The Regulation of CONCELEBRATION by the Diocesan Bishop

(cf. Studia canonica 49 | 2015, pp. 229-261 doi: 10.2143/STC.49.1.3082845 )

By Brian Dunn

(Assistant Professor on the Faculty at St. Peter’s Seminary, London, Ontario. Lecturer for two years at the Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, Ottawa. Instructor with the Atlantic School of Theology, Served as Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, ON and became Bishop of Antigonish, NS on January 25, 2010.)

SUMMARY — The Roman Missal calls on the Diocesan Bishop to regulate the discipline of concelebration (GIRM, n. 202). Any regulation of concelebration requires a certain amount of background not only of the documents directly connected with concelebration but of the developments associated with concelebration itself. This article examines some of the history connected with concelebration including the studies on concelebration within the liturgical movement in the early twentieth century, the papal and curial pronouncements in the 1950s, the preparation and the promulgation of the new rite of concelebration in 1965. As well, the article considers the possibilities of concelebration within the various revised rituals, the canonical provisions regarding concelebration, the theological and practical issues related to concelebration over the past thirty years including ongoing criticism of the rite. In light of this background, the article will offer a proposal for the actual regulation of concelebration in a diocese.

Introduction

Professor Roland Jacques has spent much of his priestly and professional life serving the people of Viet Nam. His personal example and scholarly work have affirmed the importance of combining theology, canon law and pastoral experience in order to address the needs of a particular people. His example highlights the role of particular law as a way to address local needs. This example is especially inspiring when one reflects on the significance of particular law within the celebration of the liturgy. In this article, I wish to acknowledge Professor Roland’s example by studying how the issue of concelebration might be addressed through the particular regulations of a diocesan bishop.

The experience of concelebration during the twentieth century has been intriguing and illustrates a certain amount of development. (1) This development includes the restrictions codified in canon 803 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the studies within the liturgical movement on concelebration in the 1920s and 1930s, the widespread debate on the history, theology and liturgical practice of concelebration in the 1940s and 1950s, the papal and curial pronouncements in the 1950s, the discussions of the council fathers in the 1960s, the promulgation of the new rite of concelebration in 1965, the possibilities of concelebration within the various revised rituals in the 1970s and 1980s, the formulation of canon 902 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law and canons 700-702 in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the discussions about the theological and practical issues related to concelebration over the past thirty years (2) and the ongoing critique associated with more recent experiences of concelebration. (3) The current reflection on the issues associated with concelebration shows that the Church has responded in a variety of ways to concelebration. A number of important conclusions emerge from this reflection and these are pivotal in assisting the diocesan bishop as he attempts to regulate the practice of concelebration in his diocese.

1 — Meaning of Concelebration
One of the first issues that emerges from the studies on concelebration

involves the meaning of the word itself. (4) The term ‘concelebration’ comes from the Latin ‘concelebrare’ which was taken from the Latin preface of the Gallican sacramentaries of the seventh century. (5) In one sense, the early Church understood that the Eucharist was the celebration of the whole people of God, where all the orders (bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laity) celebrated together (con-celebrate). Fenwick refers to this as ecclesial concelebration and points to a broad understanding of ‘concelebration’ as the simultaneous participation of several ministers in one liturgical function. (6) On the other hand, ‘concelebration’ in the strict sense of the word is the simultaneous participation of priests in one liturgical function. These broad and strict definitions are revealing in the sense that the word itself provides an opportunity to consider concelebration from a larger context.

Pope Pius XII acknowledged this broader meaning of the term in 1947 but raised questions about a particular nuance of this meaning. (7) Moreover, the experience of the Eastern Churches shows that they generally view concelebration from this larger perspective. The decree, Ecclesiae semper, promulgating the Rite of Concelebration, describes a concelebrated Mass as one where “several priests, in virtue of the same priesthood and in the Person of the High Priest, act together with a single will and a single voice, and together bring about and offer the unique sacrifice by a single sacramental act, and participate in it together.” (8)

2 — Background to Concelebration

An awareness of some of the history of early Christianity reveals that the early Church had an emerging awareness of the role of concelebration. In his correspondence to the Church at Corinth, Paul is concerned about ensuring unity in the midst of a variety of roles and ministries (1 Cor 11:17-34; 12:27-30; 14:26-40), while the Acts of the Apostles presents an idealized unity within the primitive ecclesial community (Acts 1:14; 2:42-47; 4:32-35). The early church fathers had a concern for unity and gradually witnessed to a more defined ministerial structure to serve this unity, that is, one bishop presiding with the council of presbyters and the deacons.9 The Apostolic Tradition (n.4), attributed to Hippolytus of Rome and traditionally viewed as having been compiled around 215 AD, describes an ancient concelebration whereby the priests with the bishop extend their hands over the offerings while the bishop pronounces the words of the anaphora. While this evidence from the first three centuries does not show ‘concelebration’ in the contemporary sense, Taft notes that these early fathers witness to an emerging differentiation within the liturgy, whereby presbyters participated in the services more than ‘as laity’ and they indeed performed liturgical actions. (10) This awareness gradually developed until another change could be witnessed: “the service begins to appear less the common celebration of all, each according to his or her rank and role, and more and more that which is done by the ministers for the rest.” (11)

Up until the sixth century, any texts attesting to the practice of concelebration make no mention that the concelebrating priests recited aloud the words of consecration. However, in the seventh century, attested in the Ordo romanus I and Ordo romanus III, concelebration was limited to the great feasts, and priests began to recite the words of the canon. (12) Various theories are proposed for this transition, e.g., that presbyters “co-offer” the sacrifice with the bishop as a result of the extension to presbyters of what was once reserved to bishops; or that they could “co-offer” at the bishop’s liturgy, just as some visiting bishops would do. (13)

The present practice of concelebration seems to have its roots in the twelfth century, when the newly ordained were initiated as consecrators of the bread and wine. (14) This practice differed from the ancient concelebration whose primary purpose had been the manifestation of unity. Gradually concelebration fell into disuse for a number of reasons, e.g., it was reserved for great solemnities, there was a radical change in the devotions favored by the people, (15) there was a tendency of considering the sacraments from their individual efficacy at the expense of the ecclesial aspect of the Eucharist. While the practice of concelebration was diminishing in the West, some, including Thomas Aquinas, (16) continued to defend its theological correctness.

The rite was eventually introduced into the Roman Pontifical of 1596 in the ordination rite, where the newly ordained priest or newly consecrated bishop recited aloud all the prayers of the Mass beginning with the Offertory. (17) Few other changes were made to the rite and the 1917 Code of Canon Law merely codified the practice of the day: canon 803 did not permit several priests to concelebrate, except in the Mass at priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations, according to the Roman Pontifical. As a result, priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations became the primary experience of concelebrations prior to the council.

The rite of concelebration was obviously in need of revision and, by the 1960s, suggestions were made to achieve this end, e.g., by reducing the number of prayers said by all the concelebrants, by eliminating some of the ritual gestures except by the main celebrant, by including the reception of communion under both kinds, by indicating through the wearing of at least surplice or alb and stole the role of the concelebrants, and by placing the concelebrants around the main celebrant at the altar, unless the number was great. (18)

Besides the above background, the practices of concelebration in the Eastern Churches are instructive as further background to the experience of concelebration. (19) A great variety of traditions of concelebration have survived in the Eastern Churches. For example, with the Syrian Orthodox, the bishop shares the various prayers of the anaphora with the presbyters, but he alone recites the words of institution and the epiclesis; with the East Syrians, the presiding bishop asks one of the presbyters to recite the Eucharistic Prayer; in the Byzantine tradition, some prayers are said by all the concelebrating ministers. In this tradition different ministers are assigned various prayers, duties and functions, without all being required to perform the same gestures or recite the same prayers simultaneously. Nevertheless, all the priests were considered concelebrants even while the celebration of the mysteries is attributed to one presiding celebrant, and none of the concelebrants recite the anaphora. Some Eastern traditions, e.g., Ethiopians and both Orthodox and Catholic Syrians, have a practice of “synchronized Masses” with each celebrant having his own bread and cup. This variety of practices leads to two realizations, namely, that silent concelebration was indeed practiced and that much of the Eastern tradition emphasizes the ‘concelebration’ of all services and sacraments. This kind of concelebration occurred with all the various ministers participating according to their rank and fulfilling actions as distributed among all. Moreover, some of these Eastern Churches present another level of concelebration and consider “the Church’s earthly liturgy as a concelebration with the Heavenly Liturgy of the Communion of Saints, as reflected not only in the earliest liturgical texts of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, but also in the iconography of the church building.” (20)

