Saturday, January 31, 2009


We all know about concelbration. but I have a question: The reformers at V-II wanted to re-introduce concelbration because it had been an ancient practice of the Roman Rite, but why didn't they do it in the same way that it had actually been done?
The Ordo Romanus says of concelebration:
"On festivals, that is to say on Easter Day, Pentecost, St. Peter's Day, and Christmas Day, the cardinal Presbyters assemble, each one holding a Corporal in his hand, and the Archdeacon comes and offers each one of them three loaves. And when the Pontiff approaches the altar, they surround it on the right and the left, and say the Canon simultaneously with him, holding their loaves in their hands, and not placing them on the Altar, so that the Pontiff's voice may be heard the more strongly, and they simultaneously consecrate the body and blood of the Lord, but the Pontiff alone makes a Cross over the Altar."
From this, we see that:

1) Not all priests were allowed to concelebrate

2) It was only permitted four times a year.

3) They said all of the canon, but silently.

4)They each have their own bread to consecrate, which they hold in their hands.

Once again, the reformers fail at re-introducing something by ignoring, or simply failing to know about documented history.

1 comment:

Miguel José Ernst-Sandoval said...

Very true. As my friend Paul would say, if they were truly serious about wanting to revive Paleo-Christianity they would bring back penance in sackcloth and ashes. But oftentimes the "Paleo-Christian argument" is used to mean "whatever the heck we feel like doing."