codex Iuris Canonici, Pius X Pontificiis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti XV auctoritate promulgatus, Romae, 1917. 

Corpus Iuris Canonici, editio Lipsiensis secunda post Aemilii Ludovici Richteri, instruxit Aemilius Friedburg, 2 vols., Lipsiae, 1879-1881. 

Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum et Instructio Clementina, Vol I, ed. Wolfgangus Mihlhauer, 1843. 

Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ex actis eiusdem Collecta, Eiusque Auctoritate Promulgata Sub auspiciis SS. Domini Nostri Leonis Papae XIII, 5 vols., Romae, 1898-1901.

 Decretales Pseudo Isidoriana et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Paulus Hinschius, Reimpressio, Lipsiae, 1963. 

Didaskalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed. Franciscus Funk 2 vols. In 1, Paerbornae, 1905. 

Die altesten Quellen des Orientalischen Kirohenrechtes, Die Canones Hippolyti, ed. Phil Hans Achelis, Leipzig, 1891. 

Fontes Juris Canonici Selecti: Didache, ed. Andreas Galante, 1906. “Instructio de Sacrorum Alumnorum Liturgica Institutione,” Seminarium, 6 (1966) 37-51. 

Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Age, ed. Michel Andrieu, 4 vols., Rome, 1938-41. 

Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Age, ed. Michel Andrieu, 4 vols., Louvain, 1931-1956. 

Liturgia Romana Vetus, Tria Sacramentaria Complectens Leonianum scilicet Gelasianum et et antiquum Gregorianum, ed. Ludovicus Muratorius, Venetiis 1748. 

Mansi, Joannes D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 53 vols. In 60, Paris-Arnhem-Leigsig, 1901-1927. 

Migne, Jacque Paul, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-1855. 

Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus, New York, Benziger, 1956. 

Pontificale Romanum, Editio iuxta typicum, Romae; Marietti, 1962. 

Regesta Pontificum romanorum, ed. Augustus Potthast, 2 vols., Reimpressio, Graz, 1957. 

Ritus Servandus in Concelebratione Missae et Ritus Communionis sub Utraque Specie, Civitate Vaticana, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965. 

Roman Missal, Missale Romanum, Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Summorum Pontificum Cura Recognitum cum Versionibus Lingua Anglica Exaratis et a Coetu Episcoporum Civitatum Foedaratarum Americae Septentrionalis rite Approbatis, Actis ab Apostolica Sede Confirmatis, New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1964. 

Strewe, Adolph, Die Canonessannlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion, Berlin; De Gruyter, 1961. 

Synodorum Generalium ac Provincialium, Decreta et Canones, 12 vols., ed. a Christiano Lupo, Venetiis 1724. 

The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, General Editor; Joseph Gallagher, Translation Editor; New York: America Press, 1966.

Authors

Abbo, John A., and Hannan, Jerome D., The Sacred Canons, 2 vols., 2. Ed., St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1960. 

Altaner, Berthold, Patrology, New York: Herder, 1961. 

Assisi Papers, The, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1957. 

Ayrinhac, HA., and Lydon, PJ. Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, 3rd revised ed., New York: Benziger, 1957. 

Bachofen, Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, 8 vols., St. Louis, Missouri, 1918-1921. 

Berutti, Christopher, De Curia Romana, Rome, 1952. 

Bona, Giovanni Cardinalis, Rerum Liturgicarum, Libri II, Romae, 1671. 

Bruenner, Denys, L’Ancienne Liturgie Romanine, Le Rite Lyonnaise, Lyon, Vitte, 1934. 

Caeremoniale Episcoporum, in duos libros distributum, Clementis VIII et Innocentii X auctoritate recognitum a Benedicto XIII, 2 vols., ed. Josephus Catalanus, Parisiis, 1860. 

Callewaert, Camillus, Liturgicae Institutiones, 2 vols. in 1, 2. Ed., 1925. 

Cappello, Felix M., Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 3 vols. in 5, 2. ed., Romae, 1921-1935. 

Catholic Dictionary, A., ed. Donald Attwater, 2nd revised ed., New York: Macmillan, 1949. 

Catholic Encyclopedia, The, 15 vols. and Index, New York, Appleton, 1907-1914. 

Chelodi, Joannes, Ius Canonicum de Personis, 3. ed., curavit Pius Ciprotti, Vicenza, 1942. 