3 — Factors Influencing Concelebration Prior to Vatican II

During the 1920s and 1930s, several factors contributed to a new interest in the issue of concelebration. (21) Pius XI called for a greater contact with the Eastern Churches, and as a result, more contact arose with the experience of concelebration. The second factor involved the emergence of the liturgical movement. This movement focused on the participation of the faithful in the liturgy and led to a growing acceptance of a more communitarian liturgy. One of its leaders, Dom Beauduin, wrote that the meaning of concelebration involved an emphasis on hierarchical unity, and he suggested a restoration of concelebration under three conditions: only with the bishop presiding; reserved for great and solemn occasions; and with special rubrics laid down by Rome. (22) A third factor involved the study on concelebration by John Hanssens, where he distinguishes between full or sacramental concelebration, where the concelebrants pronounce the consecratory words, and a ceremonial concelebration, in which only the principal celebrant pronounces the consecratory words. (23) In the late 1940s and 1950s, theologians began to discuss whether or not silent concelebration was sacramental and sacrificial, historically and dogmatically. (24) From the historical point of view, it seemed reasonable to suppose that verbal sacramental concelebration developed from a pre-existent silent, sacramental concelebration, rather than that sacramental concelebration developed from a rite of purely ceremonial concelebration. Taft suggests that it would be more accurate to note that the origins of what we mean by “concelebration” are multiple. (25) They probably arise from the eucharistic expression of the communion of the local Church celebrated by the bishop together with presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, widows, virgins, etc. Another source is the experience of “eucharistic hospitality” accorded visiting bishops as a sign of communion between Sister Churches. Furthermore, as bishops assigned priests to preside at the Eucharist, a consciousness probably grew that they could co-offer at the bishop’s liturgy, after the example of visiting bishops. With due respect to the teaching of Pius XII and the Holy Office, and in light of the variety of traditions in the Eastern Churches, the question continues to remain for some authors whether a priest can really exercise his priestly powers, really consecrate, by merely uniting his intention to that of the principal concelebrant. (26)

Besides these factors, other factors influenced a reconsideration of concelebration. (27) Under the pontificate of Pius XI, an expectation was developing whereby priests were expected to celebrate Mass every day. Moreover, priests experienced serious practical difficulties associated with the celebration of private Masses, especially during priests’ retreats and large gatherings of priests. These practical difficulties as well as the growing appreciation of the whole celebrating assembly contributed to the revision of the rite as directed by Vatican II.

Furthermore, papal and curial documents contributed significantly to the teaching associated with concelebration. In the midst of the discussion that emphasized the social character of the Eucharist and the importance of priests “concelebrating” with the people present, Pius XII affirmed that the priest offers the Eucharist in the name of Christ and of the faithful, even in a private Mass. (28) This statement affirmed the practice of private Masses. A few years later, Pius XII taught that priests who assist at (rather than celebrate) the Eucharist are compared to lay people attending Mass. (29) Later, in 1956, Pius XII addressed the International Convention on Pastoral Liturgy and stated that concelebrants must themselves say over the bread and wine: ‘This is my Body’, ‘This is my Blood’; otherwise, their concelebration is purely ceremonial. He noted that it does not suffice to have the intention of making their own the words and actions of the celebrant. (30) The Holy Office continued this teaching by reiterating that “only he who pronounces the words of consecration celebrates validly.” (31) One year later the Sacred Congregation of Rites forbade the practice of synchronized Masses, but, for a just and reasonable cause and the authorization of the bishop, permitted communal celebration, the messe communautaire, whereby one priest celebrated and the others assisted in alb and stole. (32) These papal and curial documents, while trying to define the requirements and restrictions associated with concelebration, had the effect of stimulating theological research in this whole area.

In reviewing this background, one could conclude that the emerging theological awareness and magisterial teaching, combined with practical issues, set the stage for the discussions about concelebration at Vatican II. Thus, Ostdiek notes that “on the eve of the council, a number of theological boundaries seemed effectively established: the value of private celebration, the requirement of verbal consecration for true concelebration, a minimalist theory of consecration as constituting the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the theological definition of the priesthood in terms of its unique power to act in the name of Christ, and a strong emphasis on the unity of the priesthood as the symbolic meaning of concelebration.” (33)

4 — Vatican II and Postconciliar Teaching on Concelebration

The discussions in preparation for Vatican II and at the Council itself focused on several aspects of concelebration. The council fathers proposed several reasons for the extension of the use of concelebration: to better manifest the unity of the Church in the unity of the priesthood; to better foster the piety of priests and people; and to alleviate practical difficulties and inconveniences. (34) After several debates on the topic, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium (SC), approved on December 4, 1963, taught that concelebration “aptly expresses the unity of the priesthood” (SC, n. 57) and called for a new rite of concelebration (SC, n. 58). The council also preferred communal celebrations to individual celebration (SC, nn. 27 and 41). Moreover, the council referred to concelebration in two other documents. The Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, notes that concelebration highlights the unity between priests and their bishop (n. 7); the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, teaches that the broader unity of the various Churches is made manifest through concelebration (n. 15).

Within a few months of the approval of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Concilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy began the process of preparing the new rite. It dealt with several specific issues, e.g., the number of concelebrants, the parts that the concelebrants would recite, the extension of hands over the gifts, the receiving of communion from the chalice, and the obligation to wear all the vestments. (35) After several months of experimentation from July 3, 1964 to March 21, 1965, Paul VI promulgated on March 7, 1965, the new Rite of Concelebration with the decree, Ecclesiae semper. This decree provided an expansion of the theological support for concelebration by stressing a three-fold unity: the unity of the sacrifice of the cross as the many Masses represent only the single sacrifice of Christ; the unity of the priesthood; the unity of action of the entire people of God as the true nature of the Church appears more clearly as it is preeminently manifested through the action of the entire holy people of God acting in a hierarchically ordered manner. (36) The rite included nine different rites of concelebration, i.e., Pontifical Mass, Solemn Mass, Mass with a Deacon, Sung Mass, Recited Mass, Mass at the Ordination of a Priest, Mass at the Consecration of a Bishop, Mass for the Blessing of an Abbot, and Mass for Priests who are infirm. This last Mass, the only one allowed in order to foster individual devotion, was a total innovation characterized by great flexibility in terms of vesture, posture, recitation of prayers, gestures and choice regarding the communion rite. (37) Thus, the Rite of Concelebration was the first rite to be restored by the Vatican liturgy and it represented the Holy See’s new way of understanding the liturgy: no longer as an imposition of norms laid down by Rome but the result of consultation and experimentation. (38)

Besides the new Rite of Concelebration, the teaching of Vatican II provides an important context for a reconsideration of the practice of concelebration, especially as it focuses on who those who celebrate the liturgy. The teaching of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC, nn. 26-29), acknowledged by the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] (nn. 1140-1144), states that the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, celebrates the liturgy. Liturgical services are celebrations of the Church whereby the people of God is united and organized under the authority of the bishops. “The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized” (CCC, n. 1141) (39) who do not all have the same functions; some are called to a special service of the community and are consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; other ministries exist and they function in accord with liturgical traditions and pastoral needs and often exercise a genuine liturgical function. “In the celebration of the sacraments it is thus the whole assembly that is leitourgos, each according to his function, but in the ‘unity of the Spirit’ who acts in all” (CCC, n. 1144). This understanding of the celebrating community provides the theological foundation within which the practice of concelebration is best understood.

After the Rite of Concelebration was promulgated, a few postconciliar documents addressed the rite, each specifying certain teachings associated with concelebration. On May 25, 1967, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, Eucharisticum Mysterium, which urged priests to celebrate or concelebrate the Mass and not participate in the Eucharist as laity (n. 43). It taught that concelebration not only symbolizes, but also strengthens, the brotherly bond of the priesthood; thus, priests should concelebrate the Eucharist unless it conflicts with the needs of the faithful (n.47). When the rite was amended and inserted in the 1969 General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM], the context of the entire celebration of the Eucharist with the exercise of the various roles of the participants provides concelebration with a perspective whereby the action of the whole People of God could be fully manifested. (40) As will be seen, the 2002 edition of this GIRM continues to develop important principles for concelebration.

The third document, the 1972 Declaration from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, dealt with some problems associated with concelebration and specifically addressed concelebration in institutes of consecrated life. (41) It notes that “fraternal concelebration by priests symbolizes and strengthens the links which unite them with one another and which unite the community” (n. 1). It also emphasized that “care should be taken that each part of the Mass is carried out according to its own nature, the distinction of offices and function is respected, and the role of music and silence is considered” n. 3.a). Here the declaration is highlighting the importance of some of the individual ritual elements of the rite. Finally, the 1984 Ceremonial of Bishops stated that concelebration should occur “so that the mystery of the unity of the Church may be made manifest through the eucharistic celebration and so that the presbyters may be seen by the entire community to be the presbyterate of the bishop” (n. 21). This last provision attempts to highlight the sign value of the gathering of presbyters and to connect the presbyters with the rest of the assembly.

Both the conciliar and the postconciliar documents provided the sources for canon 902 on concelebration in the 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Priests may concelebrate the Eucharist unless (nisi) the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or urges otherwise but with due regard for the freedom of each priest to celebrate the Eucharist individually, though not during the time when there is a concelebration in the same church or oratory.” This canon directly authorizes every priest, without the permission of the Ordinary or on particular occasions, to concelebrate the Eucharist. The operating principle is that priests “may” concelebrate the Eucharist. No permission is needed. However, the qualification of the operating principle is that the “benefit/ welfare” (utilitas) may either “require or suggest” that a priest not concelebrate. Concelebration may not be at the expense of the needs (or rights) of the faithful for the Eucharist. Moreover, the basic principle of concelebration is balanced with another principle: a priest is “entitled” (integrum est) to celebrate the Eucharist individually. There is one restriction: concelebration and individual Masses may not be simultaneous with a concelebration in the same church or oratory.

