Is the Modern Practice of Concelebration Egalatarian?
by Br. Albertus Mariæ
The motto of the French Revolution, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity)” sums up its own ends. Many view the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath as the ecclesiastical equivalent to what the French Revolution was in the secular realm. Cardinal Billot himself stated this at the Council.[1] It could be argued that liberty, equality, and fraternity were also the motto, although perhaps unstated, of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgy that followed it. This article is specifically focused on equality, which as an ideology, is called “egalitarianism.” Plinio Corréa de Oliveira summarizes egalitarianism as follows:
“The egalitarian movement not only wants equality in religion, in politics, and in the economy, but also total egalitarianism in all things, not only equality among men, but also an egalitarian vision of the very universe itself. In this way man will one day see himself in a universe where all things are equal, uniform, standardized, and reduced to the same size and dimension, to the same nature and proportion. This is the essence of the Egalitarian Revolution.”[2]
This revolutionary mindset has infiltrated the Church, especially in Her liturgy. The rest of this article will be discussing this topic, as especially seen in the issue of concelebration, the first of the liturgical changes to be tried.
A Diversity of Holy Orders
In his Summa Theologiæ, St. Thomas Aquinas says that each of the Holy Orders is distinguished from one another based on their proximity to the Eucharist and the power each one has over It.[3] He included the four Orders once called “Minor Orders” and the Subdiaconate, sometimes considered a Minor Order, and other times considered a Major Order. He argued that each one prepared the faithful for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prepared the matter for the Sacrifice (the bread and wine), assisted at the offering of the Sacrifice, or actually offered it. This is what distinguished one order from the others. Some were higher than others because they were closer to the Blessed Sacrament, and therefore demanded a higher degree of holiness in the recipient of those Orders. This is seen depicted in many seminaries such as on the stairs in the sanctuary at Mundelein.
A Leveling of the Orders
The tendency since the Second Vatican Council, however, has been to distinguish the Holy Orders based on their roles of teaching, governing, and sanctifying.[4] This lies behind the modern view that the Minor Orders are no longer Orders, and the Episcopacy is its own Order.[5] The problem with this mode of distinction is that it makes the ministerial priesthood of the ordained seem too much like the ordinary priesthood of all the baptized, which was another major highlight of post-Vatican II theology.[6] Of course, such a distinction between the two kinds of priesthood is accurate since they are both ultimately a participation in the one Priesthood of Jesus Christ the High Priest, but conflating the two as if they are essentially the same thing is incorrect. At the same time it would be an oversight to suggest that today’s popular theology completely ignores that there is an essential difference between the priesthood of the ordained and the common priesthood of all the baptized,[7] but the practice of the Church, especially in the Novus Ordo liturgy, says more to the average Catholic than the words in any book or document about theology. “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” “As we pray, so we believe.”[8] The Novus Ordo may not explicitly state the two are the same, which would contradict the documents of the Council that produced it, but many of the rituals can mislead the lay participants, and even the clergy into forming a subconscious conflation of the ministerial priesthood and that of all the baptized.[9] This would, in turn, result in an egalitarian view of the clergy and laity so that the essential difference between the two would only be noticeable to the Catholic who can see the now invisible line that distinguishes the two.
Egalitarianism In the Liturgy and Its Effects
This confusion is, in fact, what has happened. The laity distribute Holy Communion and read the Scriptures in a liturgical context, both duties proper to the priest, or at least those with Holy Orders, most of which orders have now been done away with (See footnote 12 on the ordinary minister of the Eucharist.). Even in today’s modern practice, lay ministers of the Eucharist are called “extraordinary ministers” because they are only to be used when necessary. Canon Law defines the extraordinary minister as “an acolyte or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with Canon 230 §3.”[10] Canon 230 §3 is itself an example of egalitarianism leveling the clergy and laity,
Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law.
