Sacramental Concelebration: Historical and Theological, Perspectives on Contemporary Practice

by Uwe Michael Lang

(cf Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal, Volume 27, Number 1, 2023, pp. 55-80, Published by The Catholic University of America Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/atp.2023.0000)

ABSTRACT: Sacramental concelebration has become increasingly common in the Roman Rite since the Second Vatican Council and today it is the regular form of Mass at clergy meetings and for priests living in community. This article first offers a brief overview of historical evidence for sacramental concelebration in the Church’s tradition. Secondly, I look at the discussions on the subject around the time of the council and at the post-conciliar development of the rite of concelebration up to the present liturgical norms. This will allow me, thirdly, to consider some of the important theological, liturgical, and spiritual questions raised by the current practice.

KEY WORDS: Eucharist, sacrifice of the Mass, concelebration, ordained priesthood, liturgical reform.

INTRODUCTION (1)

In historical liturgical sources as well as in modern liturgical scholarship, the word “concelebration” has a certain range of meanings. Hence it will be crucial to begin by distinguishing the different uses of the term:

1. In general terms, “concelebration,” in the sense of the Christian people joining in a hierarchically-ordered liturgical celebration, can be understood as the actual participation of all the baptised in Holy Mass. Such use of language is supported by many prefaces of the Roman Rite, which give poetic expression to the idea that the earthly assembly is admitted to the celestial song of praise and adoration, which is offered to God by the heavenly hosts who “worship together with exultation (socia exsultatione concelebrant).” (2)

2. In a more specific sense, ceremonial concelebration is commonly understood to describe the liturgical participation of ordained priests (and other members of the clergy) in the solemn form of Holy Mass, especially under the presidency of a bishop, when priests do not act as co-consecrators of the Eucharist.

3. Sacramental concelebration means that priests exercise their sacred power and act as co-consecrators of the Eucharist by speaking together with the main celebrant at least the words of institution. In this technical sense, concelebration has been used in official Church documents, especially since the pontificate of Pius XII, and in the post-conciliar liturgical books of the Roman Rite. (3) The older form of the Roman Mass recognises the assistance of the clergy in choir dress as ceremonial concelebration, but does not provide for sacramental concelebration, apart from the ordination of priests and bishops.

The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presents sacramental concelebration as an appropriate representation of the unity of the priesthood and significantly extended its use. However, as in so many other aspects, the actual liturgical reform soon went beyond the clearly defined framework of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and sacramental concelebration is widely practiced today: it is considered the regular form for Masses at major ecclesial functions, especially when a bishop presides, at clergy meetings of any kind, and it is the daily discipline of priests living in community.

At the same time, this practice has been scrutinised by theologians and liturgists from diverse perspectives, in a discussion that has gained depth and breadth in recent years. Authors, such as Joseph de Sainte-Marie, Robert Taft, Gisbert Greshake, Goffredo Boselli, Guillaume Derville and Nicola Giampietro raise important questions, including: Is Eucharistic concelebration the only appropriate form of expressing the unity of the priesthood? Can mass gatherings, such as World Youth Days, provide dignified settings for concelebration? Does a great number of concelebrants not give the appearance of clericalizing the liturgy at the expense of lay participation? How does regular, even daily concelebration affect the spiritual life of priests? (4)

In this article, I intend, first, to review historical evidence for sacramental concelebration in the Church’s tradition. Secondly, I will look at the theological and liturgical discussions on the subject around the time of the Second Vatican Council and at the post-conciliar development of the rite of concelebration up to the present liturgical norms. This will allow me, thirdly, to offer approaches towards addressing the aforementioned questions.

EUCHARISTIC CONCELEBRATION: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In Christian antiquity, the celebration of the Eucharist under the presidency of the bishop, with the assistance of his priests and deacons, and the participation of the lay faithful, was seen as a visible sign of the unity of the local church. This idea is already conveyed by Clement of Rome towards the end of the first century and finds eloquent expression in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. (5) The assistance of the clergy was distinguished from the participation of the laity by the places assigned to them in the assembly as well as by liturgical actions proper to priests and deacons. Thus, in the so-called Apostolic Tradition, which may contain late third-century material, (6) the model Eucharistic prayer proposed for the ordination of a bishop includes a laying on of hands, of the presbyterate together with the newly consecrated bishop, over the offerings brought by the deacons. (7) However, there can be no question of a sacramental concelebration in the sense of a joint consecration and offering of the Eucharist in the first centuries. The existing sources do not indicate that any part of the Eucharistic prayer was recited together; rather, it was the sole responsibility of the bishop or priest who presided as celebrant over the assembly. (8) A communal recitation of the Eucharistic prayer can be ruled out simply because its wording was not yet fixed in writing in the first three centuries and the celebrant had some room for improvisation, within a stable framework of rules that guided both the content and form of the prayer. (9)

The earliest available evidence in the Western tradition for a sacramental concelebration is to be found in Ordo Romanus III, a supplement to the solemn papal Mass of Ordo Romanus I, which is usually dated to the late eighth century. (10) Ordo Romanus III describes the joint celebration of the pope with cardinal presbyters on the four most important feast days of the liturgical year: Christ- mas, Easter Sunday, Pentecost Sunday and Saints Peter and Paul (June 29). The concelebrants, who stand around the altar to the right and left of the pontiff and hold a vessel with offerings in their hands, say the Canon of the Mass together with him (“simul cum illo canonem dicunt”) and consecrate with him the body and blood of the Lord (“simul consecrant corpus et sanguinem domini”). (11) Ordo Romanus IV, also dated to the late eighth century and considered a Frankish adaptation of the Roman Ordo Romanus I, (12) adds the Epiphany, the Easter Vigil, Easter Monday and the Ascension to the list of feast days on which the pope concelebrates with cardinal presbyters. (13) Amalarius, who spent some time in Rome around 831, also mentions the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday in this context, (14) and he indicates that the concelebrating priests likewise assist in the blessing of the holy oils, a practice that is recorded in the Roman pontifical of the twelfth century and is still maintained in the pontifical of Durandus of the thirteenth century. (15) Since the Ordines Romani were widely received in the Western Church and facilitated an imitation and adaptation of Roman liturgical customs, it can be assumed that concelebration with the bishop on solemn occasions also became common in local churches of the Latin West. (16)

