Memoirs on Concelebration
(The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 by Annibale Bugnini, Titular Archbishop of Diocletiana)
Chapter Eleven
I. Preparation of the Rite
The first completely new rites of the reform were those of concelebration and of communion under both kinds. The decree of publication was dated March 7, 1965; the rites were to go into effect on Holy Thursday,April 15, of that year.(1)
Study group 16 (2) was in charge of preparing the rite of concelebration. But even before the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was promulgated in November 1963, Father Cipriano Vagaggini had been studying an earlier draft of a rite of concelebration. He felt it urgently necessary to restore dignity and meaning to the Eucharistic celebration, especially at gatherings of priests.
On March 15, 1964, the secretariat of the Consilium sent the following note to the study group:
There are many technical studies of concelebration; on the practical side,the Consilium already has in its possession a first draft that is sufficiently "polished." This must be discussed, sent for examination to a group of experts in various parts of the world, and then given a definitive form. After the commission has approved it, it will be sent out, with the consent of the Holy Father, for “experimentation,’’ in order to make sure that what seems good at the ideal level is also good in practice. The experiments will be made in some abbeys of various countries and perhaps at some gatherings of priests. After studying the existing schema, the group composed six others (3) and, in addition to consulting experts, profited by extensive experimentation. After some further work, the schema approved by the Consilium at its second general meeting was presented to the Holy Father by the Cardinal President at an audience on June 26, 1964, and the Pope gave permission for it to be used in experimental celebrations.
II. EXPERIMENTS
The first official experiment was conducted in six abbeys: Sant’ Anselmo (Rome), Montserrat (Spain), Encalcat (France), Maredsous (Belgium), Maria Laach (Germany}, and St. John’s (United States), and in Le Saulchor, the Dominican house of studies in France.
The permission was for concelebration several times a month and for all forms of Eucharistic celebration. The conditions were: 1) that the consent of the Ordinary of the place be obtained; 2) that the rite established by the Consilium and accompanying the decree of concession be faithfully followed; 3) that the concelebrants be no more than twenty in number and stand around the altar; 4) that one person be in charge of the concelebration and submit a report on it to the Consilium, listing any difficulties that may have arisen and suggesting a solution; 5) that if possible some photographs be sent to the Consilium as proper documentation.
The liturgical centers that had been chosen prepared to carry out a mandate that they had welcomed with great joy and enthusiasm. There was painstaking preparation: repeated practices of the ceremonies and chants; use of graphics; courses of lectures to the community and to the faithful who were to participate. The drafted rite was usually recopied or even printed in elegant booklets so that all might have it in hand.
After the concelebrations there was usually a general meeting of all, religious and laity, and each participant was asked to give his or her impressions and to make any suitable observations. These general meetings were the source of the reports sent to the Consilium. The reports were lively, intelligent, filled with pastoral good serve, and of incalculable value for the correcting, polishing, clarifying, and preparing of the final version of the rite.
Cardinal Gracias asked that at the International Eucharistic Congress in Bombay groups of priests attending be permitted to concelebrate daily, since it was impossible to supply enough altars for the celebration of ‘‘private’’ Masses. The Pope gave his permission, with the proviso that the number of concelebrants in each group be limited and that there be someone in charge to lead the celebrations. The broad outline of the rite was printed m the congress program, again by special permission of the Pope.
On July 3, 1964, Cardinal Lerearo received permission to allow concelebration ‘‘in particular cases.’’ Three such cases received special attention. First and foremost, there was the case of sick priests, some of them in extremely trying circumstances, who asked that they might concelebrate at least on Sundays. Among such requests was a moving one from a parish priest who was paralyzed and limited to receiving communion; he was a missionary Oblate of Mary Immaculate and had been unable to celebrate for the past year after a fall into a ravine in Alaska. The Pope granted the indults for these sick priests and ordered the Consilium to prepare an appropriate rite.
Some bishops at the Council asked that they might concelebrate in the colleges or religious houses in which they were staying. The Pope gave the permission but ordered them to see to it that ail the conditions for a seemly concelebration were present.