All these functions belonged to priests alone before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, except that the ordained acolyte and lector could function as such in preparation for the priesthood. The sign value of the sacrament of the Eucharist is more perceptible when the priest is the minister of Communion, and anyone in Holy Orders has a sacramental office to fulfill by virtue of ordination, but lay people do not have a liturgical office or duty to perform sacramental ministry. [11]Extraordinary administration of baptism or the Eucharist was reserved, not for convenience, but for emergencies, such as to baptize or administer Viaticum at death when no priest is present.[12] In such cases, there was a hierarchy to be respected in choosing who would baptize, with reasonable exceptions, so that the deacon would be the extraordinary minister if he be present, rather than the subdeacon, a man rather than a woman if one be present, etc.[13] Pope Paul VI, in suppressing the Minor Orders, mentions that one of his motives for suppressing the Minor Orders is that the laity can do the duties once reserved to those in Minor Orders, and he even called on the priesthood of the baptized to justify his position and call for a greater liturgical participation from the lay faithful in place of clerics. In stating this, Pope Paul was quoting Vatican II.[14] Once again, the motto of the French Revolution rings true for the revolution in the Church.
Mass ad populum, facing the people, is another way the liturgy has become egalitarian, requiring the altar in most cases to be brought down lower toward the people, physically bringing the priest down to the same or almost the same level as the lay faithful. In some places he is actually below the people, such as at St. John’s in Daylight, Indiana. The priest is no longer a leader whose back we see because we are following him up Mount Calvary, but we are facing each other, circling around the bottom of the mountain with no ascent intended or indicated.
Another result of this leveling of the clergy and egalitarianism in the liturgy is that the clergy more easily dismiss the rubrics, as minimal as they are, because following the rubrics precisely might lead to a certain moral clericalism so that they have no more responsibility in offering the Mass than the faithful when assisting at it. For example, in 2012, Pope Francis himself concelebrated a Mass at the Church of the Gesú without any sacred vestments.[15] First of all, this act itself is improper, because the Pope should never concelebrate a Mass offered by a simple priest.[16] Second, the Holy Father chose not to wear any sacred vestments at all. One might argue that the Pope is in charge of the liturgy and can do what he likes so long as he does not do or say anything against the Faith, but the Pope should always be the very first to follow, guard, and respect the law, rather than dismiss it because it does not apply to him.[17] This example preaches the gospel of egalitarianism, that the Pope is no different from the priests subject to his authority, or from the laity who do not wear sacred vestments because they are not actually offering the same Sacrifice.
Concelebration
Finally, it should be no surprise that concelebration has very egalitarian intent behind it. In the Traditional Latin Mass, specifically the Solemn High Mass, a cleric of one Order can exercise the Orders below him. For example, a priest can function as a deacon or even an acolyte. This practice physically orders the ministers in the sanctuary so that those fulfilling functions of higher Orders are usually closer to the altar than the others (as the engraved labels on the seven steps up to the high altar in Our Lady of Lake Seminary’s main chapel put on display). It is too difficult for the modern liturgists to appreciate this because all priests in their view must be participating in the same way in the Liturgy. Of course, they cannot escape order and hierarchy, because even the concelebrants are somewhat ordered so that some help read the Eucharistic Prayer, some distribute Communion, some wear a chasuble, some just a stole, and some might even take on the roles of the absent Deacon, but while still concelebrating. Plinio de Oliveira explains this is a normal phenomenon for the egalitarian. Order cannot be escaped from, “Very few people favor total equality.”[18]
However, the worst kind of leveling that happens in concelebration is that of bringing God down to our level. This can be seen, for example, in allowing lay ministers of Communion insofar as it no longer takes someone who has been set aside by ordination to do something so sacred, and someone who would, we might hope, be expected to have more faith and virtue than others because of the responsibility of their office. This, of course, might be the very problem, that the clergy want to escape the asceticism proper to their state and would rather be just like everyone else, which can be accomplished by giving their sacred duties to others.
The physical layout of the sanctuary also points to an egalitarian view of ourselves in relation to God. The altar is often at the same level as the nave where the lay faithful pray at Mass and when priests concelebrate they all stand at the same level rather than at higher or lower positions depending on the function of the Holy Order they are filling. Images and videos from Pope Paul VI’s first concelebrated Mass present him as one among equals, almost indistinguishable from the other clergy.[19] Mundelein Seminary, referenced above, lowered the altar down from the top of the steps each labelled in honor of one of the traditional Minor Orders and Major Orders, so that it is now at the level of the acolyte.
In any case, to understand how concelebration contributes to an egalitarian view of God and man in relation to each other, it is necessary to review the difference between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass.[20] The Sacrifice of the Mass has infinite value in the eyes of God because the Victim is Christ. At the same time, there are certain things we humans contribute to make the Mass more beautiful and increase our devotion. Insofar as these things contribute to our devotion, they please God and increase the graces we receive at Mass. The offering we give to God is infinite, but the fruits we receive in return are finite, according to our disposition.[21] Some examples of such contributions that can serve to increase the extrinsic value of the Mass include the beauty of the church, vestments and vessels, or the degree of holiness possessed by the priest and even the faithful in assistance. The way this pertains to concelebration is that the theologians who argue that the concelebrants are offering one and the same Mass, also argue that one Mass with many concelebrants is more meritorious than many Masses each offered by a different priest. This idea overlooks the fact that the intrinsic value of the Mass comes from Christ Himself as the Priest and Victim of the Sacrifice.[22] It overemphasizes our role as human beings, the extrinsic value, the role of the priest as a man. If the Sacrifice of the Mass has infinite intrinsic value regardless of anything else, would it not make more sense to say that the more Masses are said, the more graces we will receive? To say that one Mass with infinite value is greater than many Masses with infinite value simply because there are many priests concelebrating says that we rely more on the number of imperfect human ministers of the altar than on Christ the Eternal Priest and heavenly Victim. Our Lord offers each Mass perfectly, but the priest insofar as he is a man offers each Mass imperfectly. Insofar as he is an ordained priest standing in the Person of Christ, he gives each Mass its infinite value by making Christ the Victim present on the altar. However, to do this, he does not even need to be in the state of grace. He simply has to be ordained.[23] Such a way of thinking gives the human element of the priesthood too much of what belongs to God and limits God to the mere number of human concelebrants at one Mass. This, essentially, is egalitarianism.
The End Results
Because of the modern emphasis on the priest’s roles of teaching, governing, and sanctifying and the common priesthood, Catholics seem to be no different from Protestants. The Protestants do not have Holy Orders. Therefore, their “clergy” and “faithful” are equal, only ordered insofar as they themselves had to establish leaders in their churches lest they live in chaos. As said above, egalitarians cannot avoid all order. Nor do the Protestants have the Eucharist to be ordered to. They pretend to teach, govern, and sanctify in God’s name without a mandate, and if Catholics do not emphasize the Eucharist, the one thing that makes us different from other religions, we will end up Protestant. They do not have the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner via the Mass, but a “holy meal” at which they just need a host or entertainer from among equals so as to avoid chaos, which is what a concelebrated Mass inevitably looks like. Yes, it is a valid Mass, so it is a Sacrifice, but it no longer looks like one. The Traditional Latin Mass has ritualistic distinctions and separations among the ministers because a sacrifice is serious work, unlike a meal, the purpose of which is refreshment of the body and enjoyment of social life.