The Code also forbad Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (can. 908). The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had earlier mentioned in 1970 the issue of common eucharistic celebration jointly celebrated by ministers belonging to separated Churches and ecclesial communities. (42) In 1972, it affirmed the basic principle that of its nature, the celebration of the Eucharist signifies the fullness of the profession of faith and ecclesial communion. (43) Hence the 1983 Code of Canon Law says that Catholic priests are forbidden to celebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (can. 908). This prohibition is reinforced by the just penalty prescribed in canon 1365. However, concelebrations among Catholics of diverse rites is not excluded. With the appropriate permission, the rite of a host Church may be used and the concelebrants may wear the vestments of their own rite. (44)

The 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) contains the same norms regarding concelebration as found in the Code of Canon Law (CCEO, cann. 700-702, 1440). One significant difference is the definite preference for concelebration to highlight the “unity of the priesthood and sacrifice” (CCEO, can. 700, §2). The rules for concelebrating are different for each Eastern Catholic Church. The general rule is that a Latin-rite priest may be admitted as a concelebrant by the local Eastern bishop (CCEO, canon 701). In this case it is preferable that he wear the vestments of his own rite. The rest would depend on what is required of concelebrants in the particular rite. If concelebrating priests are required to recite part of the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) and the liturgy is celebrated in a totally unknown language, then it would be better for the Latin-rite priest to apply the criteria of Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 113 and refrain from concelebrating. (45) As well, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches provides some precautions associated with concelebration: “Care should be taken that the concelebrants are not of such quantity so as to have to overflow into the nave where the faithful are, and thus outside of the Sanctuary itself, or to occupy the space of the Sanctuary in such a way that impedes the dignified celebration of the rite.” (46)

Furthermore, the section on concelebration in the 2002 GIRM contains some additions regarding concelebration, thus emphasizing a number of significant values. The prohibition against individually celebrating the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil (GIRM, n. 199) recognizes the centrality of these concelebrations for the whole community. The welcoming of visiting priests can be a sign of eucharistic hospitality and fraternal welcome by the local community, in accord with the venerable tradition of the Church (as reflected in GIRM, n. 200). The provision in n. 201 drops the words, “the competent superior may permit concelebration,” of the 1975 GIRM (n. 154); thus, the faculty to decide when a concelebration may take place is now given by the law itself, provided “necessity or pastoral benefit suggest it.” This represents a widening of the possibilities for the practice of concelebration. The new wording in GIRM, n. 202 acknowledges that the bishop can regulate the discipline in all churches and oratories of his diocese, thus eliminating any reference to “churches of exempt religious,” as found in the 1975 GIRM (n. 155). The 2002 GIRM expands the number of celebrations recommended for concelebration with the bishop, including more solemn days of the liturgical year, the celebrations of the Founder Saint of a local Church or the Patron of the diocese, and anniversaries of the bishop (n. 203). It also permits trination on All Souls’ Day (n. 204 d).

Two norms highlight the sign value of the gathering of presbyters: the new norm on the preparations in the sanctuary, i.e., the seats, texts, and chalices, and the norm stating that the deacon stands behind the concelebrating priests (n. 215; cf. n. 310) acknowledges the importance of the concelebrants as a group. The importance of ministers doing their proper parts highlights the focus on the distribution of functions within the liturgy, thus contributing to a visibility of a hierarchically ordered liturgy (n. 208). During the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, an option is introduced whereby other concelebrants may recite the prayer “if this is desired” (n. 236). Here one recognizes the importance of the principal celebrant who has the “office of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer” (n. 310), and who should clearly appear in word and action as the president of the assembly. This office of presiding, with its own presidential prayers, finds new emphasis in the 2002 GIRM (nn. 30, 32, 59, 108, 392). For the Our Father, the concelebrants are to extend their hands (n. 237), highlighting the importance of gesture in the celebration of the rite. Ultimately, many of these values will be reflected in the regulations that will be proposed in this article.

It is instructive to note the reasons for some of the changes that occurred during the evolution of the rite. The concelebrants were first directed to recite the prayers “aloud” (Rite of Concelebration, n. 14), while the 2002 GIRM (n. 218) states that the concelebrants should recite their common parts in a very low voice (submissa voca). The changes were made to highlight the role of the principal celebrant and to ensure that the assembly would hear him without difficulty. Likewise the limitations on the number of concelebrants were placed so that the sacred action may be clearly seen by the rest of the assembly (GIRM, n. 215). This concern for the assembly is an important principle that must be recognized in any diocesan regulations.

More recently, papal teaching has highlighted other aspects of concelebration. In addressing his brother priests at the opening of the Year of the Priest, Pope Benedict stated: “the ordained ministry has a radical ‘communitarian form’ and can be exercised only in the communion of priests with their bishop. This communion between priests and their bishop, grounded in the sacrament of Holy Orders and made manifest in Eucharistic concelebration, needs to be translated into various concrete expressions of an effective and affective priestly fraternity.” (47) Here concelebration is directly related to the intimate brotherhood of priests, which is manifested in mutual aid, spiritual as well as material, pastoral as well as personal, in their meetings and in communion of life, of labor and charity. Concelebration can be a real sign of the brotherhood of priests; it can both symbolize and strengthen the brotherly bond of the priesthood.

5 — Criticisms Associated with Concelebration

One of the consistent responses to the experience of the Rite of Concelebration has been that of criticism. This has arisen from a number of sources. Those who critique the ritual elements acknowledge that the very enactment of the rite expresses a theology of priesthood but falls short in expressing the other theological meanings of the rite. (48) One sign of this is the fact that the rubrics focused merely on the one element of this theology, i.e., unity of the priesthood: the priests are vested fully (n. 12); they say the prayers of consecration together (n. 13); they stand around the altar (n. 32). Another critique arises from those who desire that the rite should reflect Vatican II ecclesiology. (49) For them, the rite should reflect more effectively the conciliar shift in ecclesiology, which highlights the Church as the people of God and recognizes that all participate in the celebration, according to their role or ministry.

Criticism of the rite itself also focused on the fact that the rite suggests that concelebrated Masses are somehow different than other eucharistic liturgies, “as if the participation of additional presbyters was an enhancement rather than the normal means of signifying the Church at worship with its hierarchical orders (bishops, presbyters, deacons) taking part within the whole praying people.” (50) Some criticize the perception that the rite of concelebration is frequently seen as a means of adding solemnity to a particular celebration or that concelebration is an impressive liturgical display, intended to enhance a special occasion. (51)

Another critique comes from the experience of monastic communities. (52) While the experience of concelebration has been a largely positive one for these communities, the underlying ecclesiological model provides a poor theological fit, for greater congruence needs to be achieved between sacramental theology and the monastic charism. While the rite emphasizes the unity of the priesthood, the particular theology of priesthood is based largely on its relationship to the episcopacy. This vision is somewhat problematic for priests living in religious communities whose primary identity is a monastic one, and whose ordinary is their abbot. A special rite for monastic communities would highlight, not the unity of the priesthood, but the unity of the entire monastic community held together by the perpetual vows of all the monks, whether priests or brothers.

Pope Benedict XVI highlighted the difficulties associated with concelebration and large-scale celebrations. He notes: “it is not always easy in such cases to give clear expression to the unity of the presbyterate, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer and the distribution of Holy Communion. Efforts need to be made lest these large-scale concelebrations lose their proper focus. This can be done by proper coordination and by arranging the place of worship so that priests and lay faithful are truly able to participate fully.” (53) Derville mentions some of the issues associated with large numbers of concelebrants: “the near impossibility of synchronizing the words and gestures that are not reserved for the principal celebrant, the distance from the altar and the offerings, the lack of vestments for some concelebrants, the absence of harmony of colors and shapes, all may obscure manifestation of the unity of priesthood.” (54)

Other critiques focus on the fact that some people experience the rite as a source of disunity and separation, either between clergy and laity and/or between men and women. From a feminist perspective, some experience concelebration as a “ritual manifestation of male bonding and male power” (55) or of clerical bonding and clerical power. (56) Others experience the rite as a “painful reminder that [women religious] are regarded by the Church to be unable to image Christ fully and to exercise full spiritual leadership.” (57)

In spite of the variety of criticisms associated with concelebration, the rite itself can be an important expression of unity, of the theology of the relationship of the priests and bishop within a diocese and of the unity of the whole Church.

In response to some of these critiques, some authors have suggested a variety of ritual models of concelebration flowing out of the liturgical experience of the other sacraments. (58) The idea of “assisting” or “being associated with the celebrant” may be witnessed in infant baptism, adult baptism, confirmation, communal penance with individual confession and absolution, and anointing. In many sacraments, assisting or associated priests perform a gesture together with the celebrant, e.g., anointing in baptism or laying on of hands at confirmation or ordination. Moreover, the wide range of ways in which the members of the assembly participate might give new ways for developing the rite of concelebration, e.g., godparents signing the one to be baptized or the sponsor placing hand on the shoulder of the one to be confirmed. How might these experiences inspire changes to concelebration?