From several quarters came requests that concelebration might also take place in St. Peter’s. This petition, too, was granted. The concelebrations at which the Holy Father himself presided in the Vatican Basilica at the opening of the third session (September 14), (4) during it, and at its close intensified the desire for this new rite. Requests from bishops multiplied.
How many concelebrations were allowed as experiments? From July 3, 1964, to March 21, 1965, 720 indults for concelebration were granted to bishops and diocesan clergy. In addition, for special reasons a collective indult was granted to the episcopal conferences of various countries (three in Europe, five in Africa, eight in the Americas); the conference communicated the indult to individual bishops in specific cases and under the usual conditions.
During the same period 206 religious families (in addition to the six centers named at the beginning) asked for an indult for concelebration.Here again, for reasonable cause, eight communities received a collective indult, which the major superior then communicated to his own religious provinces.
In all, then, there were over fifteen hundred concelebrations. Eight albums of photographs and about a thousand reports in the archives of the Consilium give evidence of the atmosphere of lively and holy enthusiasm, intense feeling, and profound spirituality that everywhere marked the preparation and the ceremonies themselves.
The conditions laid down were always the same. The occasions were extremely varied, but pastoral reasons were always at work. Only one kind of concelebration was allowed in order to foster individual devotion—that of sick priests who found it impossible to celebrate individually.
In the beginning, concelebration was a privilege. This is sufficiently clear from the fact that a particular, authoritative decree of the Consilium was required and that while the Consilium was generous and magnanimous, it carefully examined the circumstances and possibilities.
III. THE DEFINITIVE RITE
While this experiment was being conducted on a grand scale throughout the world, the reports daily reaching the Consilium provided valuable information for revising and perfecting the rite.
The rite had meanwhile been sent on to the Congregation of Rites for its expert examination. The Congregation issued its observations in August 1965. (5) The prefecture for papal ceremonies also drafted a series of remarks. Both sources (6) raised the same difficulties, which were the product of a frame of mind bent on curbing rather than promoting the renewal.
The chief objections had to do with: a) the number of concelebrants. The Consilium schema suggested about fifteen, but this number was found to be too large. The criterion desired was ‘‘that all the concelebrants be able to stand around the altar during all their actions and to concelebrate on it.’’ (8)
There was a gradual evolution in regard to the number of concelebrants. In the beginning the Pope had directed that the number be limited to between twenty and twenty-five. At that time, before experience of concelebration, it was feared that a larger number would keep the celebration from proceeding in an orderly and dignified manner. Outside of Rome it was urged that the number not be limited. The number fifty took both views into account. The definitive solution left the number undetermined and simply decreed that ‘‘in each case the number of concelebrants is to be settled by considering how many the church and the altar of concelebration can accommodate, even if all the concelebrants are not right next to the table of the altar.” (8)
b) Parts that the concelebrants are to recite. The objectors asked that ‘‘all the concelebrants recite the whole Canon in Latin, from the Te igitur to the communion inclusive.” (9)
This was another idée fixe. The final solution, which assigned different parts to the principal concelebrant and to the other concelebrants, either as a group or singly, was not only based on the earliest tradition and on the more recent tradition of the Eastern Churches but was also a balanced one. It made the concelebration more harmonious by allowing a suitable variety of voices to be heard. The simultaneous, prolonged recitation of many prayers by many concelebrants makes for monotony and dullness. Another advantage of diversified recitation is that it gives the sense of a concelebration in which there is a variety of roles even among the priests themselves.
c) Extension of hands over the gifts during the consecratory epiclesis and the words of consecration. The objectors wanted this to be ‘‘absolutely forbidden.” They failed to grasp the meaning of the gesture and confused it with the Roman greeting. The Consilium, however, took into consideration both the importance of the meaning conveyed by the gesture and varying local sensibilities; it therefore made the gesture optional.
d) Use of a paten by each concelebrant. This would have been an unnecessary complication and without any expressive value. In all rites the priest receives the Lord’s body in his hand.
