Concelebration

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:20 PM']Yep, they are to be totally separate.  There is to be no mixing of the Missa Normativa and the Mass previous to Vatican Council II.

That is per Ecclesia Dei and supporting documents.
[right][snapback]761883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe there is permission given for FSSP priests to concelebrate with their bishops on a holy thursday mass with the missa normativa.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 17 2005, 11:13 PM']in our parish, we have 4 priests... and on Sunday's one priest offers Mass, then when it comes time for the dispensing of Communion, another one of the priests comes out in cassock, surplice and stole to help dispense Communion... then he leaves, going back into the sacristy
[right][snapback]761988[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


As he should, per Redemptionis Sacramentum #128; quoted above.

[Sinner]

Not a statement of any Chuch issues..... personally speaking, I don't mind it as long as common sense rules. Not all the time....
and when priests are falling off the side steps of the altar; maybe, just maybe there are too many of them up there.

[Aloysius]

I still think private masses are awesome.

[journeyman]

oh, to be in a parish where "too many priests" was an issue . . . concelebration is not likely to be a problem in our parish for some time

[son_of_angels]

Personally, I am opposed to the notion of concelebration without a Bishop present, as it seems to confuse the fact that priests are priests UNDER a specific Bishop, as with all the Holy Orders. It simply seems too...(searching for word) presbyteral (made one up)...and emphasizes the priests authority while de-emphasizing the fact that the ONLY ordinary authority is in the Bishop. Hence, a priest cannot ordain another priest and should not presume to concelebrate with him as he adds nothing more or less to the celebration itself. When concelebration is done with or between bishops, it seems to more emphasize the particular unity of the church in the episcopal order, and therefore serves a special function. Perhaps replacing common priestly concelebration with priests functioning in the diaconal and subdiaconal role would be more appropriate (though I would say that having lectors/acolytes and deacons fulfill these functions is BEST) for local non-pontifical Masses.

As for private Masses, I agree that private Masses are easily an abuse, because then the Mass may simply become simply a prayer, an action, and a meal, when it is also a liturgical SACRIFICE. Nonetheless, I also think that private Masses serve an important role in the spiritual formation of priests, especially religious priests, by emphasizing the liturgy celebrated within their own solitude, between them, God, the heavenly hosts, and the Mystical Church of God. Each private Mass said with this in mind is truly a sacramental liturgy, fully participated in by all its members. Hence, in my own opinion, concelebration should not be an alternative nor "in opposition to" private Masses, but serve a worthy purpose of itself.

Edited October 19, 2005 by son_of_angels

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 19 2005, 01:54 AM']Personally, I am opposed to the notion of concelebration without a Bishop present, as it seems to confuse the fact that priests are priests UNDER a specific Bishop, as with all the Holy Orders.  It simply seems too...(searching for word) presbyteral (made one up)...and emphasizes the priests authority while de-emphasizing the fact that the ONLY ordinary authority is in the Bishop.  Hence, a priest cannot ordain another priest and should not presume to concelebrate with him as he adds nothing more or less to the celebration itself.  When concelebration is done with or between bishops, it seems to more emphasize the particular unity of the church in the episcopal order, and therefore serves a special function.  Perhaps replacing common priestly concelebration with priests functioning in the diaconal and subdiaconal role would be more appropriate (though I would say that having lectors/acolytes and deacons fulfill these functions is BEST) for local non-pontifical Masses.

As for private Masses, I agree that private Masses are easily an abuse, because then the Mass may simply become simply a prayer, an action, and a meal, when it is also a liturgical SACRIFICE.  Nonetheless, I also think that private Masses serve an important role in the spiritual formation of priests, especially religious priests, by emphasizing the liturgy celebrated within their own solitude, between them, God, the heavenly hosts, and the Mystical Church of God.  Each private Mass said with this in mind is truly a sacramental liturgy, fully participated in by all its members.  Hence, in my own opinion, concelebration should not be an alternative nor "in opposition to" private Masses, but serve a worthy purpose of itself.
[right][snapback]763413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you are opposed to it because it doesn't [i]feel [/i]right to you?

[son_of_angels]

So what? Lot's of things don't "feel" right to me, because they are not. It doesn't seem right to me, that doesn't mean that it isn't valid, or even correct (though I CAN argue that it is equally not INCORRECT to limit the use of concelebration for the benefit of the faithful).

As an aspiring liturgist, and perhaps priest, I don't like it. I have my reasons which I stated above: 1.) A host is still a host whether consecrated by one priest or two, so it seems like the only way to benefit from concelebration is to add something different to the celebration, e.g. the bishop, who exercises the fulness of the priesthood. 2.) I think that anytime one sees too many priests and not enough bishops, it is a poor sign of pastoral leadership. 3.) I think that private masses are a good balance to overly public masses. If the public mass emphasized the sacramental character it once did (not necessarily in the Tridentine, but also in the primitive rites), that is that it is the Sacrifice of the Faithful, and not the public, then I might be inclined to say that private masses were a mistake. As such, I cannot say this about the Rites in most use today, though perhaps others can, and therefore it is my opinion that private Masses should be the preferrential option between themselves and concelebration (if one has the option at all).4.) I think the liturgical roles of Gospel Reader (Deacon) and Epistle (Sub-deacon) are beautiful expressions of the whole Church, and I think fulfilling these roles should be prior to having three priests that don't contribute anything in particular to the Eucharistic Sacrifice (don't take me too literally on that). After all, priests, as an ecclesial rank, are not Bishops and therefore do not posess the fulness of the Apostolic succession, so why MUST they take on a certain role in public liturgies, except by the discipline of the Church?

Again that is simply my opinion......

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 09:35 PM']So what? Lot's of things don't "feel" right to me, because they are not.  It doesn't seem right to me, that doesn't mean that it isn't valid, or even correct (though I CAN argue that it is equally not INCORRECT to limit the use of concelebration for the benefit of the faithful). 

As an aspiring liturgist, and perhaps priest, I don't like it. I have my reasons which I stated above: 1.) A host is still a host whether consecrated by one priest or two, so it seems like the only way to benefit from concelebration is to add something different to the celebration, e.g. the bishop, who exercises the fulness of the priesthood. 2.) I think that anytime one sees too many priests and not enough bishops, it is a poor sign of pastoral leadership. 3.) I think that private masses are a good balance to overly public masses.  If the public mass emphasized the sacramental character it once did (not necessarily in the Tridentine, but also in the primitive rites), that is that it is the Sacrifice of the Faithful, and not the public, then I might be inclined to say that private masses were a mistake.  As such, I cannot say this about the Rites in most use today, though perhaps others can, and therefore it is my opinion that private Masses should be the preferrential option between themselves and concelebration (if one has the option at all).4.) I think the liturgical roles of Gospel Reader (Deacon) and Epistle (Sub-deacon) are beautiful expressions of the whole Church, and I think fulfilling these roles should be prior to having three priests that don't contribute anything in particular to the Eucharistic Sacrifice (don't take me too literally on that).  After all, priests, as an ecclesial rank, are not Bishops and therefore do not posess the fulness of the Apostolic succession, so why MUST they take on a certain role in public liturgies, except by the discipline of the Church?

Again that is simply my opinion......
[right][snapback]765523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Correct.

2. Incorrect.

3. Incorrect.

4. Correct and incorrect.

#2. The view that you hold is not the view of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. I would implore you to re-read paragraph 128. You will see that it is clear.

[quote name='Redemptionis Sacramentum #128']Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constituted, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according to his own condition. [b]It is preferable therefore that “Priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments.[/b] Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.”  It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the manner of the lay faithful.[/quote]

#3. This view is also incorrect. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a private Mass. Every Mass is to have a server. In pre-conciliar days, a priest would say his Mass, then serve for the next Mass....if there was no altar server.