Sacramental concelebration in papal Masses is still attested by Benedict, canon of St. Peter’s, in his Liber politicus (written between 1140 and 1143) for the Mass in St Mary Major’s on Christmas Day. (17) Shortly afterwards, however, it seems to have fallen out of use, for Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) speaks of it in the past tense. (18) Thomas Aquinas defends sacramental concelebration against the objection that a plurality of priests could not consecrate one and the same offering by referring to the practice in the Mass of ordination of priests, although he speaks of a custom observed in “some churches,” by which he presumably means dioceses. (19) It is worth noting here that where the proper rites of local churches have been preserved in the West, we find elements of the older Roman observance. Thus, in the Rite of Lyons, six priests concelebrated at the solemn pontifical Mass on Holy Thursday, speaking the words of consecration with the archbishop, and receiving from him the consecrated host, but not the chalice. (20)

In sum, although sacramental concelebration in the modern sense is not unknown in the Western tradition, it was limited to solemn pontifical liturgies on the most important feasts of the church year. The relevant sources from the Carolingian period document a practice that might go back to the seventh-century papal stational Mass, but it had fallen out of use in Rome by the beginning of the thirteenth century. From that time until the most recent liturgical reform, sacramental concelebration in the Roman Rite was limited to Masses of ordination, with a specific ritual form that is attested in the Roman pontifical of the twelfth century for the ordination of priests and in the pontifical of the Roman Curia of the thirteenth century for the ordination of bishops. (21) However, the question arises to what extent this is in fact a sacramental concelebration as generally understood today. For example, at the ordination of priests, the newly ordained would kneel for all the prayers from the offertory onwards, and they would receive communion only under one kind. (22)

In Eastern Christian rites, various forms of ceremonial concelebration of priests with the bishop are practised, as well as a type of “synchronised Mass” with a separate paten and chalice for each celebrant, which is known from the West Syrian and Ethiopian traditions. (23) Under Western influence, sacramental concelebration in the sense of co-consecration has spread in Eastern churches united with Rome. This happened largely after Vatican II (for example, among the Catholic Armenians), but in some cases had already been introduced before, for instance, in the Maronite Church, under the impact of Latin Eucharistic theology.

The case of the Byzantine tradition is particularly interesting. (24) Sacramental concelebration as verbal co-consecration is attested in a rubric that was included in the Latin version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Leo the Tuscan (1173/74). On the basis of comparative liturgical criteria, it has been argued that this diataxis (comparable to the Western ordo) reflects the usage of the Great Church of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, in the late tenth century. (25) This text is also the first witness (in East or West) to indicate a concelebration among priests without the presidency of a bishop. Robert Taft considers it unlikely that this rubric is owing to Western influence, given the increasing alienation between Rome and Byzantium at the time. (26) However, it seems remarkable that this source hails from a period when concelebration at a solemn pontifical Mass was quite common in the Latin West. The tenth century is marked by frequent, if often tense, interaction between the papacy and the Byzantine Empire. (27) In my opinion, the question of possible Latin influence cannot be categorically ruled out and is worth revisiting.

The practice of sacramental concelebration appears in a Russian Orthodox pontifical of the late thirteenth century, which insists that the concelebrants speak the words of institution together with the bishop. The findings in the Greek Orthodox Church are not entirely clear, but at least show that concelebration as co-consecration has been known in some places.

While this brief historical overview in no way claims to be exhaustive, it shows that both the Eastern and the Western tradition have known forms of liturgical participation by priests in the pontifical celebration of Holy Mass, which are hierarchically ordered and distinguished from the participation of the lay faithful. Through such ceremonial concelebration, the unity of the local church is visibly represented in the liturgical celebration. However, evidence for sacramental concelebration in the modern sense, that is, the Eucharistic co-consecration of priests with the presiding bishop, appears scattered and cannot claim real continuity through the centuries. (28) In the vast majority of cases, the practice is limited to the solemn pontifical liturgy on special occasions, such as important feasts of the liturgical year or the ordination of bishops and priests. Sacramental concelebration among priests is almost unknown in the broader ecclesial tradition.

THE THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION LEADING UP TO

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

The Liturgical Movement of the twentieth century was striving for a renewed awareness of the communal character of the Mass, and part of this effort was the call for an expansion of sacramental concelebration in the Roman Rite. The liturgical reform initiated by Pope Pius XII brought important developments in this regard. In his much-noticed address to the participants of the pastoral-liturgical congress in Assisi on September 23, 1956, Pius XII drew an analogy between the rite of consecration of a bishop and the sacramental concelebration of Mass. In his Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Consecrationis of 1944, he had made clear that the two co-consecrating bishops must join in the words and actions of the principal consecrator. (29) In a similar way, the pope determined in his 1956 address that it is not sufficient in the sacramental concelebration of the Eucharist to “to have and to indicate the will to make one’s own the words and actions of the celebrant. The con- celebrants must themselves say over the bread and the wine: ‘This is my Body,’ ‘This is my Blood,’ otherwise their concelebration is purely ceremonial.” (30)

Liturgical historians made significant contributions to the discussion on concelebration in the run-up to the Second Vatican Council. (31) It was widely assumed that sacramental concelebration was the practice of the early Church. As with other aspects of the liturgical reform (including the Eucharistic prayer, the rite of consecration of bishops, and the RCIA), enormous weight was given to the Church order known as Apostolic Tradition, which at the time was considered a source for Roman liturgical practice in the early third century. Bernard Botte interpreted the model Eucharistic prayer for the rite of consecration of a bishop as evidence of sacra- mental concelebration in the strict sense. (32) As secretary of the sub- commission De concelebratione sacramentali in the preparatory phase of the council and as member of Coetus VI of the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy, Botte played a decisive role in formulating Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 57 on concelebration, as well as in the composition of the 1965 Rite of Concelebration. (33)