Not only does the Novus Ordo, and specifically concelebration lead to Protestantism, but it also leads to atheism. As Plinio de Oliveira says, egalitarianism leads to atheism because for an egalitarian to hold to his own principles, God and man are equal. However, God is clearly not man. The only other option is to say He does not exist.[24] While it would be a stretch to say that concelebration or any element of the Novus Ordo leads to atheism for a devout Catholic per se, it certainly does not keep the weak from forming erroneous opinions about theology, the Liturgy, or the Catholic Church. God Himself is orderly, and the Liturgy and ultimately the Church Herself must reflect this order. We see this when we look to heaven and see the order He established among the angels in dividing them into nine choirs. He has made certain things in creation to resemble Him more than others. No creature can resemble God perfectly. Some are mere footprints while man alone is made in His image and likeness. If everything resembled Him in the same way, we would not admire creation anymore than we would admire a forest with trees that all look identical. A more beautiful forest has a higher variety of trees. Each creature’s degree of resembling God make together a more beautiful universe than if they all resembled Him the same way and to the same degree. The beauty of a diverse creation gives us a certain wonder and leads us to God more easily than a universe in which everything is identical to each other like manufactured products in a man-made factory. Only God could have made so many and varied kinds of creatures. In the Church, some individuals are higher than others in the hierarchy, such as bishops. In the Liturgy, some take higher places than others according to this hierarchy. In the Traditional Latin Mass, some parts can be chanted and others cannot. Some parts are spoken out loud, and some are not. In the rite of concelebration, however, each priest is an equal, and the intrinsic value of the Mass becomes lost in its extrinsic value, God’s work becoming lost in ours.
Finally, egalitarianism also leads to tyranny. Communism tried to create a classless or egalitarian society. However, this led to a centralized tyrannical government. We see this in the issue of concelebration. If the priest does not concelebrate, he is seen as suspicious and untrustworthy. While each priest has a right to say his own Mass he must concelebrate. Each priest must embrace the Novus Ordo and if he dares to offer it in a way that is orderly and emphasizes our place in relation to God, and the people’s place in relation to the priest, such as ad orientem, he is seen as backward. On the other hand, no one is expected to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but is often sidelined for favoring it. Referring back to Pope Francis’ concelebration at the Gesú, he proved himself to be the liturgical tyrant who does not need to follow even the minimalistic laws of the Novus Ordo, and has banned many priests from offering a Liturgy that is 2,000 years old. Often, those priests are the ones who hesitate to concelebrate.
The only solution to recovering an orderly understanding of God and our place in His plan is to re-order the liturgy back to the way it used to be, the way it has been handed down to us from time immemorial. While concelebration is not the only egalitarian element of the Norvus Ordo Mass, it is one of the worst, and certainly one of the most subtle. It is always promoted as a tool to fostering unity in the Church.[25] Such unity is egalitarianism in disguise. It was the first rite of the new liturgy to be introduced, the test to see if other revolutionary changes could be made. If the priests will sacrifice their proper places in the Church, especially in the Liturgy for “unity,” everyone else will too.
———————————
Notes:
[1] “The resumption of the council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is, by the modernists, who are already prepared, as the most certain information testifies, to take advantage of the general situations in the Church in order to start a revolution, the new French Revolution of their hopes and dreams” (Cardinal Billot, quoted in Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, trans. Patrick T. Brannan, Michael J. Miller, and Kenneth D. Whitehead, ed. Michael J. Miller (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 2012), 94.
[2] Plinio Corréa de Oliveira, Egalitarianism: The Metaphysical Value and Religion of Our Days (Glasgow, Scotland: Tradition, Family, Property Association, 2014), xxiii.