#4. It is preferable to have two deacons at Mass, that is what makes it solemn. However, I challenge you to show me how a priest who is celebrating or concelebrating is NOT contributing to the Divine Liturgy. That view is utterly incorrect. Redemptionis Sacramentum states that priests who are present at a Eucharistic celebration should excercise the OFFICE PROPER to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants.

So, take it from one who studied the Liturgy on a formal level; pre- and post-Vatican Council II; you need to adapt your views to the views of the Church. Keep studying. As it stands, your opinions are not informed and they are incorrect. You CAN argue your point all you want, but you are not correct in your view.

Concelebration is acceptable and preferred. The Church is clear, Cardinal Arinze is clear, and the Congregation for the Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments is clear.

[son_of_angels]

First, concelebration is, within the context of Redemptionis Sacramentum, all that you described it, and therefore it IS proper for a priest to exercise the rights of his order. However, in a different context, say the Indult Mass, it would be incorrect because there is generally no allowance for this. Many writers, for example, in the Tridentine period, and indeed the Church of that time itself, felt it completely inappropriate for the Canon to be said aloud within the context of the Mass. Yet the Mass has changed (not the essentials, I agree) and it is appropriate until the rite itself changes. I agree with a change in Context, not in obedience, and context is always the basis for applying the instructions of the Church regarding most liturgical/disciplinary things. It would, for example, be entirely inappropriate to have a married priest, except in the particular contexts in which the Church has approved it, and that most of the instructions regarding to celibacy, must be adapted or abandoned based on context.

Remember the words of the Holy Father "To absolutize what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism."

Secondly, I have seen many cases where I didn't think concelebration, compared to altar serving/Diaconal or Sub-diaconal roles, was preferrable, due, often, to the fact that the over-amount of action around the altar, and the inability of the priests to do it nobly. I also think that it would be a delight best left to pontifical solemn Masses. This is not something I can SHOW you, or even argue with you, because it is like discussing whether or not chocolate is bad (again, don't take my similes too seriously, or you'll hurt yourself), or you/I liked a play. There may be concrete reasons for arguing either side, but those concrete reasons speak to a particular need for either of us, that, until you ARE me, then these arguments mean nothing.

Edited October 21, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 10:32 PM']First, concelebration is, within the context of Redemptionis Sacramentum, all that you described it, and therefore it IS proper for a priest to exercise the rights of his order.  However, in a different context, say the Indult Mass, it would be incorrect because there is generally no allowance for this.  Many writers, for example, in the Tridentine period, and indeed the Church of that time itself, felt it completely inappropriate for the Canon to be said aloud within the context of the Mass. Yet the Mass has changed (not the essentials, I agree) and it is appropriate until the rite itself changes.  I agree with a change in Context, not in obedience, and context is always the basis for applying the instructions of the Church regarding most liturgical/disciplinary things.  It would, for example, be entirely inappropriate to have a married priest, except in the particular contexts in which the Church has approved it, and that most of the instructions regarding to celibacy, must be adapted or abandoned based on context.

Remember the words of the Holy Father "To absolutize what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism."

Secondly, I have seen many cases where I didn't think concelebration, compared to altar serving/Diaconal or Sub-diaconal roles, was preferrable, due, often, to the fact that the over-amount of action around the altar, and the inability of the priests to do it nobly.  I also think that it would be a delight best left to pontifical solemn Masses.  This is not something I can SHOW you, or even argue with you, because it is like discussing whether or not chocolate is bad (again, don't take my similes too seriously, or you'll hurt yourself), or you/I liked a play.  There may be concrete reasons for arguing either side, but those concrete reasons speak to a particular need for either of us, that, until you ARE me, then these arguments mean nothing.
[right][snapback]765588[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

However, we are not in the Tridentine period. And the Tridentine is not the normative view to hold. It is an indult.