Historical scholarship thus played a key role in liturgical renewal and in its theological interpretation. The question of what our liturgical practice should be today cannot be dissociated from a consideration of precedents in the Church’s tradition, as Robert Taft seems to propose in his valuable historical overview of Eucharistic concelebration. (34) It was a key objective of liturgical reform in the twentieth century to revive what was understood to be the practice of the early Church, for instance, the celebration of Mass “facing the people.” (35) Historical sources were certainly taken to support an early practice of sacramental concelebration in a way that cannot be sustained today. However, Joseph de Sainte-Marie overshoots the mark when he argues that the decision of the council fathers in favor of extending sacramental concelebration was based on a false argument of tradition. (36) The main reasons given for this extension in the second draft of the Schema Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia of October 22, 1962, were predominantly of a practical and pastoral nature. Guillaume Derville calls the visible representation of the unity of the priesthood the “leitmotif” of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents on concelebration. In addition, it was noted on the council floor that the simultaneous celebration of “private masses” on several altars of a church could have a detrimental effect on the piety (pietas) of both priests and faithful. Reference was also made to the difficulty of facilitating dignified individual celebrations of Mass at large meetings of priests. (37) While I do not intend here to elaborate further on the discussion at the council itself, (38) it is worth recalling that there was no lack of critical voices on the expansion of sacramental concelebration. Among other things, council fathers expressed concern that regular concelebration could weaken the spiritual identity of the priest and his unity with Christ.

The final text of Sacrosanctum Concilium included two articles on concelebration:

57. §1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west (Concelebratio, qua unitas sacerdotii opportune manifestatur, in Ecclesia usque adhuc in usu remansit tam in Oriente quam in Occidente). For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases (Quare facultatem concelebrandi ad sequentes casus Concilio extendere placuit):

1.

a) on the Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops’ conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principal Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests’ meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

§2.

1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper.

58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal. (39)

Article 57 introduces in a relative clause the “leitmotif” that concelebration is a fitting representation of the unity of the priesthood and goes on to affirm that concelebration has remained in use in East and West. On these grounds the conciliar constitution extends the permission for concelebration to specific occasions that are then listed. More specific regulation of this discipline is the task of the diocesan bishop. This is not a general introduction of concelebration, and there is no mention of an obligation to do so. At the same time, the right of a priest to celebrate Mass individually is affirmed (except during a concelebration at the same time in the same church and on Holy Thursday).

Concelebration is also mentioned in the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum Ordinis, and it is seen as a liturgical expression of the joint sharing of bishops and presbyters in the one priesthood of Christ:

All priests, in union with bishops, so share in one and the same priesthood and ministry of Christ that the very unity of their consecration and mission requires their hierarchical communion with the order of bishops. At times (aliquando) in an excellent manner they manifest this communion in liturgical concelebration as joined with the bishop when they celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (40)

This does not make concelebration a general rule any more than Sacrosanctum Concilium does.

THE RITE OF CONCELEBRATION

The new Rite of Concelebration, which was mandated by article 58 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was promulgated together with the Rite of Communion under both kinds by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites Ecclesiae Semper of March 7, 1965; it came into force on the following Holy Thursday (April 15), and thus still during the council. (41) In retrospect, Annibale Bugnini hailed this rite as the first completely new creation of the liturgical reform. (42)

It is striking that in the introduction to the decree the practice of concelebration is given far greater theological weight than in Sacrosanctum Concilium. The decree expounds that there are three main “marks and properties” of every celebration of Mass: first, the unity of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, which is made present in many Masses; second, the unity of the priesthood, even though many priests act sacramentally in the person of Christ the High Priest; and third, the unity of the whole people of God, which is manifested especially in the Mass.

The introduction goes on to say that “these three characteristics are particularly conspicuous in the rite in which several priests con- celebrate the same Mass.” (43) Particular reference is made to the solemn concelebration presided over by the bishop with the active participation of the faithful as “the preeminent manifestation of the Church in the unity of sacrifice and priesthood and the single offering of thanks around the one altar with the ministers and holy people.” (44) Thus the decree of promulgation goes beyond Sacrosanctum Concilium in extolling the theological and especially the ecclesiological reasons for extending the practice of concelebration.

The actual rite (Ritus servandus in concelebratione Missae) closely follows the conciliar constitution and extends concelebration to the instances listed in article 57 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. (45) From our perspective today, it is particularly noticeable that the praenotanda of the rite offer a criterion for limiting the number of concelebrants: this number “should be determined in individual cases with regard to the church and the altar where the concelebration takes place, so that the concelebrants may stand around the altar, even if not all of them touch the mensa of the altar directly.” (46) Bugnini reports that Pope Paul VI initially considered limiting the number of concelebrants to 20 or 25, since he believed a larger number could no longer guarantee an orderly and dignified celebration of Mass. At the same time, however, there was a concern that such a limit would preclude the concelebration of priests at larger events. In the end, a more generic, albeit clear criterion was found, namely the physical proximity to the altar (“concelebrantes circum altare stare possint”). (47)

While the Ritus servandus of 1965 thus maintained the limited extension of concelebration as envisaged in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Sacred Congregation for Rites brought about a change of perspective in its instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium of May 25, 1967. The general part of the instruction insists that “disruption of the congregation is to be assiduously avoided” and that for this reason there should be no simultaneous celebration of Masses at different altars of the same church. This applies to the Masses cum populo on Sundays and feast days but should also be observed on other days “as far as possible.” The best way to achieve this would be for “those priests to concelebrate who want to celebrate Mass at the same time.” (48)

In the section on the proper role of priests in the celebration of the Eucharist, the instruction reminds them to “participate in the Eucharist by exercising the order proper to them, by celebrating or concelebrating the Mass and not by limiting themselves to communicating like the laity.” (49) As in the decree Ecclesiae Semper, the threefold theological significance of concelebration is highlighted: the unity of the sacrifice, the unity of the priesthood, and the unity of the people of God. Going beyond concelebration at a solemn pontifical Mass, Eucharisticum Mysterium highlights concelebration among priests as symbolizing and strengthening their “brotherly bond” and exhorts superiors of priestly communities not only to “facilitate” but also to “foster” (foveant) the practice. Clearly, concelebration is presented as the preferential option, even though the instruction cautions: “unless it conflicts with the needs of the faithful which must always be consulted with the deepest pastoral concern, and although every priest retains the right to celebrate alone.” (50)