Undoubtedly, just as most of the other postconciliar rites have been revised, so the Rite of Concelebration needs revision. With the experience of the rite and the various other models of concelebration, a new rite could certainly address much of the critique of the present rite. Unlike the process of formulating the 1965 rite where only one experience of concelebration was available, a revision of the rite would benefit from the experience of a variety of models of concelebration.

6 — Conclusions Arising From the Experience of Concelebration

The remarkable research that has taken place on concelebration has led to numerous conclusions. While most studies gladly acknowledge that the practice of concelebration has dealt with the practical concern of the multiplicity of Masses in groups of priests, concelebration must not be reduced to a rite of convenience for the gathered priests. In fact, the rite expresses a threefold theology and no study disputes this underlying theology of the rite, namely that concelebration ritually expresses the sacramental unity of the Church, of the ministerial priesthood with the priesthood of the baptized and the inherent unity of the Eucharist itself. (59) This conclusion is the basis for realizing that the tension associated with concelebration is a healthy sign of vitality in the Church, for the tension in fact seeks a new way of practicing concelebration that would express a broader perspective than merely the unity of the priesthood. The theology of the Eucharist expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides the appropriate foundation for a new consideration of concelebration. How should this rite be adapted to ensure that all who are gathered will experience themselves as a celebrating assembly? The whole community needs education on the meaning of being a celebrating assembly. Rooney suggests that a deeper understanding of the word ‘celebrare’ would be helpful: while maintaining the hierarchic nature of the liturgy, the word “should not be used so much to distinguish roles within the assembly, as actions in the life of the Church.” (60)

Another conclusion emerging from a consideration of the history of concelebration focuses on the fact that concelebration has ancient roots but has evolved (and will continue to evolve) in the East and the West. Even the twentieth century shows a remarkable evolution: from the restriction of concelebration in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici to the outright encouragement of the practice whenever priests gather together with their own bishop (GIRM, n. 203).

Just as many of the rituals for the various sacraments have been revised, likewise the Church experiences a real call for a revision of the rite of concelebration. This revision could include a variety of rites of concelebration, for example, a form of co-consecration, a form of shared presidency, or a form that included silent gesture. (61) Another rite might be used specifically for the conventual Mass for male communities of consecrated life. (62) The relationship between priest and brother within these communities could led to a deeper appreciation of the unique unity of the entire monastic community, as suggested by the 1972 Declaration from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. These new rites could emerge as a result of the experience of the various models of concelebration that may be seen in some of the revised rituals of the other sacraments.

Others have concluded that the Rite of Concelebration is “a rite searching for a theology.” (63) However, the experience of this rite shows that the rite in fact has an appropriate theology, but it is seeking an appropriate ritual expression. Taft suggests that the difficulty associated with the practice of concelebration “(in addition to plain ignorance and bad taste) is a conflict of two theologies.” (64) He notes that a balanced theology of Church is necessary, rather than “the ‘devotion’ or desire or supposed ‘right’ to ‘exercise one’s priesthood’ or to ‘offer sacrifice’ or whatever of anyone, priest or otherwise.” (65) Meanwhile, Ostdiek concludes that a liturgical shift is necessary, “from a priest-centered liturgy to one which fully engages all present according to their order.” (66) This has consequences for both ecclesiology and ministry, for it involves a recognition that the whole people of God participates in worshiping God and in becoming holy. At the same time, all are called and empowered by baptism to participate in a particular liturgy.

Others emphasized the need for a greater appreciation for the anthropological/symbolic level associated with concelebration. (67) Since sacraments produce their effects, then the very enactment of a rite can sometimes be at odds with the theology that the rite is expected to express. Through vesture, spatial grouping and coordinated speech and action, concelebration can be an experience of “simultaneous inclusion/exclusion within the assembly.” (68)

While these critiques are kept in mind, the rite of concelebration can be a rite that fosters unity within a celebration. In referring to a commentary on interritual concelebration issued by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Taft summarizes the necessary perspective: “the Eucharist is a communion, a celebration of unity, not a ritualization of division; any liturgy is the service of a local Church, not a private clerical devotion; its norms are determined by the broader ecclesial and pastoral demands of the ministers, who are there to serve the Church, not themselves.” (69)

7 — A Proposal for a Diocesan Policy Regarding Concelebration

Throughout the post-conciliar period, the Church constantly taught that the bishop has the authority to regulate the practice of concelebration in his diocese. (70) During the Second Vatican Council, a discussion arose due to the fact that the final draft of SC, n. 57 specified that the Ordinary is the one who decides whether concelebration is appropriate. This led to a discussion concerning religious exemption and the authority of non-local Ordinaries. Finally, a modification was made emphasizing that the bishop is the one who regulates the discipline of concelebration in his diocese. This provision, rooted in the fact that the bishop is the moderator, promoter and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the diocese, (71) continues to appear in liturgical legislation, e.g., GIRM, nn. 202 and 387. McManus acknowledged the importance of this provision and thought that the real development of concelebration is left with the bishop or religious superior, (72) who promotes and oversees the practice and provides for those circumstances where pastoral instruction or catechesis is needed (Rite of Concelebration, n. 11). Therefore, the proposed regulations of this article reflect the responsibility of the bishop who exercises the authority given him and regulates the discipline of concelebration through the promulgation of particular law for his diocese. As an alternative, the bishops of an ecclesiastical province could prepare common regulations which would be the basis of the directives of an individual bishop. (73) Some bishops have adapted the guidelines from their conference of bishops in issuing the regulations for their own diocese, e.g., Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of Worcester, (74) while a few dioceses have their own regulations. (74)

How might the bishop regulate concelebration? First, the bishop must be aware of the developments that have taken place regarding the changes associated with concelebration. He must recognize some of the theological and practical considerations, acknowledging the arguments on both sides of the question of concelebration, including the critiques of concelebration as well as the support for concelebration. (75) For example, McManus states that particular conditions in a given diocese might require that the bishop regulate the number of concelebrants or congregational participation lest the concelebration appear to be a clericalized rite. (76) Others focused on the need to consider vesture, the Eucharistic Prayer, ecclesial space and the reception of communion. (77) All these suggestions are helpful, but the bishop should issue his own diocesan policy regulating the discipline of concelebration in light of the present teaching and legislation within the Church, e.g., he has no authority to change present Church teaching or legislation on concelebration, realizing that any particular regulations that contradict universal legislation have no effect (canon 135, §2). His regulations should be legitimately promulgated. The following regulations are an attempt to assist bishops in formulating policies for their own diocese. Some footnotes and commentaries are included merely as background to individual provisions and provide some of the reasons for each norm.

8 — Regulations for Concelebration within the Diocese of X (78)

Preamble

1. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council recommended concelebration as an expression of the unity of the priesthood and chose to extend permission for the practice, granting the bishop of each diocese the authority to decide when concelebration was opportune. As the moderator, promoter and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the diocese, the bishop has the authority to regulate the practice of concelebration in his diocese (SC, n. 57, §2.1; GIRM, nn. 202 and 387). Any concelebration is rooted in the teaching of a three-fold reality, namely, that the entire ecclesial assembly is a celebrating community, that the laity participate in this offering and that “the priest acts in persona Christi in so far as he acts in persona Ecclesiae.” (79) With the Rite of Concelebration promulgated in 1965, the theological basis for concelebration stresses that concelebration manifests the unity of the sacrifice of the cross, the unity of the priesthood and the unity of action by the entire people of God. An important motivation throughout these regulations is to ensure that the theology underlying the rite is appropriately symbolized. This policy is based on the experience in this diocese and the need to continue to regulate the rite, highlighting particularly the role of the whole celebrating assembly as well as the role of the presider. Thus, these regulations are issued to ensure that the Rite of Concelebration will clearly and visibly demonstrate the unity of the Church. This will be done by emphasizing the essentially communal nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the action of the entire holy people of God acting in a hierarchically ordered manner (Ecclesiae semper). One of the ways of manifesting this unity will be to acknowledge the role of the principal celebrant. After consulting with the Council of Priests, the Diocesan Liturgical Commission and the superiors of institutes of consecrated life within the diocese, the bishop decrees that the following provisions be

followed in all churches and oratories throughout the diocese.

8.1 — Occasions for Concelebration

2. When the bishop is the principal celebrant of the liturgy, it is most fitting that presbyters concelebrate (see GIRM, nn. 59, 157). Hence it is fitting that, because of the sign value of this liturgy, priests should participate in the Eucharist, fulfilling their office according to their proper order, that is, by celebrating Mass rather than merely receiving communion as lay persons. (80) Therefore, concelebration is always encouraged, “unless the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or urges otherwise” (canon 902).