Again, your view is uninformed and is contrary what the Church teaches. I don't need to be you in order to understand where you are coming from. Part of being able to learn is being able to see the whole picture. When you start learning then you can apply what the Church teaches in a concrete way.

So, I know where you are coming from. And I am not too concerned about your similes....they don't even make me smile.

[son_of_angels]

I believe by saying "we are not in the Tridentine period" you just agreed with me, whether you think you did or not.

Is it uninformed to like the musical Candide if you've never read the novel?

Nonetheless, my view is not particularly uninformed, yours seems (and I say "seems" because most of these discussions are based things that "seem" one way or another) to be uninformed by the light of reason and circumstance.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]#3. This view is also incorrect. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a private Mass. Every Mass is to have a server. In pre-conciliar days, a priest would say his Mass, then serve for the next Mass....if there was no altar server.[/quote]

So, does this mean that a priest who is traveling by himself should not offer Mass on a given day if he cannot find anyone to attend? At St. Peter's in Rome, many priests offer private Masses in the morning. A server will usually set up for them, but the server then leaves and the priest is often by himself, though sometimes there is a congregation.

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 20 2005, 11:25 PM']I believe by saying "we are not in the Tridentine period" you just agreed with me, whether you think you did or not.

Is it uninformed to like the musical Candide if you've never read the novel?

Nonetheless, my view is not particularly uninformed, yours seems (and I say "seems" because most of these discussions are based things that "seem" one way or another) to be uninformed by the light of reason and circumstance.
[right][snapback]765645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Whatever.....nope.....I am not agreeing with your position at all.

Your position is incorrect. Period. It is contrary to the accpeted teaching of the CDW and the Church.

[jmjtina]

all I keep seeing is what you [i]think [/i]and [i]feel [/i]sons of angels......and your personal view, right?

And I hated the Candide novel. absolutely destested it. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon8.gif[/img]

[Antonius]

[quote]So, does this mean that a priest who is traveling by himself should not offer Mass on a given day if he cannot find anyone to attend? At St. Peter's in Rome, many priests offer private Masses in the morning. A server will usually set up for them, but the server then leaves and the priest is often by himself, though sometimes there is a congregation.
[/quote]

Yeah, a priest friend of mine is on a leave of absence from the diocese and he cannot celebrate the sacraments without special permission from the local bishop, but he was telling me that he'll have to say his daily Mass in private, which is what St. Pio did for a few years when the bishop ordered him not to say Mass in public.

A priest can't say a Mass without an altar server helping him?

Edited October 21, 2005 by Antonius

[Cam42]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Oct 21 2005, 12:11 AM']Yeah, a priest friend of mine is on a leave of absence from the diocese and he cannot celebrate the sacraments without special permission from the local bishop, but he was telling me that he'll have to say his daily Mass in private, which is what St. Pio did for a few years when the bishop ordered him not to say Mass in public.

A priest can't say a Mass without an altar server helping him?
[right][snapback]765710[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As a rule, no he cannot. [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM"]Canon Law[/url] forbids it, except in extraordinary circumstances, which are just and reasonable.

[quote name='Can.906']Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.[/quote]

[JP2Iloveyou]

Cam, that's interesting. I never knew that. What would constitute a just and reasonable cause? For example, I suppose if a priest showed up for morning Mass at his parish and for whatever reason, NO ONE was there, he would still be able to celebrate Mass, wouldn't he?

[Cam42]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM']Cam, that's interesting.  I never knew that.  What would constitute a just and reasonable cause?  For example, I suppose if a priest showed up for morning Mass at his parish and for whatever reason, NO ONE was there, he would still be able to celebrate Mass, wouldn't he?
[right][snapback]766715[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes. That would be the best reason.

Also, if a priest were on vacation, although I don't think that would be a good enough reason, from my point of view.....I mean, can't he find a church, where is he, the middle of Egypt?

I don't think that there are many reasons that are justifiable, but that is for the priest's Ordinary to decide, not me. Thanks be to God.