With the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, the theological premises and liturgical provisions of Eucharisticum Mysterium were incorporated into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. (51) There is no mention of a criterion for restricting the number of concelebrants as in the Ritus servandus of 1965. However, even the new liturgical legislation seems to presuppose a limited number of concelebrating priests, since seats are to be prepared for them in the sanctuary (“in presbyterio”) (52) and, after the prayer over the offerings, the concelebrants are to approach the altar and stand around it (“ad altare accedunt et circa illud consistent”). (53) Should the number of concelebrants be too great to observe this, then the seats should be placed in another part of the church close to the altar (“prope altare”). (54) For large gatherings of priests, several concelebrations at different times or in different sacred places are recommended. (55)

In the renewed liturgical books of the Roman Rite, there is some ambiguity as to the extent of the recommendation or indeed obligation of priests to concelebrate when they participate in the solemn Mass under the presidency of a bishop: are all the attending priests meant to concelebrate sacramentally, as is the liturgical practice of many dioceses throughout the world? (56) The General Instruction, in the section entitled “Concelebrated Mass,” lists the occasions on which sacramental concelebration with the bishop is prescribed by the rite itself (the ordination of a bishop and of a priest, the blessing of an abbot and Chrism Mass) and on which it is recommended, with reference to article 57 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, (57) and it adds to the second list the stational Mass with one’s own diocesan bishop, especially on important days of the liturgical year. (58) Elsewhere, however, the General Instruction de facto recommends the concelebration of priests at all Masses presided over by the bishop, so that the mystery of the Church as “the sacrament of unity” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 26) is manifested more clearly. (59) The same point is made in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, (60) but we also find in this liturgical book a number of provisions presupposing that priests attend the bishop’s Mass in choir dress without concelebrating sacramentally. (61) Likewise, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal foresees that not all priests participating in a Mass concelebrate sacramentally, but that some of them attend in choir dress in the sanctuary. (62)

Even for the Chrism Mass, which expresses the communion of priests with their bishop in a special way, the Caeremoniale Episcoporum does not stipulate that all participating priests also concelebrate sacramentally. Rather, concelebrants are to represent the different areas of the diocese, so that the unity of the presbyterate is signified in the liturgical action. (63) It stands to reason to interpret the instructions for the rite of ordination of a bishop and of priests in an analogous way: the obligation to concelebrate applies to the newly ordained, but by no means to all the participating bishops and priests. (64)

Here it should also be mentioned that Pope John Paul II’s urged priests to be available to hear confessions also during the celebration of Mass where possible so that the faithful can avail themselves of the sacrament of penance. (65)

Another aspect of the question concerns concelebration in priestly communities. The General Instruction expressly recommends that at the “conventual Mass, which is a part of the daily Office, or the community Mass . . . all the priests who are not bound to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful concelebrate . . . in so far as it is possible.” In this context, priests who have the duty of celebrating “individually for the pastoral good of the faithful” may also concelebrate on the same day at the communal celebration of Mass. In the third typical edition of the Roman Missal the following explanation was added:

For it is preferable 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 hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock. (66)

Thus, unlike for the stational Mass of a bishop, the concelebration of all participating priests is strongly recommended for the daily conventional or community Mass. This is all the more remarkable because there is hardly any evidence in the wider tradition of East and West for the regular concelebration of presbyters without the bishop presiding. The tension between this provision and the right of priests to celebrate the Eucharist individually, which is affirmed in the same General Instruction, cannot be ignored. (67)

An important clarification is offered by the relevant canon 902 on concelebration in the Code of Canon Law of 1983:

Unless the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or suggests otherwise, priests can concelebrate the Eucharist. They are completely free to celebrate the Eucharist individually, however, but not while a concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory. (68)

The illuminating discussion by Markus Graulich on the genesis of this canon in the post-conciliar reform shows that in the final editing by Pope John Paul II the right of priests to individual celebration is stated and preserved more clearly than in previous drafts. (69) It is not only the pastoral criterion of the benefit of the faithful that restricts the option of concelebration. (70) Rather, with the canonist Georg May, it should be noted that the canon “does not recommend concelebration; it merely declares it permissible under certain conditions. Concelebration is a possibility, not an obligation. Where it takes place, each priest must retain the freedom to celebrate as an individ- ual (individuali modo).” (71)

PROBLEMS OF THE CURRENT PRACTICE

In retrospect, it can be seen clearly how the actual liturgical reform went beyond the indications of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The council fathers decided to extend sacramental concelebration, which until then had been extremely limited, with the intention that on certain occasions and especially in hierarchical communion with the bishop, the unity of the priesthood would be symbolically represented in the liturgical action. However, concelebration was not to become the regular practice in the ministry of priests, who were “strongly urged” in the decree Presbyterorum Ordinis to offer Mass daily, because “even if there cannot be present a number of the faithful, it is still an act of Christ and of the Church.” (72) It is also worth noting that the renewed Missale Romanum, for the first time, introduced an Order of Mass specifically for such occasions. (73) In the post-conciliar liturgical legislation, however, concelebration is given preference over individual celebration, even without the bishop presiding. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, in turn, deliberately strengthens the right of priests to individual celebration of Mass and does not recommend concelebration.