3. Concelebration is “prescribed by the rite itself for the Ordination of a Bishop and of priests, at the blessing of an abbot, and at the Chrism Mass” (GIRM, n. 199) because it “appropriately expresses the unity of the priesthood, of the Sacrifice, and also of the whole People of God” (GIRM, n. 199). Concelebration is also recommended at the evening Mass on Holy Thursday, the Mass for councils, meetings of bishops, synods, the conventual Mass, the principal Mass in churches and oratories, and the Mass for any kind of meeting of priests, either secular or religious (GIRM, n. 199). This last occasion includes priests’ study days, general assemblies or the funeral of priests.

4. “No one is ever to enter into a concelebration or to be admitted as a concelebrant once the Mass has already begun” (GIRM, n. 206). If priests celebrate Mass according to the Extraordinary Form, then concelebration is not permitted. (81)

5. On other occasions, concelebration may be appropriate and it may occur at any Mass, with due regard to the fact that a priest does not have a right to concelebrate (can. 902). The decision should be left to those responsible for planning the particular celebration. It should be clear to presbyters prior to a liturgy whether or not they are invited to concelebrate. In general, funerals and weddings should not be occasions for concelebration. (82) If families invite priests to concelebrate at the funeral liturgy or to fulfill other roles in the course of the funeral rites, the priest shall communicate these plans to the pastor. As a courtesy to liturgical planners, priests who expect to participate in this way should contact the parish or religious community in advance.

8.2 — Number of Concelebrants

6. Each Ordinary or the Major Superior of a clerical religious institute or society of apostolic life may limit the number of concelebrants if, in consideration of the size of the church and the altar and whether the faithful’s view of the rite is impaired, he decides “that the dignity of the rite requires this.” (83) The Holy See recommends that “in view of the psychology of children it is better to refrain from concelebration when Mass is celebrated with them.” (84)

8.3 — Place and Functions of Concelebrants

7. The size and configuration of the church and the sanctuary and the number of those who will concelebrate must be taken into account in planning the celebration. A specific area may be designated in a transept or adjacent to the sanctuary for the concelebrants. Due to their number or because of the size of the sanctuary, it may be more suitable for the concelebrants to remain in that area throughout the liturgy.

8. If the concelebrants assemble in the sanctuary for the Eucharistic Prayer, they are not to stand too close to the altar or to impede the celebrant and deacon (GIRM, n. 167). Concelebrants should never assume a position in the front pews of the nave or wherever they might impede the view of the assembly.

8.4 — Physical Arrangements

9. Concelebrants should be seated together in a distinct area. They should not be intermingled with the assembly nor should anyone be seated between the concelebrants and the altar. If the space is not large enough to accommodate all the concelebrants appropriately, some are seated in another area which physically and visually unites them with the other concelebrants.

However, concelebrants should not impede the full view of the assembly. (85)

10. By their presence, words and actions, the concelebrants must not compete with the principal celebrant for prominence in the assembly. Thus, they are to speak the common parts of the Eucharistic Prayer in a low voice so that “the principal celebrant’s voice stands out clearly” (GIRM, n. 218).

8.5 — Vesture

11. Since vestments express outwardly the diversity of offices and contribute to the beauty of the sacred action itself (GIRM, n. 335), concelebrating priests shall wear an alb with a stole and chasuble. However, if there is a large number of concelebrants or a lack of vestments, concelebrants other than the principal celebrant may omit the chasuble and simply wear the stole over the alb (GIRM, n. 209). Ideally, the chasubles and the stoles should all be the same, highlighting the unity of the rite with appropriate decorum. In order to express a diocesan commitment to dignified concelebrations, the diocese shall provide a stole and a chasuble for the number of priests in the diocese. (86) The vestments of the concelebrants should be of the color proper to the Mass being celebrated. In case of necessity, the proper color must be used by the principal celebrant and the concelebrants may use white. (87)

8.6 — Introductory Rites

12. The concelebrants, vested in alb and stole of the color of the feast, may walk in the entrance procession (GIRM, n. 210). The principal celebrant, the deacon(s), and any concelebrants venerate the altar with a kiss (GIRM, n. 211). If the tabernacle is present in the sanctuary, all the ministers, including concelebrants, genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it (GIRM, n. 274). In certain circumstances according to the mind of local planners, the concelebrants may gather in the appropriate area beforehand, e.g., depending on the number of priests in relation to the total assembly.

13. Concelebrants do not assume the proper ministries of other ministers, e.g., deacons, acolytes, reader, cantor, etc. (GIRM, n. 208), when they are present. If a deacon cannot be present, a concelebrant should be designated to carry out these duties (GIRM, n. 208), i.e., to assist with Form 3 of the Penitential Act, to proclaim the gospel, to prepare the altar, to assist the principal celebrant in receiving the gifts, to hold the chalice during the doxology, to invite the assembly to exchange the sign of peace and to assist with the breaking of the hosts (if needed). (88)

8.7 — Liturgy of the Word

14. When there is no deacon, one of the concelebrants proclaims the gospel. If the principal celebrant is a bishop, the concelebrant asks for and receives a blessing from the bishop, and proclaims the gospel reading in the usual way. After the proclamation of the Gospel, if the Book of the Gospels is brought to the bishop, the concelebrants remain standing.

15. If the principal celebrant is not a bishop, the concelebrant bows before the altar and prays inaudibly, Almighty God, cleanse my heart, and proclaims the gospel reading in the usual way.

16. The homily is usually given by the principal celebrant, but may be given by one of the concelebrants.

8.8 — Preparation of the Altar and Gifts

17. The concelebrants remain in their places while the principal celebrant and the deacon(s) receive and prepare the gifts. If the bishop presides without a deacon, one of the concelebrants will prepare the altar and assist with receiving the gifts. The concelebrants approach the altar after the Prayer over the Offerings, unless their number requires that they remain in their places. If there are many concelebrants, only some of them join the principal celebrant at the altar. This should be determined before the liturgy begins.

8.9 — Proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer

18. The Eucharistic Prayer should be proclaimed by the principal celebrant in a loud and clear voice. Concelebrating priests recite the epiclesis, words of consecration, anamnesis, and post-consecratory epiclesis in a very low voice, so that the congregation is able to hear the text without difficulty. Concelebrants recite their parts in a submissa voce i.e., a low voice, quietly, barely audible to one another, almost in a whisper. The concelebrants listen in silence during the post-sanctus prayer and during the intercessions in the Eucharistic Prayer.

8.10 — Gestures and Postures during the Eucharistic Prayer

19. In accord with ancient tradition, concelebrating priests stretch out both their hands toward the elements during the epiclesis. The full impact of this gesture can be achieved if the concelebrants adopt the same gesture as the principal celebrant.

20. During the consecration, each concelebrant extends the right hand toward the bread and then toward the chalice. All bow profoundly when the principal celebrant genuflects after the consecration of the bread and after the consecration of the wine. The celebrant alone says “The mystery of faith.” The concelebrants (without the principal celebrant) make the acclamation that follows together with the people.

21. The concelebrants hold their hands outstretched in an orans gesture during the anamnesis and the post-consecratory epiclesis, but not during the other parts of the Eucharistic Prayer.

22. If they are to be prayed by designated concelebrants, (89) the intercessions within the Eucharistic Prayer shall be assigned prior to the beginning of the celebration. Cards or booklets containing the Eucharistic Prayer as well as appropriate microphones should be provided to those concelebrants who will read one or more of the intercessions. Each individual concelebrant chosen to pray the intercessions does so with his hands extended.

23. During the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, only the principal celebrant elevates the paten with the consecrated bread, while the deacon raises the chalice. The concelebrants do not elevate other chalices, ciboria, or other sacred vessels. If no deacon is present, one of the concelebrants elevates the chalice. To highlight the role of the principal celebrant, he sings or recite the doxology alone. In some circumstances, e.g., if there are only a few concelebrants, all the concelebrants may join in the singing or recitation of the doxology (GIRM, no. 236). (90) The collective voice of the concelebrants should not, however, overwhelm the voice of the principal celebrant.

8.11 — The Communion Rite

24. The principal celebrant, with hands extended, says the Lord’s Prayer, while the other concelebrants join in the prayer, and also pray with hands extended (GIRM, no. 237).

25. In the absence of the deacon, one of the concelebrants invites the assembly to exchange the sign of peace (GIRM, no. 239). This should not be overextended, thus delaying the rite of the breaking of the consecrated bread (GIRM, no. 154).

26. During the Lamb of God, the deacon (or, in his absence, one or more of the concelebrants) assists the principal celebrant in the breaking of the consecrated bread. Concelebrants must never be given Holy Communion consecrated at another Mass and reserved in the tabernacle, and they are to receive under both species. (91)

27. For communion, the concelebrants normally remain in their places and take the Body of Christ from the paten presented to them by the principal celebrant, or by one or more of the concelebrants or deacons, or from the paten as it is passed from one to another (GIRM, no. 242). The preferred method of receiving Communion should highlight the importance of receiving the host, rather than taking it. (92) The formula The Body of Christ is not said. During the Invitation to Holy Communion, only the principal celebrant shows the consecrated host to the people; concelebrants do not elevate their hosts.

