How Does Concelebration Actually Work?
A Scholastic Treatment
SOURCES: Pope Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, c. 25; St. Thomas, ST.III.Q82.A2, Sent.IV.D13.Q1.A2.qa2; Suarez, Disp. 61, Sect. 41; Salmanticenses, Disp. 12, dub. 2; Doronzo, De Eucharistia, t. 1, art. 41
Definition: Concelebration concerns the consecration of the eucharist by multiple priests. This topic was traditionally treated in commentaries on the thirteenth distinction of the Fourth Book of Sentences by the Medievals, and by later scholastics in their commentaries on Tertia Pars, q. 82, a. 2 and in other works such as moral theology manuals and works on sacramentology by the later scholastics.
A similar question concerns the simultaneous application of baptism (cf., ST.III.Q67.A6). As for the other sacraments, the question is more obscure (except, of course, on the sacrament of matrimony). Confirmation, Penance, Ordination (NOTE: Consecration is done in solidum), Extreme Unction, and the Eucharist seem to follow the same line of reasoning as each are sacerdotal sacraments (although, obviously, the question of its fittingness would be distinct).
Division: This topic can be treated as to its possibility/validity, existence, fittingness, and nature of concelebration. Further, there can also be questions concerning its liceity, yet such is a question of canon law rather than a strictly theological question.
The fourth question poses particular difficulties, as can be seen from the quite lengthy treatments of the topic by the scholastics: “How thorny (or, as Francisco Suárez says, slippery) this very question is, you will discover if you compare the rather lengthy disputation of Suárez with the other, far more lengthy, of Gabriel Vásquez, which overturns the former.” (Maurice de la Taille)
Generally, theologians commonly answer that the practice of concelebration is possible/valid, truly exists, and is fitting (although certain individuals dissent partially with respect to the second and third as to the mass of the ordination of priests). As to the fourth, there are three positions on the matter, which will be treated in their own place.
Practice: Concelebration has always been practiced in both the east and the west, although in different ways depending on time and place. In the east, the custom is more frequent. This has never been rejected by Rome (cf., Benedict XIV, Demandatam, n. 9, and Allatae, n. 38).
In the west, the practice was previously more common in the ancient Church. Later, it was reserved for the Mass of the Ordination of priests and Consecration of a bishop, as reflected in the 1917 Code and the Pontificale Romanum. Today, the practice of Concelebration is not as strictly limited.
The practice is mentioned by Pope Innocent III: “At times many priests concelebrate...Moreover, the cardinal presbyters are accustomed to stand around the Roman Pontiff and to celebrate together with him…in that [the Apostles] concelebrated, they show that they then learned from the Lord the rite of this sacrifice” (M.L. 217, 874).
This same practice as to the rite of newly ordained priests is mentioned by St. Thomas with the same connection made to the concelebration of Our Lord and the Apostles (ST.III.Q82.A2, Sent.IV.D13.Q1.A2.qa2).
Difficulties: The disagreement concerns how the danger of a) repeating the words of consecration over previously consecrated matter, b) offering no sacrifice, and c) not completing the sacrifice through communion under both species is not avoided.
Since it is morally impossible that all pronounce the words at the same instant, it follows that, a) the later priests repeat the words over previously consecrated matter, b) the same priest may not consecrate both species and complete the sacrifice, and b) that no one, consecrating both species, receives Communion under both, in the case where the bishop is preceded by some newly ordained priest in one or the other consecration.
Hence, some (Richard of Middleton, Cajetan) remove these difficulties by denying that the newly ordained actually concelebrate, but only materially pronounce the words of consecration. Others (Durandus, Biel) say that they truly concelebrate, but that this custom is dangerous and should be abolished.
Possibility/Validity: The first conclusion is that concelebration is both possible and valid. This is proven from the fact that it is the custom of the Church, which cannot permit error in such a matter. Further, in concelebration, nothing essential is lacking in the matter, form, minister, or intention of the sacrament.
As to the objection that such is not possible due to the multiplication of ministers, it is not repugnant that multiple instrumental causes concur with the principal cause for a single effect. Now, the priests consecrating the eucharist are an instrumental cause of the priesthood of Christ acting in persona Christi. Therefore, etc. (cf., ST.III.Q82.A2.Rep2)
For validity, a few points must be recalled. First, as to the matter, there must be determinate rather than indeterminate matter (e.g., it would be invalid for two priests to attempt to consecrate “a part of the host,” but valid for two priests to consecrate each side of a host). Second, as to the form, the entire form must be pronounced by the priests, not one part for each.
Existence: The second conclusion is that concelebration actually exists in the Church, particularly in the mass for the ordination of Priests. There is no controversy surrounding the mass for the consecration of Bishops.
The previous controversy was based on various ambiguities in the ancient liturgical texts. There is no ambiguity in the current texts.
Fittingness: The third conclusion is that concelebration is licit and fitting. It is licit in virtue of the law of the Church, which regulates what is lawful as to the celebration of the sacraments. It is fitting insofar as it is a longstanding custom of the Church, which cannot fail habitually in prudence.
St. Thomas demonstrates the fittingness on two grounds, a) it is an imitation of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and b) it follows from the nature of the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity.
Nature: On the nature of concelebration, there are multiple opinions, which follow from the difficulties listed above of the moral impossibility of stating the form at the same moment. There is no difficulty with explaining how multiple instruments concur to a single effect, but there is a difficulty insofar as the consecration is effected as soon as the final word is spoken.
Pope Innocent III and St. Thomas respond to this objection in the same way, i.e., insofar as the concelebrants all refer their intention to the same instant, even while they may differ in the time in which they speak the words.
Pope Innocent III: “But when at times many priests concelebrate, if perchance not all pronounce the words of consecration at the same time, it is asked whether only he effects [the sacrament] who first pronounces? What then do the others do, do they repeat the sacrament? Could it therefore happen that he who celebrates principally does not effect it, while he who celebrates secondarily does effect it, and thus the pious intention of the celebrant is frustrated? It can indeed be said, and probably answered, that whether the priests pronounce earlier or later, their intention ought to be referred to the instant of the bishop’s utterance, with whom they concelebrate as the principal celebrant, and then all consecrate and effect [the sacrament] together. Although some agree that he who pronounces first consecrates; nor is the intention of the others frustrated, because that is accomplished which is intended.” (De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, 25)
St. Thomas: “As Innocent says, all those celebrating should direct their intention to that instant when the bishop utters the words; and in this way the bishop’s intention is not spoiled, nor does anyone do something that is already done.” (Sent.IV.D13.Q1.A2.qa2.Rep2, cf. ST.III.Q82.A2)
All theologians admit that the priests have the intention to consecrate at the same instant, yet there is disagreement on how this instant is actually determined.