In recent years, the practice of concelebration has been reconsidered from a variety of theological, liturgical, pastoral, and spiritual perspectives. At the Roman Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist in October 2005, the question of concelebration at large-scale Masses, such as World Youth Days, was raised. Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged the concerns of the synod fathers in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 2007.74 As Guillaume Derville observes, largescale concelebrations often lack the required clarity of liturgical signs, for example, in the liturgical vestments of the concelebrants, in the liturgical gestures to be performed by them, and in the joint recitation of the core of the Eucharistic prayer—ritual elements that are precisely intended to manifest the unity of the priesthood. (75)

After the publication of Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI commissioned the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disci- pline of the Sacraments to produce guidelines for large celebrations, which were finally published in Italian in 2014. These guidelines emphasize that the celebration of the Eucharist requires a close spatial relation between both the congregation and the concelebrating priests, and the altar. Therefore, it should be considered whether the Mass is always the appropriate liturgical celebration for an event with a great number of participants, or whether other forms, such as a Eucharistic procession, exposition and benediction, or a prayer vigil, would be preferable. In the light of the concerns raised at the Synod of Bishops, the document notes that it is the bishop’s responsibility to regulate concelebration in his diocese and it recommends limiting the number of concelebrants according to the capacity of the sanctuary or equivalent area. (76)

These guidelines are to be welcomed, but they do not address the problem that regular and even daily concelebration cause for the identity and the ministry of a priest. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI speaks forcefully about the “Eucharistic form” of priestly life:

[The priest] is called to seek God tirelessly, while remaining attuned to the concerns of his brothers and sisters. An intense spiritual life will enable him to enter more deeply into com- munion with the Lord and to let himself be possessed by God’s love, bearing witness to that love at all times, even the darkest and most difficult. To this end I join the Synod Fathers in recommending “the daily celebration of Mass, even when the faithful are not present.” This recommendation is consistent with the objectively infinite value of every celebration of the Eucharist, and is motivated by the Mass’s unique spiritual fruitfulness. If celebrated in a faith-filled and attentive way, Mass is formative in the deepest sense of the word, since it fosters the priest’s configuration to Christ and strengthens him in his vocation. (77)

The renewed recommendation that a priest should offer Mass daily, even without the participation of the people, is “consistent with the objectively infinite value of every celebration of the Eucharist, and is motivated by the Mass’s unique spiritual fruitfulness.” (78) Within the limits of this article, I cannot address the difficult and intricate the- ological question as to how the fruits of one concelebrated Mass relate to the fruits of several individually celebrated Masses. (79) However, it should be noted that a concelebration is a single liturgical representation of the sacrifice of the cross, even if many priests concelebrate sacramentally. (80)

Presiding over a celebration of the Eucharist sustains and strengthens priestly spirituality, since in it the specific Christlikeness conferred by the sacramental character of Holy Orders is directly experienced in word and gesture, while the liturgical actions of concelebrating priests, except for the actual Eucharistic consecration, largely correspond to the people’s responses. (81) As has been shown in the historical part of this article, the concelebration of priests at a solemn pontifical Mass on important occasions is known in the Church’s tradition, but the regular, even daily, concelebration of priests in community life is without precedent. Canon law enshrines the priest’s freedom to celebrate Mass individually. Priests should be able to exercise this right—as far as their pastoral duties permit—in order to strengthen their priestly spirituality. In churches and chapels, a priest’s legitimate desire for individual celebration should be accommodated as far as possible.

Going beyond such practical suggestions, I have documented how the theological rationale and the practical extension of concel- ebration in the post-conciliar period went far beyond the clearly defined framework of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Pope Francis, in his recent apostolic letter on the liturgical formation of the people of God, urges us “continually to rediscover the richness of the general principles exposed in the first numbers of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” (82) A rediscovery of these general principles would also help us to re-assess the practice of concelebration today.

Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, D.Phil., is a priest of the Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in London and teaches theology at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.

Notes:

(1) This is the extended version of a paper given at the Society for Catholic Liturgy’s 2022 Annual Conference, held at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver, Colorado.

(2) Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. cura recogni tum, Editio typica tertia, reimpressio emendata (Vatican City: Typis Vaticanis, 2008), Ordo Missae, Praefatio Communis II, and others. Hans Bernhard Meyer, Eucharistie: Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, Mit einem Beitrag von I. Pahl, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1989), 491, notes, with reference to the work of Benedicta Droste, “Celebrare” in der römischen Liturgiesprache (Munich: Hueber, 1963), 90–92 that the term concelebrare was used in this sense well into the Middle Ages. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), nos. 1140– 1144.

(3) See Meyer, Eucharistie, 492; also Claude Richard, “La concélebration,” in Collectanea Cisterciensa 26 (1964), 100–136, at 124, and Archdale A. King, Concelebration in the Christian Church (London: Mowbray, 1966), 7–8.

(4) See Joseph de Sainte-Marie, L’Eucharistie, salut du monde (Paris: Éditions du Cèdre, 1982); English translation: The Holy Eucharist—The World’s Salvation: Studies on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, its Celebration and its Concelebration (Leominster: Gracewing, 2015); Gisbert Greshake, “Konzelebration der Priester: Kritische Analyse und Vorschläge zu einer problematischen Erneuerung des II. Vatikanischen Konzils,” in Glaube im Prozeß: Christsein nach dem II. Vatikanum, Fest- schrift für Karl Rahner, ed. Elmar Klinger and Klaus Wittstadt (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 258–288; Robert Taft, “Ex Oriente Lux? Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration,” in id., Beyond East & West. Problems in Liturgical Understanding, 2nd rev. and enlarged ed. (Rome: Ed. Orientalia Christiana, 2001), 111–132, first published in Worship 54 (1980), 308–324, and “Eucharistic Concelebration Revis- ited: Problems of History, Practice, and Theology in East and West,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 76 (2010), 277–313 (Part I) and 77 (2011), 25–80 (Part II); Goffredo Boselli, “Le débat sur la concélébration après Vatican II,” in La Maison- Dieu 224 (2000), 29–59, and “Concelebrazione eucaristica e ministero presbiterale,” in Rivista liturgica 97 (2010), 67–80; Guillaume Derville, La concélébration eucharistique: Du symbole à la réalité, Collection Gratianus. Série Monographies (Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2011), first published in Annales Theologici 29 (2009), 255–310; Nicola Giampietro, La concelebrazione eucaristica e la comunione sotto le due specie nella storia della liturgia, Collezione storica 29 (Verona: Fede & Cultura, 2011); Markus Tymister, La concelebrazione eucaristica: Storia, questioni teologiche, rito, Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgiae. Subsidia 182 (Rome: CLV–Edizioni Litur- giche, 2017).