28. To receive the Blood of Christ, concelebrants have a number of options. The concelebrants approach the altar one after another or, if two chalices are used, two by two. They genuflect, partake of the Blood of Christ, wipe the rim of the chalice, and return to their seats. Another option might include the concelebrants receiving the Precious Blood while remaining in their places. They drink from the chalice presented to them by the deacon or one of the concelebrants, or else passed from one to the other. The chalice is wiped either by the one who drinks from it or by the one who presents it. The chalice is offered to each concelebrant without saying the formula The Blood of Christ (GIRM, n. 246).

29. When sufficient concelebrants are present, they assist the principal celebrant in the distribution of Holy Communion. When the number of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is insufficient, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may assist in the distribution of the Eucharist. Such extraordinary ministers do not receive Holy Communion in the manner of concelebrants. Rather, they receive the Body and Blood of the Lord after the principal celebrant and the deacon. After Communion, the Precious Blood is to be consumed immediately. The sacred vessels are purified or are covered on a side table to be purified after Mass.

8.12 — Concluding Rites

30. At the end of the liturgy, the concelebrants make a profound bow to the altar when the principal celebrant with the deacon venerates the altar with a kiss (GIRM, n. 251). If the tabernacle is present in the sanctuary, they genuflect to it.

8.13 — Mass Offering

31. Any priest who concelebrates Mass may accept an offering to apply the Mass for a specific intention (can. 945). A priest may receive one offering per day, the only exception being Christmas Day when the priest may celebrate/concelebrate three Masses and retain an offering for each Mass (c. 951). If the priest is bound to offer the Mass for the people (Missa pro populo) according to cc. 534 or 540, then he may not take a Mass offering for this Mass. The priest who celebrates more than one Mass on a single day may accept an offering and intention for each Mass, but may retain the “offering” for himself for only one Mass. The other offerings are to be forwarded to the purposes established by the ordinary, i.e., Seminarian Education Fund. However, the priest who is bound to offer the Missa pro populo may retain an offering for himself for a second Mass that he celebrates. When a priest concelebates a second or third Mass on the same day, he may not accept any offering whatsoever for the Mass that is concelebrated: not for himself nor for another purpose established by the ordinary (c. 951,§2). (93)

Conclusions

This article is an attempt to use the rite of concelebration to focus on the deepest values of the Eucharist, especially the experience of unity. The early Church held up the ideal of one community. However, at times, concelebration has contributed to an overemphasis on the role of the concelebrating priests to the detriment of the fundamental participation of the entire assembly. From the perspective of the history of concelebration, Taft notes that

the whole body of concelebrants was the moral subject of the common liturgical action performed by them in solidum. [...] Liturgical concelebration is the common act of a collegium, not the synchronization of the sum of the acts of individuals. Hence, to arrive at any understanding of concelebration one must put aside the perhaps legitimate but limited presuppositions of one’s own particular and possibly narrow tradition, and try to grasp the tradition of concelebration within the developing context of its own evolution. (94)

Moreover, an effective concelebration can help to experience the Eucharist as the community act of the people of God, at once the source of our unity and the principal manifestation of it. Just as the Church is essentially and of its nature a community, a worshipping community, so its essential act of worship must be, and must be experienced to be, community worship. A regulated concelebration has the possibility of making the celebration a more obvious action of the assembled community.

The regulation of concelebration recognizes that the concelebration of bishops (or bishops with the pope) shows that there is a bond among the various Churches that make up the universal Church. It realizes the communal nature of the universal Church in which all Churches share. Concelebration can also provide a sign of unity among members of various Eastern traditions when they celebrate together in an interritual concelebation. (95)

Since the practice of concelebration of bishops with their presbyters has ancient roots, the essence of this form will continue to have a role in diocesan celebrations. In diocesan celebrations when the bishop and the priests are present, concelebration can be a particularly powerful sign of the unity of the ministerial priesthood in the diocese, especially when it is well regulated. Concelebration is a sign of a prior reality, namely, the unity of the ministerial priesthood. During a concelebration those participating in the Eucharist can see and hear and experience priests united among themselves.

Furthermore, these diocesan concelebrations need to attend to many of the issues that are necessary for a dignified celebrations. Appropriate regulation by the diocesan bishop would certainly provide direction regarding the prayers that the concelebrants should say, clear directions regarding Communion, the number of concelebrants, the seating of concelebrants, and the necessary liturgical vestments. All of these items need to facilitated by a master of ceremonies.

The regulation of concelebration by the diocesan bishop would also be an opportunity to reduce whatever may be divisive in the rite, integrate the role of the concelebrating priests with that of the celebrating assembly, attempt to integrate the concelebrants’ actions to highlight their collegial character, and assist the assembly to appreciate the symbolic level involved in an enacted rite, e.g., the importance of bodily gesture. (96) This would contribute to the fact that concelebration can reflect the unity of the whole people of God.

The experience of the Rite of Concelebration for almost fifty years, the historical investigations connected with concelebration as well as the theological reflection on concelebration have highlighted the importance of the unity of the Church as a primary focus of the Eucharist. Concelebration has been renewed as a result of a rediscovery of the community aspect of the Eucharist. Consequently, the regulation of concelebration by the diocesan bishop is an important way of seeking and attaining this unity of the Eucharist, of the ministerial priesthood and of the entire People of God. Thus, the theology underlying concelebration as articulated in the Rite of Concelebration will be appropriately enacted at each celebration, as a result of the appropriate regulation of the diocesan bishop.

Notes:

(1) See the various articles and books that have reflected on the practice of concelebration: John F. BALDOVIN, “Concelebration: A Problem of Symbolic Roles in the Church,” in Worship, 59 (1985), pp. 32-47; BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON THE LITURGY, Eucharistic Concelebration, Washington, United States Catholic Conference, 1978 [=BCL]; Annibale BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948 – 1975, translated by Matthew J. O’CONNELL, Collegeville, MI, The Liturgical Press, 1990, pp. 123-134 [=BUGNINI]; Ruth FOX, “Concelebration in Chapels of Women Religious,” in Worship, 70 (1996), pp. 423-432; John HUELS, “Concelebration,” Disputed Questions in the Liturgy, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 1988, pp. 39-46; Pierre JOUNEL, The Rite of Concelebration of the Mass and of Communion Under Both Species, New York, Desclee, 1967 [=JOUNEL]; Archdale KING, Concelebration in the Christian Church, London, Mowbray, 1966 [=KING]; Hendrik MANDERS, “Concelebration,” Concilium, Vol. 2, Glen Rock, Paulist Press, 1965, pp. 135-151 [=MANDERS]; Jean Carroll MCGOWAN, Concelebration: A Sign of Unity of the Church, New York, Herder and Herder, 1964 [=MCGOWAN]; Adrien NOCENT, “Questions About Specific Points,” in Vol. 3. The Eucharist, A. CHUPUNGCO (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1998, pp. 295-303 [=NOCENT]; Gilbert OSTDIEK, “Concelebration Revisited,” Shaping English Liturgy, Peter FINN and James SCHELLMAN (eds.), Washington, Pastoral Press, 1990, p 139-171 [=OSTDIEK]; Marcel ROONEY, “Eucharistic Concelebration, Twenty-Five Years of Development,” in Ecclesia orans, 6 (1989), pp. 117-129 [=ROONEY]; Harmon Daniel SKILLIN, Concelebration: A Historical Synopsis and Canonical Commentary, Diss., CLS, no. 450, Washington, The Catholic University of America, 1966; Robert F. TAFT, “Ex Oriente Lux: Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration,” in Worship, 54 (1980), pp. 308-325 [=TAFT, 1980].

(2)  An entire edition of La Maison-Dieu was devoted to concelebration (La Maison-Dieu, 224 [4c trimestre, 2000]); Guillaume DERVILLE, Eucharistic Concelebration: From Symbol to Reality, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, Ltée, 2011 [=DERVILLE]; Robert F. TAFT, “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Problems of History, Practice, and Theology in East and West. Part I,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 76 (2010), pp. 277-313 [=TAFT, 2010]; Robert F. TAFT, “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Problems of History, Practice, and Theology in East and West. Part II,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 77 (2011), pp. 25-80 [=TAFT, 2011].

(3)  Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the difficulties associated with large scale concelebrations (BENEDICT XVI, post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, February 22, 2007, n. 61); Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes that the “widening of the faculty to concelebrate needs to be moderated [... and that] the daily concelebrations of priests only, which are practiced ‘privately’...do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition” (Cardinal Antonio CAÑIZARES, Paper for the presentation of the book by Msgr. Guillaume Derville La concélébration eucharistique. Du symbole à la réalité (Wilson & Lafleur), Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, March 5, 2012 <http://www. zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-canizares-on-beauty-in-the-liturgy-and-concelebration> February 20, 2013); see also Cardinal Antonio CAÑIZARES, Introduction, in DERVILLE, pp. ix-xii; Cardinal Raymond Burke warned that the excessive use of concelebration can result in the priests’ unique role in the sacred liturgy being obscured (David KERR, “Cardinal Burke Cautions Against Overuse of Concelebration,” July 10, 2012 <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal- burke-cautions-against-over-use-of-concelebration/> February 20, 2013).

(4)  MCGOWAN, pp. 18-19: KING, pp. 1-5.

