Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758)

De Sacraficio Missae, Book III, Chapter XVI.

On concelebration with an ordaining or consecrating bishop, where too on the application of the sacrifice.

1. In the Roman Pontifical, when dealing with the ordination of priests, it is prescribed that the bishop shall recite the secrets slowly and in a slightly raised voice, so that he, who is to be initiated, may pronounce the same words together with the bishop, particularly the words of consecration, which must be spoken at the same moment by the ordained as they are spoken by the bishop. After the bishop takes up the Body and Blood, however, he hands the Body to the recently-ordained priest: and in the same Pontifical, when dealing with the consecration of one chosen for the episcopacy, it is prescribed that the consecra ng bishop shall consecrate two Hosts, of which one he himself shall consume, the other he shall give to the bishop to be consecrated, who pronounces the words of consecration at the same me as the consecra ng bishop, from whom he receives the Host, and also a portion of the Blood in the chalice. Among the Greeks, in those cities wherein there is but a single temple, priests, however many there may be, stand round the bishop who consecrates, and with him recite the entire Mass and from him receive the Eucharist under both species; which usage Morinus (lib. de Ordinat. Ecclesias c. par. 3, exercitat. 8) relates to the times of the Council of Nicaea. The same Morinus (loc. cit. num. 7) says, the words of consecration are recited only by the principal celebrant; which can be admi6ed, if it is understood that the it is the principal celebrant alone who pronounces the words of consecration in a raised voice; yet not at all, if it is understood that the same words are not pronounced by the other concelebrants. For this reason, Juvenin (de Sacramentis dissert. 5 de Euchar. Sacrific., quaest. 4, art. 3), the ques on having been proposed: Can several priests consecrate the Eucharist at the same me: responds in the affirmative, and proves it by adducing the usage of the Greeks, which even now survives, which he describes in these words: In ci es where there is but one temple, priests, however large be their number, encircle the consecra ng bishop from various directions, and recite together with him the en re Liturgy, and, at length, receive from him communion under both species.

2. Concerning this sort of concelebra on and pronouncement of the words of consecration, authors raise various ques ons, whether it is valid, whether it is lawful: which can be sustained, perhaps, if absurdites result: for it can happen that one consecrates ma6er having already been consecrated; or that he consecrates the Body, not the Blood; that the ordained priest outruns the ordaining bishop in pronouncing the form, and thus the ordaining bishop accomplishes nothing when he himself pronounces the form; and, on account of which, the one receiving the Eucharist under both species sins against the Church’s precept.

3. But we refrain from treating of these and suchlike questions: for it must be that one is heedless, who doubts whether what happens in such a discipline as the Church has approved in the ordination of the priest and the consecration of the bishop, is valid or lawful. Which will become clearer if we consider not only that discipline which the Greek church hitherto retains, which we have mentioned briefly before, but also the discipline of the Western church, which, not long since our own mes, not only in the ordination of the priest and in the consecration of the bishop, but also in the greater solemni es and when a bishop celebrated, required that priests should celebrate together with the bishop. See Morinus (cit. exercit. 6, cap. 1) and Lupus (in Appendice ad Synodum Chalcedonen. tom. 1, pag. 995, primae edit.). Innocent III a6ests (lib. 4 de sacrifice. Missae cap. 25) that, in his age, Cardinals were wont to

celebrate Mass with the Pope. This seemed so absurd to Durandus (in 4, dist. 13, quaest. 3), that he writes one need not acquiesce to the judgement of Innocent, who approves of this custom; that Innocent wrote not as the Pon ff, but as a private doctor. But Capreolus dulls the censure of Durandus with these words: As to what he utters against Innocent and the Roman Church, there is no need to respond; because they have been said heedlessly and slanderously. And Cardinal Bona (Rerum Liturgicar. lib. 1, cap. 16, num. 9) speaks thus of Durandus: This custom is with impudence and heedlessness reproved by Durandus, whom many of the Schoolmen have come to follow, entangling this very evident ma er in a web of intricate difficulties, some of whom invent within it many incongruencies and perils, while others deny that it has ever been adopted by the Roman Church, and distort the sayings of the ancient fathers, as if nothing has ever been done in the Church save that which they now behold. The disuse of the ancient rite has driven them headlong into various absurdities, and disuse has given birth to ignorance. Hence I dispute not, but assert that this has continually been in use (namely, that priest would concelebrate Mass together with a bishop) for many ages, which to this very date thrives in the Eastern Church. St. Thomas (3. par., quaest. 82, art. 2) poses the question, whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host, and responds in the affirmative, because, according the practice of certain churches, priests, when they are first ordained, concelebrated with the ordaining bishop. The Holy Doctor observes, too, that the Apostles dined together with Christ as he supped, and thus the recently ordained celebrated Mass together with the ordaining bishop: for, since the priest acts and consecrates in the person of Christ, it ma6ers not, even in the slightest, whether several priests consecrates the Sacrament, because the priest does not consecrate save in the person of Christ: but the many are one in Christ; therefore, it makes no difference whether this Sacrament is confected through one or through many. And Porrecta observes in this article of St. Thomas, that the Angelic Doctor did not say the Apostles concelebrated, but dined together with Christ: for they had not been made priests by Christ except after the consecration of the bread, when He said, Do this for a commemoration of me: accordingly, he says that no other sense can be attributed to the words of St. Thomas than this, namely that the new priests celebrate Mass a&er the example of the Apostles, who dined together with Christ, and thus consecrate together with the bishop.

4. Riccardus (in 4. Sentent., diss. 13, art. 2, quaest. 1) men ons the opinion of certain authors who declared that the new priests concelebrating with the bishop must not have the intention of consecra ng, but only of pronouncing materially and as though reci ng the words of consecration, as a sign of the power they have received, and in memory of the supper wherein Christ bestowed that power on the Apostles reclining with Him. Cajetan, an adherent of this opinion, notes how a certain ancient Pontifical prescribes that those who are ordained say everything in the Missal as if they were celebra ng: where the words as if indicate not a deed, but the likeness of a deed; whereas, if they were truly celebra ng, they would have to receive the Eucharist under both species.

5. To this manner of argumenta on, perhaps one will believe that he has freed himself from those difficulties that we just now touched upon; but it still implicitly retains that difficulty raised in the consecration of a bishop, who in reality celebrates Mass with the consecra ng bishop, consecrates with him both species, and receives the Sacrament under both. But, although we are passing over this difficulty, there is no validity in the argument produced above. For it is prescribed in the Pontifical that the bishop recite the words of the canon slowly and in a slightly-raised voice, and especially the words of consecration, so that the recently ordained might be able to pronounce the same words together with him; this is indica on enough that the words of consecration are not to be pronounced by the newly ordained materially and recitatively, but, as the theologians say, significatively. But there is no place for

admonition (of the Pontifical), if the words are spoken by them in a merely recitative manner: these are words of Sylvius (ad art. 2, quaest. 82 of St. Thomas): which vehemently affected Sotus (in 4. sent., diss. 13, quaest. 1, art. 2, § Et Fateor). Additionally, the same Sylvius says that it is not well-inferred from the fact the ordained do not receive the Sacrament under both species, that they must not have the true intention of consecra ng; and, therefore, that they do not receive the Sacrament under both species because they are merely secondary concelebrants. But that they are truly celebrants, albeit secondary, is proven from the rite itself: for, as Castaldus notes (in Praxi sacrarum Caeremoniarum lib. 2, sect. 15, cap. 5, num. 10), before these neo-presbyters receive the Sacrament, neither the Confiteor, nor the Misereatur, nor the Indulgen am is recited.

6. And thus, it should be decided that the recently ordained must not pronounce the words of consecration materially and recitatively, but significative; in such wise that the intention of them all be directed to the same moment of the consecration. Which is not be so understood that they must have the intention of consecra ng at the same moment when the bishop pronounces the final words of the form, whether they complete the form before, or after; for the effect of the form cannot be suspended; but it is to be understood that they must make an assiduous effort to pronounce the final words of the form together with the bishop, with the intention that completing the form in this manner, they should consecrate together with the bishop: wherefrom it happens that, if they finish the form before or after the bishop, they do not consecrate, in that they had not the intention of consecra ng by finishing in this way.

7. This is what Sylvius teaches (loc. cit). But the opinion of Cajetan seems to be very secure, who advises the ordained to have the intention of pronouncing the words in the most accommodating manner they can, taking assiduous efforts and care not to pronounce them before the bishop. And Pasquale (decis. Moral. 422) advises the ordained to pronounce the words of consecration with the bishop as carefully as they can, having the express intention of consecra ng the same Host and the same Chalice at the same me with the bishop; and that they need expend no anxiety on the absurdi es the Doctors propose: for they seem adequately to be done away with, if we consider that the bishop to be the chief celebrant, while the priests join in the same consecration as accessories; and that the form they pronounce with the bishop to be morally joined with that which the bishop pronounces: wherefrom it happens that, even if the priests complete the form shortly before or after the bishop, yet it should be considered morally as having been pronounced together with the bishop, and thus cons tutes one and the same consecration. And Innocent III (lib. 4 de Mysteriis Missae, cap. 25) explains the subject thus: When, as sometimes happens, many priests concelebrate with one bishop, if perhaps they do not all pronounce the consecratory words at the same time, the question arises whether he alone confects who pronounces them first. What, then, are the rest to do? Do they repeat the Sacrament? It could happen, therefore, that he does not confect who is the principal celebrant, and he will confect who is a secondary celebrant, and thus the holy intention of the celebrant will be frustrated. Surely, it can probably be said in response that the priests, whether they speak before or afterwards, their intention should be referred to the instance of the pronouncement of the bishop with whom they concelebrate. Vasquez (tom. 3 in 3a par. D. Thom., quaest. 82, art. 2, disput. 219, cap. 4) disputes this ques on admirably; he says: Recently-ordained priests, priests with a bishop in the Greek Church, and a recently-consecrated bishop with the consecra ng bishop, ought to pronounce the words of consecration with an intention sufficient to consecrate; and he adds that every diligence should be taken, lest their pronouncement comes before the bishop chiefly celebra ng: he concludes, at length, if one perhaps does pronounce the final words of the consecration before the bishop, nothing occurs contrary to the due reverence of the Sacrament.