(5) First Clement, 40–41: The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Trans- lations, edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes after the earlier work of J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 98–99. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, 5 and 20: ibid., 186–187 and 198–199; Letter to the Magnesians, 6–7: ibid., 206–207; Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8: ibid., 254–257.

(6) Recent research has radically questioned the date, geographical provenance, and authorship of the text, so that it can no longer be considered a source for Roman liturgical practice in the early third century. See Bruno Steimer, Vertex traditionis: Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1992); Marcel Metzger, “À propos des règlements ecclésiastiques et de la prétendue Tradition apostolique,” in Revue des sciences religieuses 66 (1992), 249–261; Christoph Markschies, “Wer schrieb die sogenannte Traditio Apostolica? Neue Beobachtungen und Hypo- thesen zu einer kaum lösbaren Frage aus der altkirchlichen Literaturgeschichte”, in Tauffragen und Bekenntnis: Studien zur sogenannten “Traditio Apostolica,” zu den “Interrogationes de fide” und zum “Römischen Glaubensbekenntnis,” ed. Wolfram Kinzig, Christoph Markschies and Markus Vinzent, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 74 (Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1999), 1–79. A translation of the different language versions of the text, arranged in parallel columns, has been published by Paul F. Brad- shaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Philips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002).

(7)  Apostolic Tradition, 4, 2: ed. Bradshaw, Johnson, and Philips, 38.

(8)  See Adrian Nocent, “Questions about Specific Points,” in Handbook for Liturgical Studies, Vol. III: The Eucharist, ed. Anscar Chupungco (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 295–320, at 297, against the interpretation of Bernard Botte, “Note historique sur la concelebration dans l’Eglise ancienne,” in La Maison-Dieu 35 (1953), 9–23. See also the historical overviews in Taft, “Ex Oriente Lux,” 118– 124; Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 9–20, and Giampietro, La concele- brazione eucaristica, 15–24.

(9) Unless one assumes that priests had memorized the words of institution and would recite them together with the presiding bishop. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for such a practice.

(10) See Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, Revised and Translated by William G. Storey and Niels Krogh Rasmussen, O.P. (Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press, 1986), 160.

(11) Ordo Romanus III, 1: ed. Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge, 5 vol., Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 11, 23, 24, 28, 29 (Louvain: Pee- ters, 1931–1961), vol. II, 131.

(12)  See Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 160–161.

(13)  Ordo Romanus IV, 52: ed. Andrieu, vol. II, 163.

(14)  “Mos est romanae ecclesiae ut in confectione immolationis Christi adsint presbiteri, et simul cum pontifice verbis et manibus conficiant.” Amalarius, Liber officialis I, 12, 26: ed. Jean Michel Hanssens, Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, Tomus II, Studi e testi 139 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948), 75.

(15) Pontificale Romanum saec. XII: XXX A. Ordo in feria quinta maioris ebo- madae, 36–37: ed. Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au Moyen-Âge, vol. 1, Studi e testi 86 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1938), 220–221. William Durandus, Pontificale, III, 2, 56: ed. Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au Moyen- Âge, vol. 3, Studi e testi 88 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1940), 571–572. See Aimé-Georges Martimort, “Le rituel de la concélébration eucharis- tique,” in Ephemerides Liturgicae 77 (1963), 147–168, at 156.

(16) See Ordo Romanus IV,10: ed. Andrieu, vol. II, 116: “Episcopi, qui in civi- tatibus praesedent, ut summus pontifex ita omnia peragunt.” On concelebration in French dioceses, see Martimort, “Le rituel de la concélébration eucharistique,” 153.

(17) Le Liber Censuum de l’Eglise romaine, ed. Paul Fabre and Louis Duchesne, 3 vol., Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 6 (Paris: Fontemoing, 1910–1952), vol. II, 146 (no. 20): “Tunc VII cardinales ascendunt ad altare cum libris, III ex una parte et IIII ex alia parte. Et pontifex a diaconis sustentatus intrat ad altare in canone ad sanctificandam hostiam cum cardinalibus.” John F. Romano, “The Ceremonies of the Roman Pontiff: Rereading Benedict’s Twelfth-Century Liturgical Script”, in Viator 41 (2010), 133–150, argues convincingly that Benedict’s ordo is a reliable source for the mid-twelfth century, rather than a compi- lation of liturgical sources that were obsolete by this time.

(18) Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, 25: PL 217,874A: “Consueverunt autem presbyteri cardinales romanorum circumstare pontificem et cum eo pariter celebrare.”

(19) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 2, sed contra: “. . . secundum consuetudinem quarundam Ecclesiarum, sacerdotes, cum de novo ordinantur, concelebrant episcopo ordinanti.” See also In IV Sent., d. 13, q. 1, a. 2, qu. 2, sed contra.

(20) See Pierre Martin, “Une survivance de la concélébration dans l’Église occidentale: la messe pontificale lyonnaise du jeudi saint,” in La Maison-Dieu 35 (1953), 72–74.

(21) For the ordination of bishops: Pontificale Romanum saec. XIII: ed. Andrieu, 150–151. For the ordination of priests: Pontificale Curiae Romanae saec. XIII: ed. Michael Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au Moyen-Âge, vol. 2, Studi e testi 87 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1940), 349.

(22) See Markus Graulich, “‘Sacerdotes Eucharistiam concelebrare possunt. . .’: Kirchenrechtliche Erwägungen zu einer praktischen Fragestellung,” in Veritas vos liberabit: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Günter Assenmacher, ed. Matthias Pulte and Thomas A. Weitz (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2017), 407–422, at 409.

(23) See the overview of Taft, “Ex Oriente Lux,” who draws on Jean C. McGowan, Concelebration: Sign of the Unity of the Church (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 39–53, and King, Concelebration in the Christian Church, 102–132. See also Alphonse Raes, “La concélébration eucharistique dans les rites orientaux,” in La Maison-Dieu 35 (1953), 24–47.