(5)  Taft states that the first reference to the term “concelebrants” is the Greek term (sylleitourgoi) in the canons of the Council of Neocaesarea (ca. 315) (TAFT, 1980, pp. 318-319).

(6)  John FENWICK, Eucharistic Concelebration, London, Grove Books, 1982, p. 5.

(7)  PIUS XII acknowledged this wider meaning of concelebration and saw it as an error: “they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a ‘concelebration,’ in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should ‘concelebrate’ with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent” (PIUS XII, encyclical, Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, November 20, 1947, n. 83, in AAS, 39 (1947), p. 553 <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_ enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html>.

(8)  Ritus servandus in concelebratione Missae et Ritus Communionis sub utraque specie, Editio typica, Typis Polygottis Vaticanis, 1965.

(9)  for example, IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Philadelphians 4; Ephesians 20.2; Magnesians 6-7) and CLEMENT OF ROME (1 Epistle 40:1-5).

(10)  TAFT, 1980, p. 316; TAFT, 2010, pp. 297, 307-309.

(11)  TAFT, 1980, p. 322.

(12)  MCGOWAN, pp. 30-33; TAFT, 1980, p. 319; KING, pp. 23-25; NOCENT, p. 299. The feasts included Easter, Pentecost, Feast of St. Peter, and Christmas.

(13)  TAFT, 1980, pp. 318-319.

(14)  MCGOWAN, pp. 35-38, 54-56.

(15)  KING, p. 38.

(16)  Thomas AQUINAS, Summa theologica, III, Q. LXXXII, art. 2: “Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?”

(17)  For a summary of this process, see KING, pp. 70-80.

(18)  MARTIMORT, “Le ritual de la concélébration eucharistique,” in Ephemerides liturgicae, 77 (1963), pp. 147-168. See also BUGNINI, pp. 127-129; DERVILLE, pp. 23-24.

(19)  For this summary, see KING, pp. 102-132; TAFT, 1980, pp. 308-313; MCGOWAN, pp. 39-53; TAFT, 2010; TAFT, 2011.

(20)  TAFT, 2010, p. 281.

(21)  For a summary of these factors, see MCGOWAN, pp. 72-109; OSTDIEK, pp. 141-142; MANDERS, 35-144. MANDERS (p. 135) states that in the sixty years prior to the Vatican Council, 75 articles or books focused on the topic of concelebration; these studies were predominantly European (33 in French, 10 in German, 9 in Dutch, 8 in Spanish, 5 in Latin and 4 in Italian).

(22)  For a summary of BEAUDUIN’s contributions, see MANDERS, p. 138.

(23)  John HANSSENS, “De concelebratione eucharistica,” in Periodica, 16 (1927), pp. 143-154; 181-210; Periodica, 17 (1928), pp. 93-127; Periodica, 21 (1932), pp. 193-219. For a discussion of this work, see MCGOWAN, pp. 72-74; MANDERS, p. 139.

(24)  a discussion of the various theologians, see MCGOWAN, pp. 77-109.

(25)  TAFT, 2011, p. 310.

(26)  TAFT, 2011, p. 285, footnote, 28; ROONEY, p, 126; OSTDIEK, pp. 168-169.

(27)  For a summary of these factors, see OSTDIEK, pp. 141-142; MANDERS, 135-144.

(28)  XII, encyclical, Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, November 20, 1947, nn. 95-97, 83-84, in AAS, 39 (1947), pp. 556, 553.

(29)  PIUS XII, allocution, Magnificate Dominum, November 2, 1954, in AAS, 46 (1954), pp. 669- 670. MANDERS believes that this address and the one in 1956 puts “great obstacles in the way of theological penetration” (p. 141).

(30)  PIUS XII, allocution, September 22, 1956, in AAS, 48 (1956), pp. 716-718. In light of this teaching, “and in order to facilitate concelebration,” the New Roman Missal made the words of the Lord identical in each of the new Eucharistic Prayers (PAUL VI, Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, On the New Roman Missal, April 3, 1969).

(31)  HOLY OFFICE, Response to Dubium de valida consecratione, May 23, 1957, in AAS, 49 (1957), p. 370; CLD, IV, p. 256. For a discussion of this response, see MANDERS, pp. 141- 147; MCGOWAN, pp. 104-106. While recognizing the right of the Roman Catholic Church to determine the concrete praxis associated with the discipline of concelebration, Taft warns of the consequences of raising “particular disciplinary exigencies to the level of a universal dogmatic principle, and then apply it in judging the practice of other churches or other epochs” (TAFT, 1980, p. 324; see also TAFT, 2011, pp. 75-80). While Taft thinks that “Pope Pius XII was wrong in his decision on eucharistic concelebration” (TAFT, 2011, p. 285, footnote, 28), Derville disagrees with Taft on this point (DERVILLE, p. 69, footnote 206).

(32)  SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy, September 3, 1958, nn. 38-39, in AAS, 50 (1958), p. 644.

(33)  OSTDIEK, p. 144.

(34)  OSTDIEK, p. 146. See also, KING, p. 65-69; Piero MARINI, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, Mark FRANCIS, John PAGE, and Keith PECKLERS (eds.), Collegeville MN, Liturgical Press, 2007, pp. 103-109 [=MARINI]. OSTDIEK provides a review of the documents and discussion on the topic of concelebration in preparation for and during Vatican II (pp. 144-154). He notes that there was significant opposition at first, but several pastoral needs seemed to influence a more positive stance, i.e., the pastoral needs of pilgrimage shrines and religious communities, and the ecumenical encouragement of the bishops of Eastern Churches. As well, many spoke of the unity of the Eucharist, the unity of the priesthood, the unity of priests with their bishop, the unity of priesthood and sacrifice, etc.

(35)  For a summary of these discussions, see BUGNINI, pp. 123-132. See also MARINI, pp. 103- 110.

(36)  SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, decree Ecclesiae semper, The Rites of Concelebration and Communion under both kinds, March 7, 1965, in National Bulletin on Liturgy, 3 (April 1965), pp. 35-36; DOL 223: nn. 1788-1792.

(37)  BUGNINI, p. 126; JOUNEL, p. 168.

(38)  MARINI, p. 110.

(39)  This teaching must provide the larger context for appropriately interpreting n. 42 of the Redemptionis Sacramentum: “Accordingly, terms such as ‘celebrating community’ or ‘celebrating assembly’ [...] and similar terms should not be used injudiciously” (CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, on Certain Matters to Be Observed or Avoided Regarding the Eucharist, March 25, 2004 [Washington, USCCB, 2004]).

(40)  p. 123.

(41)  SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Declaration, In Celebratione Missae, On Concelebration, August 7, 1972, in AAS, 64 (1972), pp. 561-563.

(42)  SECRETARIAT FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Declaration, Dans ces derniers temps, On the Position of the Catholic Church on the Celebration of the Eucharist in Common by Christians of Different Confessions, January 7, 1970 in Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin FLANNERY, New York, Costello Publishing, 1975, pp. 502-507.

(43)  SECRETARIAT FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Declaration, in Quibus rerum Circumstantiis, On Admitting Other Christians to the Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church, June 1, 1972 in Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin FLANNERY, New York, Costello Publishing, 1975, pp. 554-559.

(44)  These provisions are rooted in the discussion on interritual concelebration from 1969 as mentioned by BUGNINI, pp. 132-133.

(45)  Regarding the language of the concelebrants, “where it happens that some of the Priests who are present do not know the language of the celebration and therefore are not capable of pronouncing the parts of the Eucharistic Prayer proper to them, they should not concelebrate, but instead should attend the celebration in choral dress in accordance with the norms” (CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, n. 113).

(46)  CONGREGATION FOR THE EASTERN CHURCHES, Instruction, Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, January 6, 1996, n. 57 <http://www. ewtn.com/library/curia/eastinst.htm#15>.

(47)  BENEDICT XVI, Letter, Proclaiming a Year for Priests on the 150th Anniversary of the Dies Natalis of the Curé of Ars, June 16, 2009 <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/ letters/2009/documents /hf_ben-xvi_ let_20090616_anno-sacerdotale_en.html>.

(48)  ROONEY, pp. 120-121, 125; OSTDIEK, p. 163; R. Kevin SEASOLTZ, New Liturgy, New Laws, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1980, pp. 88-90; HUELS, p. 40; William COSGRAVE, “Second Thoughts on Concelebration,” in The Furrow, 44 (April 1993), pp. 236-239.

(49)  OSTDIEK, p. 161; Kevin IRWIN, Context and Text. Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 72.

(50)  Frederick MCMANUS, ed., Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal, Washington, United States Catholic Conference, 1987, p. 48.

(51)  MCMANUS, Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal, p. 50.

(52)  ROONEY, p. 128; Kevin IRWIN, Context and Text. Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 72; Dom Dunstan O’KEEFFE, “Concelebration in Monastic Communities,” Paper from Joint Symposium at Downside Abbey, Bath, May 26, 2003 <http://www.benedictines.org.uk/theology/2003/dunstan_okeeffe_concelebration.rtf>; Daniel REES, et al., Consider Your Call A Theology of Monastic Life Today, Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1978, p. 240.