Other observations had to do with the exclusion of any concelebrants besides the bishop and ordinands at an ordination; communion by drinking directly from the chalice; bination in anticipated cases (Holy Thursday, Easter, Christmas, November 2, a diocesan synod (10)); the obligation of all concelebrants to wear all the vestments. In the view of the prefect of papal ceremonies, these points were to be the basis “for drawing up the rite of concelebration.’’ (11)
In the early days of December, the Pope summoned the secretary of the Consilium and asked him to put an end to the period of experimental concelebration and prepare the definitive rite for publication. On December 20 the revised rite was sent to twenty-eight experts, with a request that they submit any observations by January 5. The accompanying letter explained why the text was so full: in addition to the general norms (which in the subsequent Ordines would become the Praenotanda generalia, or General Introduction), the schema contained the full rite for a pontifical Mass and the elements peculiar to all the other forms of Mass, reference being made to the pontifical Mass for the parts common to all. In addition, there were the elements peculiar to concelebrations at the ordination of priests, the consecration of a bishop, and the blessing of an abbot. Finally, there was the rite of concelebration with a sick priest.
V. CONTENT
The decree promulgating the rite of concelebration duly highlights the basic principles that justify, improve, and condition concelebration. In substance they are as follows.
In guiding or reforming the celebration of the sacred mysteries, the Church has always taken care that the rites should manifest as effectively as possible the inexhaustible riches of Christ which they contain and communicate to those who are well-disposed. For then they will more readily influence the life and outlook of those who take part in them.
This is especially true of the celebration of the Eucharist. The various forms of this celebration are meant to express and convey to the faithful the various aspects of the Eucharistic sacrifice. In every form of the Mass, even the simplest, all the marks and properties that belong to the Eucharistic sacrifice by its nature are contained. Specifically:
1) the unity of the sacrifice of the cross, inasmuch as a plurality of Masses represent the one sacrifice of Christ and derive their sacrificial character from the fact that they are the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross;
2) the unity of the priesthood, in the sense that although many celebrate, each is a minister of Christ, who exercises his own priesthood through these priests and indeed gives them a special share of his priesthood via the sacrament of orders. Therefore, even when they offer the sacrifice individually, they always do it in virtue of the one priesthood that they all share, and they act in the person of the one High Priest, who confects the sacrament of his body and blood, whether through one priest or through many;
3) the joint action of the entire people of God appears more clearly; in fact, every Mass, being a celebration of the sacrament to which the Church owes its continual growth and life, and in which it chiefly manifests its true nature, is, more than any other liturgical action, an action of the entire, hierarchically organized, holy people of God.
These three characteristics, which belong to every Mass, become more evident in the rite of concelebration. For in this form of celebration a number of priests act together with one will and one voice, in virtue of the same priesthood and in the person of the same High Priest; they celebrate the one sacrifice with a single sacramental act and participate in it together.
Therefore this way of celebrating Mass, in which the faithful take a conscious and active part as a community, is—especially if the bishop presides—the supreme manifestation of the Church in the unity of sacrifice and priesthood and in a single act of thanksgiving around one altar with the ministers and the holy people. The rite of concelebration presents and conveys in a striking way truths of the greatest importance that nourish the spiritual and pastoral life of priests and promote the Christian training of the faithful.
For these, rather than for purely practical reasons, Eucharistic concelebration in a variety of styles and forms has been accepted in the Church since antiquity; though it has developed along different lines, it has always remained in use in both East and West.
The Ritus concelebrationis begins by recalling the pertinent articles in the Constitution on the Liturgy and some general norms.
1. Concelebration is allowed only in the following cases:
a) Holy Thursday in both the Chrism Mass and the evening Mass;
b) during councils, synods, and meetings of bishops;
c) in the Mass for the blessing of an abbot;
d) with the permission of the Ordinary, in the conventual Mass and the principal Mass in a church or oratory, when the needs of the faithful do not require the priests to celebrate separately; (12)
e) on the occasion of meetings of priests, of whatever kind.