(24) In the fifth century, the Life of St. Markianos, steward of Hagia Sophia, describes the celebration of the Eucharist on the occasion of the solemn transfer of the relics of the martyr St. Anastasia from Sirmium to Constantinople, in which many bishops and priests took part. However, the source cannot be interpreted in the sense of a sacramental concelebration; see Taft, “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Part II,” 25–33.

(25) André Jacob, “La concelebration de l’anaphore à Byzance d’après le temoignage de Léon Toscan,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 35 (1969), 249– 256. See also Taft, “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Part II,” 42–46.

(26) Taft, “Ex Oriente,” 116.

(27) Jonathan Shepard, “Western Approaches (900–1025),” in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500–1492, ed. Jonathan Shepard (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2008), 537–559, at 540, speaks of “the intensity of imperial relations with Rome” in the first half of the tenth century. Tia M. Kolbaba, “Latin and Greek Christians,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 3: Early Medieval Christianities, c.600–c.1100, ed. Thomas F. X. Noble, Julia M. H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 213–229, at 229, notes: “Sources that report friendly interaction between Latin and Greeks in the early Middle Ages are as numerous as sources that report conflict.”

(28) See Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 18: “La concelebration eucharistique dans la tradition liturgique présente donc des discontinuités et des points obscurs.”

(29) Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Consecrationis (November 30, 1944), in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 37 (1945), 131–132.

(30) Pius XII, Allocution Vous Nous avez, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 48 (1956), 711–725; English translation from The Liturgy Documents, Vol. 3: Foundational Documents on the Origins and Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 2013), 253–265, at 259. A little later in the same address, Pius XII was even more explicit: “Likewise, in celebration and concelebration, one must see whether, along with the necessary interior intention the celebrant completes the external action, and, above all, pronounces the words which constitute the ‘actio Christi se ipsum sacrificantis et offerentis.’ This is not verified when the priest does not pronounce over the bread and the wine our Lord’s words: ‘This is my Body,’ ‘This is my Blood’” (ibid.). See also Holy Office, Dubium de valida con- celebratione, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49 (1957), 370.

(31) The pre-history of Vatican II is documented in Giampietro, La concele- brazione eucaristica, 25–40, and Tymister, La concelebrazione eucaristica, 194–208. See also the critical review by Joseph de Sainte-Marie, The Holy Eucharist, 123–177.

(32) See Botte, “Note historique,” 12, whereas Jean Michel Hanssens, “La concelebrazione sacrificale della Messa,” in Divinitas 2 (1958), 242–267, at 248– 249, correctly argues for a ceremonial concelebration, since the assisting priests do not join in the Eucharistic prayer.

(33) The Apostolic Tradition is explicitly mentioned in the Declarationes attached to the first schema of the Ritus in Concelebratione Missae Romanae Servan- dae of April 2, 1964; see Giampietro, La concelebrazione eucaristica, 206–207. According to his own testimony, however, Botte had misgivings about this process: “Il nous était impossible de revenir en arrière. Nous étions victimes de la manière dont on avait posé le problème. . . . La concélébration apparut comme un moyen commode pour que tous pussent célébrer ensemble leur messe. C’est-à-dire qu’elle était la synchronisation de plusieurs messes et non un acte collégial du presbyterium.” Bernard Botte, Le mouvement liturgique: Témoignage et souvenirs (Paris: Desclée, 1973), 153.

(34) Taft, “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Part II,” 75. Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 19 rightly asks: “Est-il possible d’évacuer ainsi la ques- tion théologique?”

(35) See Uwe Michael Lang, Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Litur- gical Prayer, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009), 35–93, and now also Stefan Heid, Altar und Kirche: Prinzipien christlicher Liturgie (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2019), 244–349.

(36) See Joseph de Sainte-Marie, The Holy Eucharist, 230 and 241–242. A certain continuity in the practice of concelebration is implied in can. 803 of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici: “Non licet pluribus sacerdotibus concelebrare, praeterquam in Missa ordinationis presbyterorum et in Missa consecrationis Episcoporum secun- dum Pontificale Romanum.” This is a disciplinary law that does not allow priests to concelebrate, except at the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops. At the same time, it seems to presuppose the fundamental possibility of concelebration beyond these occasions. See Charles Augustine Bachofen, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. IV: On the Sacraments (Except Matrimony) and Sacramen- tals, 3rd rev. ed. (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1925), 127–128.

(37) See the documentation by Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 28–30.

(38) A selection of interventions by council fathers is offered Giampetro, La concelebrazione eucaristica, 41–73; see also Tymister, La concelebrazione eucaris- tica, 209–232. The genesis of the conciliar constitution is documented in Francisco Gil Hellín, Concilii Vaticani II Synopsis: Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2003).

(39) Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963) nos. 57–58.

(40) Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Pres- byterorum Ordinis (December 7, 1965), no. 7.

(41) Sacred Congregation of Rites, Decretum generale quo Ritus concelebra- tionis et communionis sub utraque specie promulgatur Ecclesiae Semper (March 7, 1965), in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965), 410–412.

(42) Annibale Bugnini, La riforma liturgica (1948 al 1975), Nuova edizione riveduta e arricchita di note e di supplementi per una lettura analitica, Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgiae. Subsidia 30 (Rome: CLV – Edizioni Liturgiche, 1997), 133.

(43) Ecclesiae Semper; English translation from Documents on the Liturgy 1963– 1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982), 555 (no. 1792).

(44)  Ibid.

(45)  Ritus servandus in concelebratione Missae, Editio typica (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965), praenotanda, no. 1.

(46)  Ibid., no. 4. My translation.

(47)  See Bugnini, La riforma liturgica, 137; Boselli, “Concelebrazione eucaristica e ministero presbiterale,” 70–76.

(48) Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instructio de cultu mysterii eucharistici Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967), in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967), 539– 573, no. 17; English translation from https://adoremus.org/1967/05/eucharis- ticum-mysterium/.

(49)  Ibid, no. 43.

(50)  Ibid, no. 47.