(53)  BENEDICT XVI, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, February 22, 2007, n. 61.

(54)  DERVILLE, p. 92.

(55)  Elizabeth SCHÜSSLER-FIORENZA, “Tablesharing and the Celebration of the Eucharist,” in David POWER and Mary COLLINS (eds.), “Can We Always Celebrate the Eucharist?,” Concilium 152, New York, Seabury, 1982, p. 4. See also the perspective of Diann NEU in the same volume of Concilium: Diann NEU, “Our Name is Church: The Experience of Catholic-Christian Feminist Liturgies,” pp. 75-91.

(56)  OSTDIEK, p. 140; HUELS, p. 41.

(57)  FOX, p. 430.

(58)  OSTDIEK, p. 164-167; ROONEY, p. 124.

(59)  BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON THE LITURGY, Eucharistic Concelebration, Washington, United States Catholic Conference, 1978, p. 6. KING concludes that the extension of the rite of concelebration “has not been granted merely because it is ancient, nor yet as a solution to practical difficulties when a large number of priests are assembled. Concelebration has a pastoral significance: a visual demonstration of the unity of the Church, emphasizing the essentially communal nature of the eucharistic sacrifice, and thus providing an antidote to a false individualism” (KING, p. 133).

(60)  ROONEY, p. 127.

(61)  See Edmond CULLINAN, “Further Thoughts on Concelebration,” The Furrow, 44 (June 1993), pp. 375-377.

(62)  ROONEY, p. 128; Kevin IRWIN, Context and Text. Method in Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 72; Dom Gregory MURRAY, “Why Concelebration?,” in The Downside Review, 86 (1972), pp. 105-109; Dom Dunstan O’KEEFFE, “Concelebration in Monastic Communities,” Paper from Joint Symposium at Downside Abbey, Bath, May 26, 2003 <http://www.benedictines.org.uk/theology/2003/dunstan_okeeffe_ concelebration.rtf>.

(63)  ROONEY, p. 125.

(64)  TAFT, 1980, p. 321.

(65)  TAFT, 1980, p. 321.

(66)  OSTDIEK, p. 161.

(67)  ROONEY, p. 127; OSTDIEK, p. 163.

(68)  OSTDIEK, p. 163. For a series of questions that help participants to reflect on their ritual experience of concelebration, see “Concelebration,” in National Bulletin on Liturgy, Vol. 27, No. 134 (Fall 1993), p. 159.

(69)  Robert TAFT, “Interritual Concelebration,” in Worship, 55 (1981), p. 441.

(70)  See VATICAN COUNCIL II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, n. 57, §2.1; Rite of Concelebration, Introduction, n. 3; GIRM, 1975, n. 155; GIRM, 2002, nn. 202 and 387.

(71)  VATICAN II, Christus Dominus, n. 15; canon 835, §1.

(72)  Frederick MCMANUS (ed.), Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal, Washington, United States Catholic Conference, 1987, p. 49.

(73)  JOUNEL reports that, in 1965, the bishops of France wished to establish a certain unity for their apostolic regions and worked together in formulating their practical directives (JOUNEL, p. 80). Various Conferences of Bishops have offered guidelines to assist bishops in formulating their particular regulations: BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON THE LITURGY, Eucharistic Concelebration, Washington, United States Catholic Conference, 1978, pp. 24-27; COMMISSIONES ÉPISCOPALES DE LITURGIA, CANADA COMMISSION EPISCOPALE DE LITURGIE, “La Concélébration. Repères Théologiques Pour une Pratique Renouvelée,” Notitiae, 321 (April 1993, no. 4), pp. 187-243; UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Guidelines for Concelebration of the Eucharist, November 12, 2003, Washington, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003 [to be revised in 2013]; CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, Department for Christian Life and Worship, Guidelines for Concelebration in the Dioceses of England and Wales, rev., November 2008.

(74)  ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, Sacramental Policies. Eucharist, September 2012, SP 7-13 (http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/SacramentalPolicies/2012-08%20%20Eucharist%20Policy.pdf) <February 17, 2013; DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT, Policies Relating to Concelebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy, Revised November 27, 2011 <http://www.davenportdiocese.org/lit/liturgylibrary/Policies/litConcelebration-revised112711.pdf>.

(75)  See for example, HUELS, pp. 39-43.

(76)  Frederick MCMANUS, “Foreward,” in Jean Carroll MCGOWAN, Concelebration: A Sign of Unity of the Church, New York, Herder and Herder, 1964, pp. xx-xxi.

(77)  BALDOVIN, pp. 45-47; OSTDIEK, p. 168;

(78)  These regulations have been compiled with the assistance of the following examples: DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT, Policies Relating to Concelebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy, Revised November 27, 2011 <http://www.davenportdiocese.org/lit/liturgylibrary/Policies/litConcelebration-revised112711.pdf> February 20, 2013; DIOCESE OF SPOKANE, Guidelines for Concelebration, 1992 <http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/policies/diocesan%20green%20book/ bookIV/4.03.01.htm> February 20, 2013;

(79)  BALDOVIN, p. 36; TAFT, 1980, p. 321; OSTDIEK, p. 156.

(80)  SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Eucharisticum Mysterium (EM), May 25, 1967, no. 43.

(81)  In the Traditional Latin Mass, concelebration only occurred at the Mass of the Ordination of a Priest and at the Mass of the Ordination of a Bishop. In the Ordination of a Priest according to the 1962 Missal, the rubrics establish that the concelebrating priests be only those who are ordained at that Mass. Thus the priests attending the Ordination Mass of Priests do not concelebrate but only the Ordinandi. <http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/concelebration.html>.

(82)  JOUNEL reports that the French bishops decided that concelebration would not be used for wedding masses or funeral masses for the laity (see JOUNEL, p. 60).

(83)  SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Rite of Concelebration (RC), March 7, 1965, nn. 3 and 4.

(84)  SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children and for Masses for Reconciliation, Introduction, November 1, 1974, in Notitiae, 11 (1975), pp. 7-12: DOL, no. 2020.

(85)  Pope Benedict XVI emphasized that efforts need to be made so that large-scale concelebrations not lose their proper focus. This can be done by proper coordination and by arranging the place of worship so that priests and lay faithful are truly able to participate fully (see BENEDICT XVI, post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, February 22, 2007, n. 61).

(86)  CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum, March 25, 2004, n. 126, Washington, USCCB, 2004.

(87)  Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 125.

(88) While the Prayer of the Faithful is a part of the Mass that is carried out by the deacon, it would seem that if the deacon is not present, then “a cantor, a reader, or one of the lay faithful” (GIRM, n. 71) announces the the Prayer of the Faithful. This provision of the new GIRM supercedes the position of the Canadian Commission Episcopale De Liturgie which states that a concelebrant would substitute for the proper functions of the deacon, including the announcing the intentions of the universal prayer (CANADA COMMISSION EPISCOPALE DE LITURGIE, “La Concélébration. Repères théologiques pour une pratique renouvelée,” in Notitiae, 321 [April 1993, no. 4], p. 214).

(89) The Apostolic See published Preces Eucharisticae pro Concelebratione, May 25, 2009, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, containing more details for concelebration and some changes for all of the Eucharistic Prayers contained in the missal. This newly issued Eucharistic Prayers for Concelebration (English translation of the Roman Missal c 2010, International Commission on English in the Liturgy) shows a preference that one of the concelebrants be invited to recite parts of the Eucharistic Prayer. According to Bugnini, assigning parts to the different concelebrants “made the concelebration more harmonious by allowing a suitable variety of voices to be heard” (BUGNINI, p. 128).

(90)  The newly issued Eucharistic Prayers for Concelebration seems to show a preference that the principal celebrant sing or recite the doxology alone.

(91)  An exception might arise when one of the concelebrants is unable to receive Communion under the species of bread, including low-gluten hosts, or when he is unable to consume even a minimal amount of wine (see CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter, July 24, 2003, [Prot. n. 89/78 - 17498], n. B2 and 3).

(92)  “The general rule in communion rites right up through the Middle Ages, in both East and West, was that communion is not just taken, not even by the clergy, but given and received. For communion is at once a ministry and a gift and a sharing, and as such is administered to the communicant through the hands of another [...] But from the sources we have studied at least one thing is clear: the Eucharist, ideally at least, is not something one takes. It is a gift received, a meal shared. And since sacraments by their very nature are supposed to symbolize what they mean, then self-service, cafeteria-style communion rites just will not do” (Robert TAFT, “Receiving Communion – A Forgotten Symbol,” in Worship 57 [1983], pp. 413 and 418).

(93)  This was the teaching since 1972: SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, declaration, In celebratione Massae, On concelebration, August 7, 1972, in AAS, 64 (1972), p. 563; Austin FLANNERY, ed., Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, New York, Costello Publishing, 1975, p. 223.

(94)  TAFT, 2011, p. 80.

(95)  See Robert TAFT, “Interritual Concelebration,” in Worship, 55 (1981), pp. 441-444; BUGNINI, pp. 132-133.

(96)  OSTDIEK, pp. 167-169; BALDOVIN, pp. 45-47;