2. It is for the bishop to regulate concelebration in his own diocese. It is for the Ordinary, on the other hand, to decide whether it is opportune and to determine its formalities. (13)
3. At ordinations and the blessing of an abbot, the bishops can also allow others to concelebrate.
4. No one may be admitted as a concelebrant once the Mass has begun.
5. A priest can celebrate or concelebrate more than once: on Holy Thursday, at the Chrism Mass and the evening Mass; on Easter, at the Vigil and during the day; on Christmas, at the three Masses that are celebrated at appropriate hours; at synods, pastoral visits, or meetings of priests with the bishop or his delegate, if in the bishop’s judgment they are required to celebrate again to meet the needs of the faithful. (14)
6. Concelebrants must wear all the vestments prescribed for individual celebration. The color is to be that of the day, except in case of need; then the principal celebrant is to wear the color of the day, but the others can wear white. (15)
7. The principal celebrant is to recite all the formulas and perform the actions prescribed for him by the rubrics. Concelebrants are to say only the formulas and perform only the actions explicitly prescribed for them; the formulas which they do not say aloud in accordance with the rubrics they are to say mentally or simply listen to them. (16)
8. Deacons and subdeacons at solemn Masses may receive communion in both kinds. If the deacon or subdeacon is in fact a priest, he may not concelebrate but he can receive communion, even if he already has said Mass or is to say it later.
Next come specific directives on stipends for a concelebrated Mass and for the instruction of the faithful. There follows a detailed description of each type of Mass as well as of special cases: conferral of orders, blessing of an abbot, concelebration of sick priests. The norms of 1965, revised in their juridical parts, stripped of what had been provisional and brought up to date in relation to documents published later, have in their substance become part of the Roman Missal that emerged from the Pauline reform. (17)
V. INTERRITUAL CONCELEBRATION
Once concelebration was reintroduced as a normal rite in the Latin Church, the problem arose of Latin Rite and Eastern Rite priests concelebrating together. Once questions of this kind began to be presented, they were resolved case by case in the manner that seemed most satisfactory but was not always felicitous from the liturgical standpoint. (18)
The Congregation for the Eastern Churches took up the matter at a plenary meeting in the early months of 1969 and asked for the views of the Consilium, even extending it an invitation to participate in the meeting. The problem was taken up by a special study group in the Consilium. (19)
The questions to be answered were these:
a) whether and for what reasons and with what reservations bishops and priests were to be granted permission to concelebrate in another rite, the equality and integrity of the separate rites being maintained;
b) whether, and if so which, elements of their own rite (dress, insignia, language, readings, prayers, etc.) could be kept and introduced into a concelebration in a different rite;
c) whether concelebrants from different rites could be allowed to recite in synchrony each their own Canon, or at least its words of consecration, or whether a special anaphora should be composed for such concelebrations.
Here was the opinion of the Consilium on each question:
a) Interritual celebration should be permitted, but according to the rite of the Church that issued the invitation, and provided the authorities of that Church judged that the invited priest knew how to concelebrate according to that rite and was familiar with the anaphora being used.
b) Concelebrating priests should wear the garb of their own rite; as for language, they could use their own or that of the majority of the concelebrants. In no other respect was the rite of liturgical concelebration to be altered; concelebrants from other rites were to follow the rite of the inviting Church.
c) Interritual concelebration is a legitimate desire of many priests, especially of the younger generation, and ought not to be prevented. Synchronization of different Canons is to be utterly avoided, since this would militate against the deeper meaning of concelebration as a ‘‘sign of unity.” Therefore, it was suggested that an agreed choice be made of one of the Eastern anaphoras (the value of Eucharistic Prayer II in this context was underscored) or that the Latin Church adopt the Alexandrine Anaphora of St. Basil.
The Consilium had had this last-named anaphora in mind all along and wanted to adopt it together with the three new Eucharistic Prayers, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would not allow it. (20) The plenary meeting of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches also favored the idea, but nothing seems to have come of it. (21)
VI. COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS
Norms for the distribution of communion under both kinds were issued along with the norms for the rite of concelebration. The ceremonial was that used in the rite of concelebration, but with necessary adaptations for the faithful. Four methods of receiving the blood of Christ were envisaged: drinking directly from the chalice, intinction, use of a straw, use of a spoon. (22)
Of greater interest are the cases in which, in accordance with the liturgical Constitution, communion under both kinds was allowed. (23) The directives here were dictated by pastoral and disciplinary considerations; there would be a subsequent development that merits separate treatment. (24)
Notes:
(1) Ritus servandus in concelebratione Missae et ritus communionis sub utraque sub utraque specie, editio typica (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1965; 104 pp.). Published by the SCR and the Consilium. See the presentation af the document by A. Bugnini in L’Osservatore Romano, March 28, 1965. The decree af promulgation is in DOL 222 nos. 1788-93; the Introduction to the rite of concelebration is in DOL 223 nos. 1794-1810; the Introduction to the rite of communion under both kinds is in DOL 266 nos. 2145-7.