[3] “The distinction of Orders is derived from their relation to the Eucharist. For the power of Order is directed either to the consecration of the Eucharist itself, or to some ministry in connection with this sacrament of the Eucharist. If in the former way, then it is the Order of priests; hence when they are ordained, they receive the chalice with wine, and the paten with the bread, because they are receiving the power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ. The co-operation of the ministers is directed either to the sacrament itself, or to the recipients. If the former, this happens in three ways. For in the first place, there is the ministry whereby the minister co-operates with the priest in the sacrament itself, by dispensing, but not by consecrating, for this is done by the priest alone; and this belongs to the deacon. Hence in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is said that it belongs to the deacon to minister to the priests in whatever is done in Christ's sacraments, wherefore he dispenses Christ's blood. Secondly, there is the ministry directed to the disposal of the sacramental matter in the sacred vessels of the sacrament, and this belongs to subdeacons. Wherefore it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) that they carry the vessels of our Lord's body and blood, and place the oblation on the altar; hence, when they are ordained, they receive the chalice, empty however, from the bishop's hands. Thirdly, there is the ministry directed to the proffering of the sacramental matter, and this belongs to the acolyte. For he, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24), prepares the cruet with wine and water; wherefore he receives an empty cruet. The ministry directed to the preparation of the recipients can be exercised only over the unclean, since those who are clean are already apt for receiving the sacraments. Now the unclean are of three kinds, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). For some are absolute unbelievers and unwilling to believe; and these must be altogether debarred from beholding Divine things and from the assembly of the faithful; this belongs to the doorkeepers. Some, however, are willing to believe, but are not as yet instructed, namely catechumens, and to the instruction of such persons the Order of readers is directed, who are therefore entrusted with the reading of the first rudiments of the doctrine of faith, namely the Old Testament. But some are believers and instructed, yet lie under an impediment through the power of the devil, namely those who are possessed: and to this ministry the order of exorcists is directed” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Suppl. q. 37, a. 2).
[4] “The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ…Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, §§ 10 and 21).
[5] There are sound arguments for the Minor Orders’ status as a part of the sacrament of Orders and that the Episcopacy is a different Order from the priesthood rather than just a higher degree of the order of the priest. There are also sound arguments for the Minor Orders not being part of the sacrament of Holy Orders and for the Episcopacy to constitute its own order separate from the priesthood. The Church allows both positions.
[6] “Each of them (the ministerial priesthood and that of the baptized) in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity” (Lumen Gentium, 10).
[7] The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood “differ from one another in essence and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium, §10).
[8] This is the common saying today, but its original form read, “Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi,” “The law of prayer establishes the law of belief.”
[9] Oliveira explains that it is normal for egalitarians to hold to their principles without fully realizing they hold such views, “Its adherents are directed by a levelling principle imbedded within their spirit, in a subconscious manner, but not adopted by them in an entirely conscious manner” (Oliveira, Egalitarianism, xxv).
[10] Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 910, §2.
[11] “As has already been recalled, ‘the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 900 § 1). Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, (Code of Canon Law, can. 910 § 1; cf. also Pope John Paul II, Letter, Dominicae Cenae, n. 11: AAS 72 (1980) p. 142; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 1: AAS 89 (1997) pp. 870-871) to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete” (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, VII, 1).
[12] The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a priest alone. This office is derived from divine positive law, since Christ instituted it, and gives to priests the power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist…The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is a deacon, whose ordination empowers him to assist the priest in the sacred Liturgy…The faculty should be given for grave reasons; in cases of necessity, it may be presumed…Necessity arises when Viaticum is to be taken to the sick in the absence of the parish priest; when Holy Communion is required by the faithful, even from devotion, and the parish priest is unable to administer it; when the parish priest is occupied in hearing confessions or preaching, or when the number of communicants is very great. The mere desire of a parish priest to gratify a newly-ordained deacon by allowing him to distribute Holy Communion is not a sufficient reason for doing so.Though the case would rarely arise, a deacon who ventured to without need or faculty (at least reasonably presumed) to administer Holy Communion to the faithful would sin grevously…Clerics inferior to deacons, and laypeople, have no faculties to administer Holy Communion, but they may do so in extreme necessity, since the reception of Viaticum is a divine precept and presumed faculty is then sufficient. These clerics or laypeople would incur irregularity by administering Holy Communion without necessity or without due permission” (Fr. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3 (London, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1945), 195, 197, and 198).
[13] “Private Baptism may be administered by anyone who has sufficient use of reason, Catholic or non-Catholic, baptized or not, validly always, but lawfully in danger of death only…But a certain precedence in baptizing must be observed. Thus, a priest is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, and a male to a female, unless, in the latter case, for decency sake, or because the female is more competent, she is to be preferred to the male. Even a suspended priest is to be preferred to others not priests, but a lay person is to be preferred to a cleric under censure after sentence. Even when a priest is present, it will always be more becoming for a doctor or midwife to baptize a child before actual birth, if such need arises” (Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, 47).