(51)  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 1969, nos. 153–208; in the latest edition of 2002, nos. 199–251. The texts of the different editions are conveniently presented in parallel columns in Maurizio Barba, Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani: Textus—Synopsis—Variationes, Monumenta Studia Instrumenta Liturgica 45 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2006).

(52)  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 2002, nos. 207 and 310.

(53)  Ibid., no. 215.

(54)  Ibid, no. 294.

(55)  Ibid, no. 201.

(56)  The regulation of concelebration in a diocese is up to the bishop, but “in accordance with the norm of law (ad normam iuris),” so that it must conform to the general provisions. Ibid, no. 202.

(57)  Ibid, no. 199.

(58)  Ibid, no. 203.

(59)  Ibid, no. 92.

(60) Caeremoniale Episcoporum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vati- cani II instauratum auctoritate Ioannis Pauli pp. II promulgatum, Editio typica (Vat- ican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1984), no. 21.

(61)  See ibid, nos. 50, 66, 532 and 649 (among others).

(62  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 2002, no. 310.

(63)  Caeremoniale Episcoporum, no. 274. This also means that sacramental concelebration at the Chrism Mass cannot be interpreted as an indispensable sign of ecclesial communion. This is noted by Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 50, fn. 148, with reference to Louis-Marie de Blignières, “La concélébration à la messe chrismale: Une rubrique instructive,” in: Sedes Sapientiae 89 (2004), 3–12, at 12.

(64)  See Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 50, fn. 148.

(65)  John Paul II, Apostolic Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio on Certain Aspects of the Celebration of the Sacrament of Penance Misericordia Dei (April 7, 2002), no 2; likewise, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Responsa ad dubia proposita,” in Notitiae 37 (2001), 259–260. See Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 57–58.

(66) Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 2002, no. 114. For the textual history of this paragraph, see Barba, Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, 490–491.

(67) See ibid, no. 199, and clarification on this question by the Sacred Con- gregation for Divine Worship, Declaratio In celebratione missae (August 7, 1972), no. 3.c, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 64 (1972), 561–563, at 563: “Although con- celebration is to be regarded as the most excellent form of eucharistic celebration in communities, private celebration without a congregation also ‘remains as the center of the entire life of the Church and at the heart of the priest’s existence.’ Therefore the option of every priest to celebrate Mass individually must be respected. To preserve this freedom everything must be arranged regarding time, place, assistance of a server, and other requisites for celebration that will facilitate such celebration.” English translation from Documents on the Liturgy, 564 (no. 1816). The citation in the text is from the 1971 Synod of Bishops on the ministerial priesthood.

(68) “Nisi utilitas christifidelium aliud requirat aut suadeat, sacerdotes Eucharistiam concelebrare possunt, integra tamen pro singulis libertate manente Eucharistiam individuali modo celebrandi, non vero eo tempore, quo in eadem ecclesia aut oratorio concelebratio habetur.” Can. 902 CIC.

(69)  See Graulich, “Sacerdotes Eucharistiam concelebrare possunt,” 413–415.

(70) As suggested by Rüdiger Althaus in his commentary on can. 902, in Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici, ed. Klaus Lüdicke et al. (Essen: Ludgerus-Verlag, 1984–). The work is published in loose-leaf form and periodically updated.

(71) Georg May, “Das Recht auf Einzelzelebration,” in id., Schriften zum Kir- chenrecht: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, ed. Anna Egler and Wilhelm Rees, Kanonistische Studien und Texte 47 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003), 501–526, at 502. My translation.

(72)  Presbyterorum Ordinis, no. 13; also can. 904 CIC.

(73)  The Ordo Missae sine populo (“Order of Mass Without a Congregation”) in the editio typica of 1970, which was renamed Ordo Missae, cuius unus tantum minister participat (“Order of Mass, with the Participation of a Single Minister”) in the tertia editio typica of 2002.

(74) Benedict XVI, Post-Synodical Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (February 22, 2007), no. 61.

(75) See Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 69–97.

(76) Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Guida per le grandi celebrazioni (June 13, 2014), no. 9, in Notitiae 50 (2014), 330– 348, at 336.

(77)  Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, no. 80.

(78)  The same recommendation is made by John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on the Eucharist and its Relationship to the Church Ecclesia de Eucharistia (April 17, 2003), no. 31, and Congregation for the Clergy, Directory on the Life and Ministry of Priests, New Edition (February 11, 2013), no. 67.

(79) See the collection of essays by Joseph de Sainte-Marie, The Holy Eucharist, and the exchange between John McCusker, “Concerning Regular Concelebration in Seminaries and Religious Houses,” in Antiphon 22 (2018), 225–242, and Pieter van Rooyen, “The Fruit of the Mass According to Maurice de la Taille: A Reply Con- cerning Regular Concelebration,” in Antiphon 23 (2019), 185–197.

(80) The ambiguity that surrounds this question confirms the critical observation Joseph Ratzinger made with reference to the sacrificial character of the Eucharist: “The lack of clarity that has prevailed in this area, even during the Council, regarding the relation between the dogmatic and liturgical levels must be regarded as the central problem of the liturgical reform. Failure to deal with it has resulted in a great many of the individual problems that have since preoccupied us.” Joseph Ratzinger, “Form and Content of the Eucharistic Celebration,” in Theology of the Liturgy: The Sacramental Foundation of Christian Existence, ed. Michael J. Miller, trans. John Saward, et al., Joseph Ratzinger Collected Works 11 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 299–318, at 301.

(81) See Derville, La concélébration eucharistique, 89–93; also Johannes Nebel, “‘Vi ordinationis’—eine vernachlässigte Dimension liturgischer Theologie: Zum eucharistischen Identitätskern des Weihepriestertums,” in Forum katholische Theologie 21 (2005), 254–286, with a critical appraisal of the influential study by Karl Rahner and Angelus Häußling, Die vielen Messen und das eine Opfer, Quaestiones Disputatae 31 (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1966).

(82) Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter on the Liturgical Formation of the People of God Desiderio Desideravi (June 29, 2022), no. 61.