Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)
Commentary on ST III,82,3
I. In the second article of the eighty-second ques on, regarding the plurality of simultaneous concelebrants, Durandus (in 4, dist. XIII) stands in strong opposition to this plurality and to the reasons and authorities in support of it. For he reckons that the practice is perilous, and more to be abolished than to be retained. – He confutes the argument produced by the Author in the article, taken from Innocent III, regarding the Apostles dining together with Christ: because, although they dined together, yet they did not concelebrate. – He confutes the application of all the words to a single instant: because it is scarcely, if ever, possible that they pronounce them all at the same time. – Nor in such wise does he admit a special providence of the Holy Ghost, one which is enjoyed by particular churches, but not all.
II. Wherefore, there being two extreme opinions of this plurality; the one belonging to Innocent, which the Author follows; the other belonging to Durandus, which is totally contrary: - and the way of Innocent is chiefly supported by the usage of most churches, and especially the Roman church. The way of Durandus, however, seems to be supported by reason. Indeed, in all truthfulness, the argument of the disciples dining with Christ is rather an adaptation than an argument: for they did not consecrate. And similarly, that the words of consecration, said before or a2er the instant they are completed by the bishop, should be referred to that same instant, is said spontaneously: for it must be recalled that, when discussion was had of several ministers bap zing one person, each speaking and washing, the conclusion was that, if they do not all bap ze simultaneously, the first alone baptizes; and this likewise ought to be said if it is judged according to right reason: - a middle way could be defended, by saying it is according to ecclesiastical decree or custom that the new priests concelebrate and speak the words of consecration at the same me as the bishop; but that misuse has caused it to be that one u5ers the words of consecration before, and another later. This is proven from the Roman Pontifical, where it is said: The bishop must take heed that he speak the canon carefully and loudly; and it is added that the words of consecration must be spoken at the same moment they are said by the bishop.
III. But this way seems less than true. This is because, although this decree is found in the Roman Pontifical from the time of Innocent VIII, yet it was not be found in the Pontificals of ancient times.
It is also because the Author in the article, taking from Innocent III, is expressly concerned with preserving words not u5ered at the same me, whilst he says that consecration over the same ma5er mustnotbe repeatedonaccountoftheintentionofallthecelebrantstowardsthesameinstant:where, if were not supposed that one u5ered the words of consecration earlier and another later, his entire effort and his recourse to an intention for the same instant would be in vain. For, concerning words that are pronounced at the same time, there is no question of repetition.
And know that, because all concelebrants refer their intention to the instant when the bishop consecrates, it remains true that there is not formally a repetition of the consecration over the same ma5er, because the words are not spoken from the intention that the consecration be repeated: but it does not exclude it being materially a repetition of the consecration, because the outward consecrative pronouncement is superadded by those speaking later, if, as they suppose, they do concelebrate.
IV. Wherefore, it seems to me that, if I am permitted to say, another path should be taken, distinguishing between what is in fact and what is possible: and saying that, as a ma5er of possibility, several priests can thus consecrate the same host, just as several can simultaneously bap ze one person; while also saying that, in fact, the new priests do not consecrate, but say the words of consecration with the rest of the canon merely out of custom. Thus, so that the bishop alone both speaks and consecrates: whereas the others merely speak, and do not consecrate.
I am moved to this conclusion because, according to this way, there is no need of a miracle; nothing so exceedingly difficult or as it were impossible is attributed to the usage of the Church; everything found there is easy, without any superfluity whatsoever.
I am also moved thereto because the Church adores neither the host nor the chalice until the consecration is done by the bishop. The opposite of which would have to be done were one of the ordained priests to come before the bishop.
Nor are the words of the ancient Roman Pontificals to be held in low esteem, which say of newly-ordained priests:Theyshouldsayeverythinginthemissal,justasiftheywerecelebrating.Foritis insinuated hereby that they themselves do not celebrate, and through this, that they do not concelebrate with the bishop but merely say the entire canon. For this reason that aforementioned decree in the new Pontificals seems to have been added, by the common opinion of those following the exposition of Innocent III, who has interpreted that pronouncement of the canon which has customarily been done by newly-ordained priests to be a concelebra on. For it is over this presupposition that the doctors have spoken, whether defending it or rejecting it.
V. From all this, choosing the safer part, two things are to be observed in practice. The first concerns the external pronouncement: that each ordained priest must preserve the rite of his church by saying the en re canon.
The second concerns the intention: that he must not have determinately the intention of consecrating; and, likewise, that he should have the requisite intention, that is, he should propose to himself: I intend to speak with the intention wherewith I ought to speak. For thus all the newly-ordained follow the safest path, and they leave to the bishop alone the determinate intention to consecrate: and no ques on remains as to any difficulties, while, there being doubtul acts, the safer part has been chosen.
These being kept, both opinions are satisfied: namely, of those maintaining that the ordained concelebrate; and of those maintaining that the ordained do not celebrate, but merely speak.
VI. And this indeed is true of the ordained priests. Concerning the consecration of a bishop, however, it is without a doubt another ques on, since the ancient Roman Pontifical expressly has that the consecrated bishop must concelebrate with the celebra ng and consecra ng bishop, and it is added that he must read and do all that is within the canon of the mass. Concerning this, it needs be said that, in fact, both do consecrate the same ma5er at the same me: since they both concelebrate on the same altar, mutually awai ng one another [sic]; and that it does not contain any difficulty or quasi-impossibility, as occurs in a multitude of priests who are ordained together.