[14] “‘The Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations called for by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people' (I Pt 2:9; see 2:4-5) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the reform and promotion of the 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 and therefore pastors must zealously strive in all their pastoral work to achieve such participation by means of the necessary instruction’” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, §14, quoted in Ministerium Quædam).
“It is in accordance with the reality itself and with the contemporary outlook that the above-mentioned ministries should no longer be called minor orders; their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution. Only those who have received the diaconate, however, will be clerics in the true sense and will be so regarded. This arrangement will bring out more clearly the distinction between clergy and laity, between what is proper and reserved to the clergy and what can be entrusted to the laity. This will also bring out more clearly that mutuality by which ‘the universal priesthood of believers and the ministerial or hierarchic priesthood, though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, are nonetheless interrelated: each of these in its own special way is a sharing in the one priesthood of Christ’” (Ministerium Quædam, quotation from Lumen Gentium, §10).
[15] The full Mass may be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxMNOlpCMiw
[16] “Liturgical theology and law do not countenance that a bishop, let alone the diocesan bishop in his own diocese, concelebrate Mass with a priest as the principal celebrant (apart from a grave necessity, such as infirmity). This flows from the nature of the episcopal office: the bishop is the high priest in his diocese. He offers the sacrifice of the Mass for his people, while his priests, co-workers who serve the local Church under his authority, concelebrate with him” (Fr. Gerald Murray, Papal Abuse of Liturgical Law, from The Catholic Thing, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/03/22/papal-abuse-of-liturgical-law/).
[17] “Is the pope subject to liturgical law? Yes. Can he dispense himself from liturgical laws? Yes, but canon 90 states that there must be ‘a just and reasonable cause’ for a dispensation” (Murray, Papal Abuse of Liturgical Law).
[18] Oliveira, Egalitarianism, xxvii.
[19] https://www.youtube.com/live/1dDJzrwH9Co
[20] See Fr. Chad Ripperger’s article on this topic here: https://www.canon902.org/articles/3r7cc553w9u86sunt60ws49nd2l10h.
[21] “The principle excellence of the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass consists in being essentially, and in the very highest degree, identical with that which was offered on the Cross of Calvary…viewed according to its intrinsic preciousness and value, satisfaction may be completely made for all committed sin…though indeed Mass is of infinite value, you must know, nevertheless, that Almighty God accepts it in a manner limited and finite, and in degrees conformable to the greater or less perfection in the dispositions of him who celebrates or who assists at the Sacrifice” (St. Leonard of Port Maurice, The Hidden Treasure, (Charlotte, NC: Tan, 2012), 2, 14, and 16).
[22] “An assertion which is being made today, not only by laymen but also at times by certain theologians and priests and spread about by them, ought to be rejected as an erroneous opinion: namely, that the offering of one Mass, at which a hundred priests assist with religious devotion, is the same as a hundred Masses celebrated by a hundred priests. That is not true. With regard to the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the actions of Christ, the High Priest, are as many as are the priests celebrating not as many as are the priests reverently hearing the Mass of a Bishop or a priest; for those present at the Mass in no sense sustain, or act in, the person of Christ sacrificing, but are to be compared to the faithful layfolk who are present at the Mass” (Pius XII, Address of Nov. 2, 1954 on the Authority of the Church in Temporal Matters, 8).
[23] Here we are not downplaying the need for holiness in the minister of the Sacrifice or what is needed to offer Mass lawfully, but simply what is required for a valid Mass, “So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both. Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above (Article 5) in regard to Christ's ministry (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST, III, q. 82, a. 6).
[24] “An atheist is an egalitarian who, to avoid the absurdity of affirming that man is God, commits the absurdity of declaring that God does not exist” (Oliveira, Egalitarianism, 2 and 3).
[25] Concelebration “effectively brings out the unity of the priesthood, of the sacrifice, and of the whole people of God” (General Instructions of the Roman Missal, 153).