(2) Relator: C. Vagaggimi: secretary: A. Francquesa; members: J. Wagner, A.-G Martimort, B. Fischer, B. Botte, B. Neunheuser, A. Dirks, R. Falsini.
(3) Schema 1, April 2, 1964 (17 pp.), sent for inspection by about thirty experts around the world; Schema 2, May 30, 1964 (13 pp.), drawn up after examination by the relators and the members of the Consilium in the sessions of April 14-20; Schema 3, June 14, 1964 (13 pp.), again studied by the members of the Consilium during the third general meeting (June 18-20); Schema 4, June 20, 1964 (14 pp.), given to the Holy Father; Schema 5, December 21, 1964 (29 pp.), prepared on the basis of the observations suggested by experiments; Schema 6, January 20, 1965 (28 pp.): the definitive text, given to the Holy Father and approved by him an March 4, 1965.
(4) The first concelebration by the Pope in St. Peter's was a historic event, not only by reason of the expectations it aroused throughout the ecclesiastical world but also by reason of difficulties cased by customs that would have to be revised or abandoned. There was even an amusing meident. Since the event was a “first Mass,” the secretary of the Consilium wanted to see from close up how the ceremony went, and he obtained from Archbishop Enrico Dante, papal master of ceremonies, special permission to stand near the altar as a “chapel cleric.’’ Before the ceremony began, one of the guards approached him and asked: “Excuse me, but are you eligible to stand here?” The secretary showed his card to the man, who then went away. Shortly after, when Mass had begun, another gentleman, a short fellow loaded down with decorations, well known in those circles for. . . his extremely courteous manners, passed back and forth and finally issued an order: ‘‘Withdraw, hide yourself, don’t be seen here!’’ Since the person being commanded did not leave, our much-decorated gentleman returned in great excitement, accompanied by a guard, and without mercy forced the secretary of the Consilium to leave. Documents, explanations, pleas were useless. He had already been taken outside when a prelate, moved to pity and disgusted by the scene, intervened so that the poor unfortunate secretary might at least remain in the benches of the transept.
(5) The Consilium’s reply to the observations of the SCR on the instruction Inter Oecumenici, on the rite of concelebration, and on communion under both kinds was delivered to the Holy Father on August 31, 1965, in a fifty-page foolscap booklet.
(6) As a matter of fact, there was only one source, since the secretary of the SCR was also the papal master of ceremonies.
(7) The idea that the concelebrants should stand around the altar and touch it was rather widespread and resisted dying out. The phenomenon can be seen in the photographs of the first concelebrations, for which at times enormous altars were set up so that all the concelebrants could stand around them in the most literal sense.
(8) DOL 223 no. 1797. This solution enabled hundreds of priests and bishops to concelebrate at congresses, synods, and conferences. The problem gradually disappeared, so that there was no longer any reference to it in the definitive norms that were eventually incorporated into the Roman Missal.
(9) It had to be noted, among other things, that the Canon ends with the final doxology, not with the communion!
(10) In the first three cases, bination or trination was already provided for in the rubrics; in the other two it was provided for in the liturgical Constitution, no. 57.
(11) The opposition was subjectively motivated rather than based on objective arguments. The master of ceremonies claimed, for example, during preparation of the rite of concelebration for the third session of the Council, that the Pope ‘wants to put an end to all the confusion and disorder going on just now” and wants the rite to be based on “the rite in the Pontifical.” The Pope evidently issued no such order, since he had already approved for experimentation the rite drawn up by the Consilium, and since he knew there was no rite of concelebration in the Pontifical! And, in fact, after all his ‘‘rubrical’’ prancing, the good Archbishop Dante yielded with a minimum of argument and ended by going along with the Consilium.
(12) This directive left the door open to use of the rite on many occasions and contributed, in fact, to the growth of the view that concelebration is the proper and preferred form of celebration for the priestly community. This view was also conveyed in the instruction Eucharisticum mysterium (May 25, 1967), no. 47, which even empowers superiors of communities having a large number of priests to permit two or more concelebrations on the same day (DOL 179 no. 1276).
(13) Some clarification was needed on this point and was officially given by the SCR for the diocese of Rome. It said that it is for the religious superior to grant permission for concelebration in his own houses. This means: to judge the opportuneness, decide the number of concelebrants, and give the permission. It is for the Ordinary of place to regulate concelebration and to determine the schedule, churches, rite, and prayer of the faithful. Practice would brilliantly resolve all these questions, and without any great difficulties. See Not 2 (1966) 265-66. In this area, one special problem was raised (still in the Vicariate of Rome) about concelebration in the international colleges and seminaries of the city. It led to a sustained examination of the question; I shall return to this in Chapter 56, pp. 869-72 (included below).
(14) Here again, practice and understanding of the significance of concelebration brought about an evolution. Requests came in asking that those members of chapters or religious communities who were obliged to attend the conventual or community Mass and also had to celebrate individually for the faithful might be allowed to binate so that they might take part in the concelebration. At the time, GIRM 76 allowed them only to receive communion under both kinds at the concelebrated Mass. The same request was made by priests for special gatherings of priests (ibid., no. 158). The question was taken up at an “ordinary” meeting of the SCDW, and bination was allowed in the declaration In celebratione Missae, which the SCDW issued on August 7, 1972: AAS 64 (1972) 561-63 (DOL 226 nos. 1813-16). See also Not 8 (1972) 327-28, with the commentary of G. P., 329-32. GIRM 76 was corrected in the 1975 edition to conform to the declaration.
(15) On this point, too, the law evolved. The obligation that all the concelebrants wear all the vestments proved burdensome. The second instruction for the application of the liturgical Constitution (May 4, 1967) laid this obligation only on the principal concelebrant; the others could wear only an amice, chasuble, and stole; see the instruction Tres abhinc annos 27: AAS 59 (1967) 448 (DOL 29 no. 473).
(16) The Missal of 1970 gave an even better solution when it recommended that the parts common to all be said by the concelebrants in a low voice so that the voice of the principal concelebrant can be clearly heard (see GIRM 170).
(17) See GIRM 153-60.
(18) On July 15, 1965, the Ukrainian Eparch (Gabro) of St. Nicholas in Chicago was given permission to concelebrate with the Archbishop (Cody) of that city on the occasion of his enthronement; on September 5, 1966, on the other hand, Latin Rite priests on pilgrimage in the Holy Land were refused an indult for concelebrating with the Melkites; on December 12, 1967, the Ukrainian Eparch in France was allowed ‘‘in special circumstances’’ and “in case of necessity” to concelebrate “in another rite’’; in 1968 concelebration in another rite ‘‘on Sundays and some other days of greater solemnity, with each concelebrant preferably wearing the vestments of his own rite,” was granted to seminaries with students from different rites: Poona (July 2, 1968), Kurseong (December 6, 1968), Alwaye (December 18, 1968). During the concelebration of the new cardinals in February 25, 1965, with the Pope presiding, Cardinals Saigh and Slipyi used their own Byzantine anaphora, timing it (especially at the words of consecration) to harmonize with the Latin Canon.
(19) This group consisted of G. Arrighi, P. Jounel, E. Lanne, and L. Ligier.
(20) See pp. 461-62.
(21) At least nothing more is known of it. On other questions as well no results were seen. Perhaps the directives given were enough to let the Congregation for the Eastern Churches handle concrete cases. But since the regulations were not made known, who knows to what extent it acted on its own initiative?
(22) No one seems to have used the third and fourth methods, which were perhaps kept at the insistence of a few archeologists or people with an exaggerated concern for “hygiene.” Certainly these two methods did not become common.
(23) See SC 55.
(24) See pp. 626ff.
_____________________________________________
Excerpt from Chapter Fifty-Six
II. CONCELEBRATION IN SEMINARIES
There is a minor question that is of interest from the viewpoint of the implementation of the liturgical reform in seminaries—the question of concelebration. The issue has now been settled, but in the beginning it occupied several agencies for some time.
The problem arose out of a request from the Cardinal Archbishop of Seville, who, as delegate of the Spanish episcopate for the Pontifical Spanish College in Rome, asked the Holy Father that the priests of the college might concelebrate Mass daily (May 2, 1966). Two questions were involved—one of law and one of practice.
1) Juridical problem. At that time concelebration was allowed in certain cases, with the permission and according to the judgment of the Ordinary. The question was whether daily concelebration in seminaries came under that rule and who it was that could give the permission in Rome with its international and national colleges.
2) Practical problem. The question here was whether it was advisable to introduce daily concelebration into seminaries and colleges or ecclesiastical residences. Concelebration was still looked upon as something extraordinary, while the ordinary thing in the life of a priest was either Mass for a congregation or ‘‘private’’ Mass. There were many who thought daily concelebration would not be good training for the future life of a priest and for the apostolate; there was also a fear that concelebration might lead to some communities being deprived of the service regularly provided by the priests residing in the colleges of Rome.
On June 4, 1966, the Cardinal Secretary of State directed the Congregation of Rites to convene a joint plenary meeting with the Congregations for Seminaries and for Religious and the Consilium. For, “before coming to a decision on so important a matter, which will affect all the colleges and seminaries of the entire Church,” the Holy Father wanted the question of principle to be discussed in its various aspects, especially the pastoral. He asked that guidelines be established that could go into effect for the following scholastic year. The Cardinal Prefect repeated his directive on August 29, 1966.
The Congregation of Rites asked for the views of the agencies invited to the joint meeting.
The Congregation for Religious was opposed to granting the permissions:
Seminarians, it must be remembered, are preparing for the pastoral life and have to realize that duty will have them almost always celebrating Mass in parishes or in institutions where they will be celebrating individually. Frequent concelebration in seminaries will make it more difficult for young priests to master the rubrics for Masses with a single celebrant, and this will be a drawback in their pastoral ministry. The claim that they are gaining time for the community should not be a reason for concelebration. It is worth noting that Mass read by a single priest takes less time than concelebration by several.
In some places concelebration has become almost a fad, and priests even ask permission to binate solely in order that they may take part in concelebrations.
The same Congregation asserted that “for theological and pastoral reasons, the emphasis should rather be on the value of Masses celebrated by individuals.”
The Congregation for Seminaries, on the other hand, was in favor of the concession, provided certain conditions were met: it should be justified solely by spiritual considerations; it should not detract from service to the faithful; the taste for private Mass should also be cultivated.
The Consilium shared the view of the Congregation for Seminaries and called for the co-existence of the two forms of celebration.
The joint plenary meeting took place on October 22, 1966, in the Vatican Apostolic Palace. The majority of the cardinals present opposed the concession: 12 against; 4 in favor; 1 proceed cautiously.
On November 7, 1966, Archbishop Dell’Acqua asked the secretary of the Consilium for a draft statement of norms for concelebration in the seminaries and the ecclesiastical residences and institutions of Rome. The Holy Father revised and completed the text; on November 11 the Cardinal Secretary of State sent it to the Congregation of Rites with a request to have it examined also by the Congregation for Seminaries, the Roman Vicariate, and the Consilium. The Consilium answered on November 27; its only comment was to advise the addition of a statement that “the present norms issued by the Holy Father for the diocesan clergy may be usefully followed by religious as well.”
