RE: [liturgy-l] Re: Concelebration
- Perhaps the term 'concelebration' has been limited in some cases to priestly
participation in saying the anaphora and doing the 'manual acts'. One might
expand it to include partipation in all the 'priestly' or 'presiding' parts
of the service. One could have 'concelebration' of matins and vespers too.
That would include the absolution, blessing etc. I think in a practical way
the 'east' takes a broader view. And when you understand how a hierarchical
liturgy works, you see that the presbyters in their rank are in a supporting
role to the bishop, while the deacons and subdeacons cluster around and do
the 'work'. And the people in their own priesthood sing and pray. (and
joyfully participate in passing and filling the basket!) It is iconic of
the whole church.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
Of James O'Regan
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Concelebration
Scott wrote and quoted John, and I comment as co-moderator:
> I agree. Concelebration sends no message that I can discern, althoughRegardless, concelebration is on the books in the Roman Catholic rite.
> I'm aware of some messages it's supposed to send. Just looks like
> crowding to me.
> On 4/30/06, John Dornheim <john19@...> wrote:
> > The only sign of unity which is needed is eating at the same table.
> > Concelebration is meaningless.
Insofar as it is, I see no creative worth in denigrating it. If the topic is
one that one wishes to follow, delete the thread. Otherwise, on this
ecumenical list, it behoves one to be open minded and polite.
This is not to say that there ought not to be an ecumenical discussion of
any one tradition but let there be discussion rather than flippant or any
James O'Regan, L.Th.
Concelebration in the ancient church entailed the presbyters surrounding the bishop at a pontifical celebration. It did not include the presbyters being a speech choir or dividing portions of the eucharistic prayer, as become common just after Vatican II. Solemn high mass is simply the ancient form of celebration with deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers carrying out various ministerial roles. Low mass meant a single priest with a server. There could be concelebration at a solemn mass, as we see in some of the Ordines Romani. But in antiquity that was not because presbyters took the diaconal roles. It was became the presbyteral college attended the bishop at his celebration.
Frank C. Senn
--- On Wed, 3/7/12, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:
From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Concelebration
Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:25 AMMy understanding is that the solemn high mass form came in response to abuses in concelebration in the earlier Church. Priests were going to the more prestigious parishes to concelebrate there, neglecting their own less prestigious cures. The solemn high mass personnel requirements were designed to keep this from happening.David---------------------------
dlewisaao@...In a message dated 3/7/2012 10:11:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cowling.douglas@... writes:
On 3/7/12 8:11 AM, "Sean Reed" <anglican@...> wrote:
An interesting article about concelebration:
"...concelebration, in the genuine tradition of the Church, whether eastern or western, is an extraordinary, solemn and public rite, normally presided over by the Bishop or his delegate, surrounded by his presbyterium and by the entire community of the faithful.But the daily concelebrations of priests only ... do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition..."
If the “genuine tradition” is the 1962 Missal alone, then you would have a case. But the more ancient custom of concelebration as a sign of the unity of the church is a much deeper tradition across east and west. The old high mass with its many ministers (deacon, subdeacon, acolytes) is not just ceremonial elaboration, but a metaphor of the church in its many charisms celebrating as a community.
The animus against concelebration boiled up at the Second Vatican Council where opponents advanced the numerical argument that the church lost sacramental graces when there was concelebration. Cardinal Spellman’s theologian famously said that, when 100 priests concelebrated, the church was short 99 masses.
Concelebration is a powerful symbol of unity. I remember attending the capitular mass at the Benedictine Abbey of St. Benoit-du-Lac near Montreal. At the offertory, all the priests of the community (there must have been 30 of them) quietly came to the altar and stood in a semi-circle behind the altar. Their verbal participation and gestures were discreet and unobstrusive. But the sense of commonality was palpable — richer and more generous than 60 years ago when they would have all gone invisibly into closets to mutter private masses.
Sharing the spotlight is a salutary clerical discipline in addition to expressing a deeper sacramental ecclesiology.
As a sidebar about clerical spotlights .. I have encounter opposition to concelebration among most Anglican priests, few of which would articulate an opinion on the multiplication of masses.
Director of Music
St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke