|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglo-Catholics and Concelebration
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Here in the US, I've observed modern Anglo-Catholics who do concelebration when there is more than one priest present at the Eucharist, and I've observed traditional Anglo-Catholics of the kind who do a Tridentine or "Sarum" Solemn High Mass with priest, deacon, and subdeacon where there is no concelebration (although I have heard that the RC Tridentine rite does allow for concelebration at ordination Masses). In this latter category, if there is more than one priest present, s/he may act as deacon if there is no permanent deacon present, and otherwise just wears choir vestments and stays put throughout almost all the service, even if s/he is the one preaching. Some of the parishes, at least here in the US, that do not do concelebration are progressive when it comes to the Dead Horse issues of women's ordination and non-celibate LGBT clergy and some use modern language (ie, 1979 BCP Rite II) in at least half of their services.
I'm wondering why, if an Anglo-Catholic parish is progressive-minded and willing to adapt the Tridentine or Sarum Rite to allow for a number of post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, why it would not also be willing to try to invent a "Tridentine" or "Sarum" way of having concelebration at a weekly Sunday Mass. This could consist of priests who have been acting as deacons merely starting to vest as priests and, during the Eucharistic Prayer, make the gestures and read aloud the prayers of a concelebrant or it could mean retaining a permanent deacon (if one is present) in that liturgical role and a liturgical subdeacon who is not an ordained priest or deacon and inviting concelebrants up to the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer. Crowded altars work for concelebrations at free-standing altars, but they may be more difficult for altars against a wall, perhaps limiting the number of concelebrants who join the presiding celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon, to only one or two. Other concelebrants could remain in chairs in the chancel or in the choir but could still take part in the extension of hands for the epiclesis and consecration and speak the words of institution from there.
This might upset some by taking away from the trinitarian symbolism of three ministers at the altar, but it seems even more unusual to incorporate much of the post Vatican-II liturgical reforms into a Tridentine or Sarum rite Solemn High Mass without the pretty significant reform of letting additional priests be priests at Mass and not just sit prettily in choir.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I forgot to add that I have been to Masses where the rector of a parish has let a visiting priest both preach and preside, which means that s/he spent the whole time in choir and only spoke for the announcements, which underlines for me the absurdity of not allowing concelebration.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Concelebration, while it has a history in the Byzantine churches, only came to be popular in the 1950s and 1960s when it was seen as a way of facilitating celebration outside the "private" mass setting which was more frequent in the Pian period. It never really had an Anglican presence. I think that if we are following the Sarum approach, it is best to leave it behind, enjoy the Trinitarian approach of priest/deacon/subdeacon, and let the Anglo-Papalist sacerdotalist types enjoy it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I quite like concelebration with a Westward facing mass. It dilutes clericalism to my mind by not having a single priest.
Provided the priests have some connection with the community.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
the trinitarian symbolism of three ministers at the altar,
Good heavens! I thought I had been around a bit, but really? You cannot be serious?
Personally I find the "in personam christi" language too clerically self-serving to be to my taste, but I can see its rationale: the priest going up to the altar and through his actions the sacrifice of the Son is offered. But trinitarian? Which is the Father? the Son? the Holy Ghost? Who is offering whom to whom?
And what do those who adopt this delightful bit of piety think when they attend a pontifical mass with an AP: suddenly we are all Quadrangulists--sound pretty masonic to me?
Not to mention Sarum celebrations with seven deacons ...
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Doubtless I'll only need to say this, and other Shipmates will leap in and say 'where I go, we do that all the time'.
I've no idea whether concelebration is even permitted in the CofE, but, if it is, in my experience it really isn't normal at all. I can't recall if I've ever seen it done.
The rubrics in Common Worship (pp 158-9) are written on the assumption that there is one President (singular), and only one President. He or she may delegate parts of the service to others, and very frequently does. There are recognised roles that others are often delegated to do. However, other clergy who happen to be present, even if robed, do not normally share presiding. They are present, and they receive.
As a tangent, I share American Piskie's reservations about "in personam christi". It's the bread and the wine that represent Christ at the altar, not the person celebrating.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doubtless I'll only need to say this, and other Shipmates will leap in and say 'where I go, we do that all the time'.
I've no idea whether concelebration is even permitted in the CofE, but, if it is, in my experience it really isn't normal at all. I can't recall if I've ever seen it done.
The rubrics in Common Worship (pp 158-9) are written on the assumption that there is one President (singular), and only one President. He or she may delegate parts of the service to others, and very frequently does. There are recognised roles that others are often delegated to do. However, other clergy who happen to be present, even if robed, do not normally share presiding. They are present, and they receive.
As a tangent, I share American Piskie's reservations about "in personam christi". It's the bread and the wine that represent Christ at the altar, not the person celebrating.
Concelebration is very common in certain parts of the CofE. In modern Catholic places (both FiF and pro-women's ordination) it is very common. Walsingham does it, as does the St Albans pilgrimage. It's done in many parishes as well -- Holy Trinity, Eltham, is one that comes to mind, but there are many others.
Stonespring rightly points out that there are two patterns of Anglo-Catholicism -- the "Sarum" pre-conciliar style with three sacred ministers and the modern, post-conciliar style with concelebrants.
The former is (much) more common in the CofE, but the latter does very much exist, though it is indeed not envisaged by Common Worship (along with many other beautiful and holy things).
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We used occasionally to have a 'concelebrated' Mass, on High Days and Holy Days, but no longer. If, say, the Bishop is celebrant at our Patronal Festival or whatever, we muster a Deacon and Sub-Deacon. AFAIK, it's not illegal in the C of E, but it is now, I would think, uncommon. For a start, there's the general shortage of clergy anyway!
IMHO, and leaving aside the RCC's own valid (to them)reasons for it, it always looks untidy to me, with several different voices (perhaps not very clear voices) spoiling the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer, and a crowd of priests behind the altar looking as though they're trying to make the 'magic bits' more magic. FWWIW.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've never seen the point of it. Rather than 'dilute' clericalism it has always seemed to me to exaggerate it, by contrasting a gang of robed clergy with the plebs in the pews. But nor am I keen on the trad High Mass either. The deacon has a real function, but the 'subdeacon' (an order that hasn't existed in the C of E for centuries nor in the RCC, apart from the EF, for at least 50 years) is just there for decoration. Traditionally he (it would be he, then) read the Epistle, but most churches these days would have lay people doing that.
Whether the C of E encourages concelebration is a good question, but I don't think the practice is actually forbidden. The late Michael Perham (in New Handbook of Pastoral Liturgy) assumes it will happen in certain contexts.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
contrasting a gang of robed clergy with the plebs in the pews.
Maybe, but no more than a bunch of clergy "robed and in the sanctuary" doing nothing but being decorative.
Mind you, my theology is that the baptized are the priestly people and the priest is their representative before God. Having a committee of representatives emphasizes the corporate nature of priesthood.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The rubrics in Common Worship (pp 158-9) are written on the assumption that there is one President (singular), and only one President. He or she may delegate parts of the service to others, and very frequently does. There are recognised roles that others are often delegated to do. However, other clergy who happen to be present, even if robed, do not normally share presiding. They are present, and they receive.
I don't think that in circles where it us done anyone thinks that the con-celebrants co-preside; in Roman jargon the Principal Con-celebrant presides, prays the collect, probably preaches the homily, does the offertory, recites almost all the eucharistic prayer, genuflects (alone) after the consecration, gives the blessing.
But the other con-celebrants celebrate this mass. Or at least that's the theory, as I understand it.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is concelebration driven by the idea that every priest should celebrate Mass every day? So concelebration is a way that they can all fulfil that discipline at once.
I believe the idea that every priest should celebrate daily is also one of the main drivers for insisting on clerical celibacy. I assume no shipmate needs to have it explained what the connection is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In early days Mass was celebrated principally by the bishop,aided by his presbyters.As parishes developed and the bishop could not be everywhere at once,the presbyters would celebrate on their own - in the name of the bishop.
As far as I know this is the pattern in the Presbyterian churches where the minister will celebrate the Lord's Supper with his presbyters (elders) who will help to distribute Communion.
Latterly in the western church concelebration only occurred at the ordination of presbyters,when the newly ordained priests would concelebrate with the bishop.
Since Vatican2 it has been good on occasions to see the bishop concelebrate the eucharist with his presbyters.It helps to express the unity of the local church around the chief pastor.
On other occasions it is deemed better to have one celebration of the eucharist with a principal celebrant and othere who will play a part in the celebration,either in the readings or by praying part of the Eucharistic prayer.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I've only experienced concelebration in Aff Cath churches, had no idea it was seen as an Anglo-Papalist thing. When I've experienced it, it was just used for joint services for a small group of churches. I don't think there was any symbolism intended beyond a sense of unity amongst said churches.
Edited to add that these were Common Worship masses celebrated facing West.
[ 27. February 2017, 18:21: Message edited by: Pomona ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I don't know of the use of these terms in Anglicanism, let alone their differences in the US Episcopal Church vs the C of E, but in the RCC since Vatican II it has been common to say that all the faithful at the Eucharist are celebrants, but that the laity celebrate as laity and priests celebrate as priests. It is therefore irregular for any priest present at a Eucharist to not vest in at least an alb and stole and, regardless of their location in the sanctuary or congregation (because if there is no room in the sanctuary or choir for additional priests when many priests are present priests may indeed be in alb and stole in the nave), to extend their hands at the words of institution (and I think the epiclesis) and say the words of institution aloud. There is only one presider at any Eucharist, regardless of how many priests concelebrate. This is RC terminology however, and Anglican usage and theology may be different. The RCC often phrased things quite differently before Vatican II, and I wonder whether those otherwise progressive Anglo-Catholic parishes that do not do concelebration share a more pre-Vatican II view of things, have some different Anglican theology that shuns concelebration, or just are set in their ways regarding the vestments and choreography in their customary.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I've seen concelebration at a Christmas midnight mass, by an A-C (well, now liberal catholic but at that time he was in or hadn't long left SSC) vicar and the neighbouring URC minister. Very impressive it was too.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cenobite
Shipmate
# 14853
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
IMHO, and leaving aside the RCC's own valid (to them)reasons for it, it always looks untidy to me, with several different voices (perhaps not very clear voices) spoiling the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer, and a crowd of priests behind the altar looking as though they're trying to make the 'magic bits' more magic. FWWIW.
IJ
We have an annual parish pilgrimage to Walsingham. There are a number of reasons why I don't concelebrate, the above being one of them. There's also something really important for me about physically touching the consecrated elements, especially at the breaking of the bread. It feels like something would be missing if I were saying the prayer, but 'at a distance' as it were.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Whether the C of E encourages concelebration is a good question, but I don't think the practice is actually forbidden. The late Michael Perham (in New Handbook of Pastoral Liturgy) assumes it will happen in certain contexts.
IJ
+Michael is, tragically, terminally ill, but unless I've missed something, I think he's still with us, if not expected to be for much longer ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Cenobite: means "Common Life"; cenobites lived in community, serving one another and the rest of humanity.
Posts: 109 | From: On a journey of discovery. | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm sorry to consign Bishop Michael to an even more premature grave. God bless the time he has left, and give him rest eternal when the time comes.
I must have read some tributes as if they were obituaries.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
After my priesting I concelebrated every Sunday of my curacy not so many years ago, and Michael Perham was our diocesan. I never quite got my head around it, to be honest and was pleased to stop. In that parish I think that it was one of a few hangovers from the introduction of women priests. It was 'sold' as a symbol of collegiality among the clergy, but in fact allowed someone who objected to female priests to be assured that a man had also celebrated.
When (because I was not getting my head around it) we asked the congregation what they thought of concelebration, they were utterly unfussed either way. "It's nice to see you all" was the strongest sentiment anyone expressed. We were very rarely fewer than 4 priests and at one Easter Vigil service we were, I
think, 12 (including +Michael.)
I always worried a bit that our co-ordinated arm raising looked a little Nurembergesque.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I always worried a bit that our co-ordinated arm raising looked a little Nurembergesque.
As I'm thinking back to the gestures I've seen in modern western concelebrations, I don't recall any that could be perceived in this way. The only two gestures I can think of that involve the extension of the arms are at the epiklesis and the dominical words, neither of which resembles a Nazi salute in any way, according to memory.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
Here's a picture of a concelebration at our neighborhood parish. I'm not a fan of concelebration and don't really get any sort of message one way or another from seeing the wall-o'-priests. Doesn't bother me enough to complain, but doesn't inspire me either. Hope it does more for others, and I suspect it does.
Part of me thinks I might prefer the older practice of every priest celebrating a Mass daily, whether a public one or a low Mass at a side altar in early morning. But that's old-fashioned me, I guess. What was the old saying about a Mass concelebrated by three priests leaving Heaven two Masses short? Or something.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
We were very rarely fewer than 4 priests and at one Easter Vigil service we were, I
think, 12 (including +Michael.)
I think if a parish has quite a few priests on staff it would be better to try to increase the number of Sunday services (or have the priests alternate doing some kind of outreach in the broader community on Sundays) rather than have them all concelebrate at the same Eucharist every Sunday. My OP was about those parishes that do not do concelebration at all, such as one I know of where the rector and other priests present will not even concelebrate with the diocesan bishop when he visits. That strikes me as odd, but I was catechized with post-Vatican II liturgy and the thinking behind it, so I am obviously biased. Oddly enough, I like a lot about the Tridentine rubrics, just not their almost complete disuse of concelebration.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm sorry to consign Bishop Michael to an even more premature grave. God bless the time he has left, and give him rest eternal when the time comes.
I must have read some tributes as if they were obituaries.
Amen
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have only seen 1 Anglican concelebration here, when a rector was taking the funeral for his father. 2 other priests were in the sanctuary and concelebrated in what I took as a show of great love and support.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
Concelebration is rare in this corner of TEC. My immediate priest colleague and I alternate taking the principal service, with the other, if present, taking on the deacon role while vested in alb and stole worn priest-wise. We do so to affirm we are equals in authority in the parish, sharing the title of Rector. But there is no concelebration. (Deacons few and far between around here, so none are snubbed.)
When our bishop visits a parish he usually asks the incumbent to stand with him at the altar and concelebrate which provides a pleasing affirmation of their shared priesthood. The bishop always brings a deacon with him, borrowed from another parish if there is none in the parish.
Recently at diocesan convention the bishop invited all women priests and deacons to stand with him during the Eucharistic Prayer as a sign of celebration for the 40th anniversary of the authorized ordination of women. Many of them served as additional ministers of communion. It was an affirmation of their ministry, but there was no concelebration.
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
Recently at diocesan convention the bishop invited all women priests and deacons to stand with him during the Eucharistic Prayer as a sign of celebration for the 40th anniversary of the authorized ordination of women. Many of them served as additional ministers of communion. It was an affirmation of their ministry, but there was no concelebration.
I like that. Roll on the day - probably not this century, perhaps as early as next - when Sydney will formally recognise women as priests instead of the present backdoor method.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
Concelebration was regular practice in the 1990s at Chichester Cathedral for the main 11am Eucharist until (as I recall) Dean Frayling arrived in c2001.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
Concelebration is rare in this corner of TEC. My immediate priest colleague and I alternate taking the principal service, with the other, if present, taking on the deacon role while vested in alb and stole worn priest-wise. We do so to affirm we are equals in authority in the parish, sharing the title of Rector. But there is no concelebration. (Deacons few and far between around here, so none are snubbed.)
When our bishop visits a parish he usually asks the incumbent to stand with him at the altar and concelebrate which provides a pleasing affirmation of their shared priesthood. The bishop always brings a deacon with him, borrowed from another parish if there is none in the parish.
Recently at diocesan convention the bishop invited all women priests and deacons to stand with him during the Eucharistic Prayer as a sign of celebration for the 40th anniversary of the authorized ordination of women. Many of them served as additional ministers of communion. It was an affirmation of their ministry, but there was no concelebration.
All this makes me wonder what exactly it is that makes concelebration concelebration. Is it saying the words of institution aloud (even if very softly)? Is it extending the hand or hands at the consecration and epiclesis? Do you need to have one or both for it to be a "real" concelebration? Because if a priest is in alb and stole and standing around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer you are getting pretty close to concelebration - or are you? I am confused. Could anyone offer some clarity?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
To clarify: when our bishop visits he has the incumbent pray portions of the Eucharistic Prayer, and share in the epiclesis which I would say makes it concelebration. When at convention the many women stood about him, there was no sharing out of the Eucharistic Prayer. I would call that just liturgical milling about but not concelebration.
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
A concelebrant:
- vests as a priest (preferably in chasuble)
- enters the church with the priests in the entry procession
- may read the Gospel in the absence of a deacon
- if possible, joins the priest at the altar at the offertory
- joins in the words and manual actions of the Eucharistic prayer
- communicates him/herself at the altar
I'm not sure there is a particular part that makes a concelebrant a concelebrant. The most important aspect from a Catholic point of view, of course, is the sharing in the priestly offering of the sacrifice of the mass.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
JeffTL
Apprentice
# 16722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Here's a picture of a concelebration at our neighborhood parish. I'm not a fan of concelebration and don't really get any sort of message one way or another from seeing the wall-o'-priests. Doesn't bother me enough to complain, but doesn't inspire me either. Hope it does more for others, and I suspect it does.
Part of me thinks I might prefer the older practice of every priest celebrating a Mass daily, whether a public one or a low Mass at a side altar in early morning. But that's old-fashioned me, I guess. What was the old saying about a Mass concelebrated by three priests leaving Heaven two Masses short? Or something.
Of course, that's a congregation that is blessed with numerous nonstipendiary clergy - retirees, tentmakers, between calls, institutional chaplains, etc who help out on Sundays. Concelebration there, for those not local, is typically reserved to major feast days to afford all the priests the opportunity to celebrate on that day. Otherwise there are typically several of the non-celebrating clergy sitting in choir, who assist with the distribution of communion. In the usual absence of a deacon, one of them will proclaim the Gospel and give the dismissal.
Seeing all the priests up there on the concelebration Sundays does add a bit of solemnity to the occasion. There have been as many as twelve celebrants at once, which does start seeming a little crowded.
Posts: 49 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
A concelebrant:
- vests as a priest (preferably in chasuble)
- enters the church with the priests in the entry procession
- may read the Gospel in the absence of a deacon
- if possible, joins the priest at the altar at the offertory
- joins in the words and manual actions of the Eucharistic prayer
- communicates him/herself at the altar
It is this last part of (Roman Catholic) concelebration that I often do not see happen at all but the most Anglo-Catholic (modern Anglo-Catholic, that is, because they are the ones that would do concelebration) of Anglican parishes. There does seem to be a difference in theology regarding the Eucharist and/or Holy Orders that makes many Anglicans, even many that consider themselves Anglo-Catholic more comfortable with having priests be communicated by other priests even when they are concelebrating. I personally believe that any priest in good standing present in a congregation should concelebrate, even if they are not able to stand at the altar, and come forward to communicate him/herself rather than be communicated by the presiding celebrant.
Of course, there are quite a few Anglican (even Anglo-Catholic, although more liberal ones) priests who prefer to be communicated by a layperson after everyone else has communicated (rather than communicating themselves before communicating anyone else, as is the RC rule). They argue that doing so means that they are ministering to everyone else before themselves, but as you mentioned this might reflect key difference that those particular priests presumably have between their theology regarding the priest's role in the Eucharistic sacrifice and the RC theology.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
A concelebrant:
- vests as a priest (preferably in chasuble)
- enters the church with the priests in the entry procession
- may read the Gospel in the absence of a deacon
- if possible, joins the priest at the altar at the offertory
- joins in the words and manual actions of the Eucharistic prayer
- communicates him/herself at the altar
I'm not sure there is a particular part that makes a concelebrant a concelebrant. The most important aspect from a Catholic point of view, of course, is the sharing in the priestly offering of the sacrifice of the mass.
I could be completely wrong in this, but it would be my understanding that only the penultimate one of those is "concelebrating". The others are all 'assisting' in some way.
That last one, though, sounds a bit peculiar, and messy. It would be difficult for it not to look like a cafeteria.
Mind, it's quite a widespread practice these days in the CofE - I'm sure there will be shipmates who will find an excuse to disapprove - if the celebrant is not administering alone, for him/her to communicate the cupbearers and then particularly if they are fellow clergy, in each case, the one who receives last then communicates the celebrant.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Other that at ordinations, I'm not a fan of concelebrating clergy, donning chasubles. I think that concelebration also must include a degree of respect for the presiding celebrant as the leader of the worship, which includes, that he or she pronounces the eucharistic prayer alone and he or she alone vests in the full eucharistic garment.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Other that at ordinations, I'm not a fan of concelebrating clergy, donning chasubles. I think that concelebration also must include a degree of respect for the presiding celebrant as the leader of the worship, which includes, that he or she pronounces the eucharistic prayer alone and he or she alone vests in the full eucharistic garment.
Advocates of concelebration, whenever more than one priest is present in the congregation, would argue that not doing those aspects of it you dislike would not be giving enough respect to all ordained priests' role as leaders of Eucharistic worship (and, if one is Anglo-Catholic enough, of their role in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice that is different than the laity's role in offering said sacrifice).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[qb] A concelebrant:
- vests as a priest (preferably in chasuble)
- enters the church with the priests in the entry procession
- may read the Gospel in the absence of a deacon
- if possible, joins the priest at the altar at the offertory
- joins in the words and manual actions of the Eucharistic prayer
- communicates him/herself at the altar
I'm not sure there is a particular part that makes a concelebrant a concelebrant. The most important aspect from a Catholic point of view, of course, is the sharing in the priestly offering of the sacrifice of the mass.
I could be completely wrong in this, but it would be my understanding that only the penultimate one of those is "concelebrating". The others are all 'assisting' in some way.
I mean to say that they are the roles/tasks/positions assigned to concelebrants in the GIRM. The Catholic missal and instruction both assume that there is more to concelebration than standing at the altar and saying the magic words, just as is true with a priest celebrating alone.
quote:
That last one, though, sounds a bit peculiar, and messy. It would be difficult for it not to look like a cafeteria.
It can be done messily, of course, but it can also be done neatly, efficiently and reverently. (The trick is one chalice for concelebrants and one or more others for the congregation, though this is not without its problems in terms of symbolism.)
quote:
Mind, it's quite a widespread practice these days in the CofE - I'm sure there will be shipmates who will find an excuse to disapprove - if the celebrant is not administering alone, for him/her to communicate the cupbearers and then particularly if they are fellow clergy, in each case, the one who receives last then communicates the celebrant.
It winds me up to an inordinate degree. (Don't worry, I recognise the absurdity of being wound up by it.)
To me it's a kind of Uriah Heep model of priesthood -- "look at me, how 'umble I am" -- rather than participating in the act of worship according to their role. You wouldn't have expected Margot Fonteyn to perform Swan Lake from the back of the stage in order to give extra prominence to one of the corps. They both played the part assigned to them.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
A concelebrant:
- ....
- communicates him/herself at the altar
It is this last part of (Roman Catholic) concelebration that I often do not see happen at all but the most Anglo-Catholic (modern Anglo-Catholic, that is, because they are the ones that would do concelebration) of Anglican parishes.
At the few concelebrations I have taken part in (Anglican), the presiding priest breaks the host into enough pieces for all concelebrants, and then passes the paten around; all take a piece but hold it in their hands until the president gives the signal and all consume together. The chalice(s) is/are either passed from hand to hand or placed on the altar (one at each end perhaps) and the concelebrants approach and partake in turn.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