From that moment on nothing more was heard of these “Norms,” for in the interval they had become—no one knows how—an “Instruction on the Concelebration of Mass in Seminaries, Colleges, and Ecclesiastical Institutions.” This had been drafted by the Congregation of Rites and was sent to the Consilium for study on January 25, 1967. The Cardinal President of the Consilium sent the text to two bishops of the presidential council (Boudon and Bluyssen) and nine consultors of eight different nationalities. Their observations were passed on to Cardinal Larraona at the end of February 1967. The instruction was not well received by the periti of the Consilium, either because it seemed to be a superfluous document and an interference in an area that the liturgical Constitution left to the diocesan bishop and the Ordinary, or because of its narrowly juridical flavor and lack of any vision or even any pastoral and spiritual touch. (10)
The Congregation of Rites now changed the instruction back once more into “Norms for Concelebration in Seminaries, Colleges, and Ecclesiastical Institutions.” On September 16, 1967, (11) the Secretariat of State sent both documents to the Consilium, which replied on September 26, pointing out that the “Norms” were useless because the Instruction on Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (May 25, 1967) had already issued regulations in this area: “The faculty to concelebrate also applies to the principal Masses in churches and public and semipublic oratories of seminaries, colleges, and ecclesiastical institutions, as well as in those of religious or-ders and societies of common life without vows” (no. 47).
What, then, was the sense of a further instruction “issued by the authority and command of the Supreme Pontiff”? Furthermore, the instruction and “Norms” contained so many minute details and such an emphasis on disciplines, faculties, and observance that they seemed bent on restricting and limiting concelebration, whereas the Instruction on Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery exhorted superiors to facilitate and encourage concelebration “whenever pastoral needs or another reasonable cause does not demand otherwise” (no. 47). The Consilium suggested, therefore, that there be a return to the original “Norms for Rome,” which it regarded as surer and more effective.
That document is shorter, but it takes a spiritual and pastoral approach, especially in the corrections and additions introduced by the Holy Father; this outlook is missing from the proposed instruction and Norms. The Roman Norms also give less the impression of the kind of accentuated juridical rigor that will not be well received today. On the other hand, the juridical side of the matter seems fairly well safeguarded by existing documents.
And in fact, the new “Norms” were issued by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome “in accordance with the august wish of the Holy Father.” (12)
In this document a distinction is made between residences or colleges that accept only priests; seminaries, where all are clerics; communities of both priests and other clerics. Provision is thus made for a healthy balance. Concelebration in communities of priests is permitted daily, as long as conditions mentioned at the outset are satisfied: provision always made for the spiritual needs of the faithful of the diocese of Rome, esteem for and celebration of “private” Masses as well, participation of superiors, frequent explanation of the theological and ascetical value of concelebration.
In the case of seminaries, there is an emphasis on the need of having the students trained in and accustomed to all the forms of celebration, since “these bring out more clearly the varied functions of the liturgical assembly and foster the active participation of all the students.” Finally, in institutions of both priests and clerics, provision must be made for the needs of both categories: “Concelebration can be more frequent, but not exclusive: the complete priestly formation of the clerics must be effectively ensured by their participation in the several forms of celebration.”
Notes:
(9) Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, instruction In ecclesiasticam futurorum sacerdotum on liturgical formation in seminaries (June 3, 1969): DOL 335 nos. 2779-2916. See A. M. Triacca, ‘’A proposito della recente Istruzione sulla formazione liturgica nei seminari,’’ Not 15 (1979) 621-39; and the entire fourth issue (October-December) of Seminarium 31 (1979).
(10) Among other things, this new instruction cited the Instruction on the Liturgy in Seminaries according to the version from the end of 1966, which had not yet been published.
(11) On August 4, 1967, seeing that the Instruction on the Liturgy in Seminaries was not being published, the Consilium had asked the Secretariat of State to publish at least the “Norms for Concelebration in the Seminaries, Residences, and Ecclesiastical Institutions of Rome,” which had been compiled the previous year and carefully revised, but never published. The Consilium thought these would be useful at the beginning of a new year, and it also suggested that they be made known to the presidents of the episcopal conferences, “with a strong recommendation” that they use these norms as a basis for regulating the matter in their regions. On September 14, 1967, the Secretariat of State wrote that “you may without further ado proceed to do as you suggested” (No. 104944). But on September 16 the Secretariat sent the instruction along with the “Norms for Concelebration” and asked for data on the rights of bishops, religious Ordinaries, and episcopal conferences in regard to the discipline of concelebration.
(12) L'Osservatore Romano, October 14,1967; Rivista diocesana di Roma 8 (1967) 971-73; Not 3 (1967) 388-89. The Norms were to go into effect on November 1, 1967.