Concilium, Theology in the Age of Renewal, Glen Rock, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1964-Coronata, Matthaeus Conte, Institutionis Iuris Canonici de Sacramentis, 3 vols., Romae: Marrietti, 1943-1946. 

De Puniet, Pierre, The Roman Pontifical, a History and Commentary, London: Longmans Green, 1932. 

Dix, Gregory, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, London, 1937. 

Ferreres, Juan B., Derecho Sacramental, 4. ed., Barcelona, 1932. 

Gasparri, Petrus, De Sanctissima Eucharistia, 2 vols., Parisiis, 1897. 

Hallier, M. Franciscus, De Sacris Electionibus et Ordinationibus ex Antiquo et Nov, Ecclesiae Iure, 3. ed., 3 vols., Romae, 1739-1740. 

Hostiensis, Cardinalis Henricus de Segucio, In Primum Decretalium Commentaria, 5 vols. in 3, Venetiis, 1581. 

Hughes, Philip, A History of the Church, 3 vols., New York: Sheed and Ward, 1947-1949. 

Jungmann, Josef A., Public Worship, A Survey, Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1957. 

Keller, Charles, Mass Stipends, Catholic University Press, 1925. 

King, Archdale A., Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Bruce, 1959. 

—---------------------Notes on the Catholic Liturgies, London: Longmans Green, 1930.

Lebreton, Jules, and Zeiller, Jacques, A History of the Early Church, 4 vols., New York: Collier Books, 1962. 

Maroto, Philippus, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vols., 3. ed., Roma, 1921. 

McGowan, Jean Carroll, Concelebration, Sign of the Unity of the Church, New York: Herder, 1964. 

McManus, Frederick, The Congregation of the Sacred Rites, Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1954. 

Michiels, Gommar, Normae Generales Iuris Canonici, 2. ed., 2 vols., Lublin, 1949. 

Miller, Walter, Revised Ceremonial of the Mass, Paterson, New Jersey: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1965. 

Morinus, Joannes, Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus, Parisiis, 1655. 

Motry, Hubert Louis, Diocesan Faculties According to the Code of Canon Law, Washington, DC: Catholic University, 1922.

Nabuco, Joachim, Pontificalis Romani Expositio Juricico-practica, Belgium: Désclee, 1962. 

O’Connell, John, The Celebration of Mass, 4th revised ed., Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963. 

Opera Omnia Benedicti XIV in Unum Corpus Collecta, Sumptibus Josephi Renondini, Antonii Zatae et Filiorum, 1788. 

Ottaviani, Alfred, Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici, Romae, 1936. 

Pontificale Romanum, in tres partes distributum auctore Josepho Catalano, 3 vols (Paris? 1850?). 

Righetti, Mario, Manuale di Storia Liturgica, 2 vols., Milan, 1945. 

Romani, Sylvius, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 2 vols. in 3, Rome, 1941-1945. 

Schaeffer, Timotheus, De Religiosis, 3rd revised ed., Romae, 1940. 

Schmidt, Herman, Hebdomada Sancta, 2 vols. in 3, Romae: Herder, 1956. 

—-------------------Introductio in Liturgiam Occidentalem, Romae: Herder, 1960. 

Strawley, JH., The Early History of the Liturgy, 2nd ed., London: Cambridge University Press, 1957. 

Van Hove, Alphonsus, De Legibus Ecclesiasticis, Romae, 1930. 

—--------------------------De Privilegiis, De Dispensationibus, Romae, 1939. 

—--------------------------Prolegomena, 2. ed., Romae, 1945. 

Vermeersch, Arthur, and Cruesen, J., Epitome Iuris Canonici, 3 vols., 6. ed., Romae, 1937-1946. 

Wernz, Franciscus, and Vidal, Petrus, Ius Canonicum, 7 vols. in 8, Romae, 1923-1938.

Articles

Barbarena, Tomas Garcia, “Collegiality at Diocesan Level: The Western Presbyterate,” Concilium, 8 (1965), 19-32. 

Beaudin, L., “La Concelebration,” La Maison Dieu, 7 (1946), 7-26. 

—------------- “Concelebration eucharistique,” Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 7 (1922), 275-285; 8 (1923) 23-24. 

Bishop, Jordan, “Concelebration in the Religious Community,” The Jurist, 25 (1965) 326-329. 

Botte, Bernard, “Note Historique sur la Concelebration dans l’Eglise ancienne,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 9-23. 

Bottoms, AM., “A Commentary on the Forty Faculties of the Pastorale Munus,” The Jurist, 24 (1964), 426-428. 

Buijs, Ludovicus, “Commentarium in Decretum praecedens. De Ritu Servando in Concelebratione Missae, Periodica de Re Morali Canonica Liturgica, 54 (1965), 410-460. 

Congar, Yves, “Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet,” Revue Historique de Droit Francais et etranger, 36 (1958), 210-249. 

Crichton, JD., “The New Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus,” Liturgy, 34 (1965), 44-47. 

Gantoy, R., “Les experiences de concelébration,” Paroisse et Liturgie, 46 (1964), 823-847. 

Hanssens, JM., “De Concelebratione Eucharistica,” Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, 16 (1927), 143-154; 181-210; 17 (1928), 93-127; 21 (1932), 193-219. 

Honre, Alphonse, “Les rites concelebres dans la liturgie latine actuelle,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 56-71. 

Hürth, F., “Annontationes super Dubio ‘De Valida Concelebratione,’” Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, 46 (1957), 244-258. 

Jossua, Jean-Pierre, “Note sur l’ontologie de la concélébration,” Paroisse et Liturgie, 47 (1965), 425-438. 

Manders, Hendrik, “Concelebration,” Concilium, 2 (1964), 135-151. 

Martimort, Aimé, “Le rituel de la concélébration eucharistique,” Ephemerides Liturgicae, 77 (1963), 147-168. 

Martin, Pierre, “Un survivance de la concelebration dans l’Eglise occidentale: la messe pontificale lyonnaise du jeudi saint,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 72-74. 

McManus, Frederick, “Constitution on the Sacred Worship, A Commentary,” Worship, 38 (1963-4), 314-374; 450-496; 515-565. 

—------------------------, “The Juridical Power of the Bishop,” Concilium, 2 (1964), 33-49. 

Nicolau, Miguel, “La Concelebracion Eucaristica,” Salmanticensis 8 (1961), 269-294. 

Nuij, A., “Le rituel de la concelebration nouvelle,” Les Questions Liturgiques et Parroissiales, 45 (1964), 206-227. 

Raes, Alphonse, “La concelebration eucharistique dans les rites orientaux,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 24-47. 

Roguet, AM., “Les Hesses synchronisées,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 76-78. 

Tihon, Paul, “De la concelebration eucharistique,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 86 (1964), 579-607. 

Weber, P., “Eucharistie et Ministére,” Collectanea Mechliniensia, 48 (1963), 549-572. 

Wojnar, Meletius, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” The Jurist, 25 (1965), 173-257. 

Vanderbroucke, Francois, “La concélébration, acte communicative,” La Maison Dieu, 35 (1953), 48-55.

Periodicals

Collectanea Mechliniensia, Mechlin, 1907- 

Ephemerides Liturgicae, Rome, 1887- 

La Maison Dieu, Paris, 1945- 

Liturgy, Alresford, Hants, 1929- 

Notitiae, Rome, 1965- 

Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Paris, 1869- 

Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, Rome, 1911- 

Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, Louvain, 1910/11- 

Revue Historique de Droit Francais et Etranger, Paris, 1855- 

Seminarium, Vatican City, 1961- 

The Jurist, Washington, DC., 1941- 

Worship, Collegeville, 1926-

Abbreviations

AAS: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale. 

EL: Ephemerides Liturgicae. 

LMD: La Maison Dieu. 

NRT: Nouvelle Revue Théologique. 

Periodica: Periodica de Re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica. 

QLP: Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Harmon Daniel Skillin was born September 28, 1934, in San Francisco, California. In September, 1948, he was admitted to St. Joseph’s Minor Seminary in Mountain View, California. He then attended St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, California, where he received the degree of Baccalaureate in Arts in 1956. He was ordained to the priesthood on June 11, 1960. After a year of parish work, he was appointed Auditor of the Matrimonial Curia of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. In 1962 he was appointed Defensor Vinculi and assistant Chancellor of the newly created Diocese of Stockton, California. The following year he enrolled in the School of Canon Law of the Catholic University of America, where he received the degrees of the Baccalaureate in Canon Law in June, 1964, and of the Licentiate in Canon Law in June, 1965.