The archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica has made concessions to widen opportunities for priests to celebrate individual daily morning Masses in the basilica, but has stressed that concelebrated Masses must nevertheless remain the norm there.
In a three-page note issued on Tuesday, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti acknowledged that exceptions need to be made for a priest to celebrate individual Masses “in which the benefit to the faithful does not require, or advise, otherwise.”
He wrote that groups with “special and legitimate needs will be granted as far as possible” and that “requests for individual celebrations can also be discerned on a case-by-case basis, without prejudice to the principle that everything should take place in an atmosphere of recollection and decorum.”
But he stressed it was important to ensure that “what is exceptional does not become ordinary, distorting the intentions and meaning of the Magisterium.”
The statement marks a significant softening of a five-point directive from the Secretariat of State that caused a public outcry in March after it called for the suppression of Masses celebrated individually in the main body of the basilica.
That directive, circulated internally and initialed by the deputy secretary of state, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, was a break with the usual custom of allowing individual priests to freely celebrate their daily Mass at the basilica’s many side altars.
Since those rules came into force on March 22, the number of Masses celebrated each morning, often by priests who work as officials in the Vatican, plummeted from as many as 75 to less than 10, and few of the priest officials have switched to taking part in the concelebrated morning Masses.
At that time, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called the directive a “merciless, authoritarian document, imposed without consultation or synodality,” which disregarded “the Catholic spiritual tradition of the priesthood to celebrate the Mass every day,” while Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, said it was in “direct violation of universal Church law” and called for it to be rescinded….
The above comes from a June 22 story in the National Catholic Register.
The fullness of the priestly order and the unity of the whole church is best expressed when masses are concelebrated. When priests all go their separate ways to celebrate mass, when opportunities for concelebration are abundant, it is a symbol of division. The ecclesiology behind having 75 individual masses in what is supposed to be the most important physical symbol of Church unity doesn’t comport with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Anything that a liberal does not agree with is a “symbol of division” yet the wholesale auto destruction of Catholic identity and patrimony via changes in the liturgy, the calendar, and church structures both interior and exterior and host of other things is considered perfectly OK. It never once does it enter into their minds that perhaps that they are original dividers
Exactly right. Yo, Vatican II!
What the pope and Vatican really want, is uniformity to whatever are their current beliefs. No, concelebration of the Mass is not the norm, for a priest. Concelebration is unusual, and is usually reserved for special Masses, and the priests say it together, in their country’s vernacular language. The norm is for an individual priest to daily say his own Mass, in his own language (if it is a Novus Ordo Mass).
Anonymous,
The Mass is not a symbol of division but of unity in the Mystical Body of Christ. At best, you can say that multiple Masses in a single location is irregular. Division???
In regard to the Second Vatican Council, could you please site where the documents require this change?
Steve Seitz, I was told that concelebration of the Mass was sometimes practiced in the early Church, but dropped out of practice after awhile. However, concelebration was done in the Eastern Rite churches. At Vatican II, the prelates tried to restore this practice, after many centuries of disuse. It was thought that bringing back the tradition of concelebrations might be a sign of unity. There are no concelebrations in the Latin Tridentine Mass, except for priestly and episcopal Ordinations. At Ordination Masses, the Ordinandi concelebrate with the ordaining Bishop– but that’s all, no other priests in attendance concelebrate. The concelebration of the Latin Tridentine Mass for Ordinations is very different from what is done at concelebrations of Novus Ordo Masses.
Steve Seitz, I agree with you, there is no such thing as “unity” in the concelebration of the Mass, nor “divisiveness,” in the ancient, long-established, centuries-old sacred practice of the priest saying his own daily Mass.
“Unity” could also be applied as in the case of all priests being required by the pope, to say the old Latin Tridentine Mass only, worldwide. No vernacular languages, all Masses the same, worldwide. The concept of “Unity” can be applied in many different ways. Actually, Vatican II called for local cultures to contribute to their local Masses, in their own vernacular languages, in their own ways, with the Novus Ordo Mass.
Concelebration (other than at priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations) was done at the Tridentine Mass (in Latin or the vernacular to the extent as permitted at the particular time) in the period after Vatican II and before the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass to show that it could be done within the context of that liturgy – as was done with other aspects of “streamlining” the Tridentine Mass such as the elimination of the recitation of Psalm 42 at the beginning of Mass and of the Last Gospel at the end as well as the rearrangement of the final blessing and a few other items as well as the recitation of more parts of the Mass aloud.
This idea regarding concelebration has no foundation in theology. A priest may say a private Mass daily. Concelebration in the Mass of Paul VI is common at the yearly Chrism Mass, but neither the Mass nor the priesthood finds its fullness in concelebration. This novelty began only 50 years ago.
Regardless of what the Vatican says or believes “according to Vatican II” — the Catholic Church has been disintegrating since the Second Vatican Council. Every priest also needs to have the right to say his own Mass. And many priests from around the world, also speak their own languages– and the New Mass is mainly said in vernacular languages, seldom in Latin.
Concelebration should be safe, legal and rare.
Some theological experts of the Church have complained that the ancient customs of the Eastern Rite churches– such as concelebrations– should not have been brought back in the Latin Rite Church, after being dropped many centuries ago. Let the Eastern Rite churches have their own traditions, and don’t try to “copy” them, and “Byzantine-ize” the Latin Rite Church. We should be proud of our own Latin Rite identity and traditions, many of which were sadly demeaned, degraded, and discarded, at Vatican II.
With good reason
Look… this is just about people wanting their own private Masses instead of joining a Mass with another group. That’s an anti-Catholic attitude, and pope Francis is clearly wanting to stamp out that using Mass as a private ceremony. It’s the public worship of the church. Have a large, mixed Mass, not a private Mass when you’re in a place where there are so many other Catholics coming to the basilica for Mass.
Anonymous,
Any priest wishing to say a “private” Mass does not automatically have an anti-Catholic attitude. Such thinking is excessively strident. Also, please note that if a priest is saying Mass in a side chapel at Saint Peter’s, it’s not a private Mass. Anyone can join at any time.
Anonymous,
I wish to add that the Liturgy of the Hours is also a public prayer of the Church just like the Mass. Is the Pope going to clamp down on this as well?
I’m now going to do something which I ordinarily don’t do. I’m getting the sense that you’re anti-Trid and against the pre-Vatican II Church. From this, I also think you have an old emotional issue with priests saying Mass by themselves at side-altars, and you wish to justify your emotions with weak ecclesiastical jargon.
I think you need to recognize your emotions for what they are and just let people be. This is much better than trying to control everyone.
Look how the seats are arranged in that photo: just like an audience in a theater watching a show with the altar and priest facing his back to the audience. Because that’s all the TLM is. Thank God the Holy SPirit brought the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.
Anonymous, the Mass is very holy, it is of God– it is not like a silly, secular “theater,” with “performers and audience!” That’s riduculous! The priest’s role is to go before God, for us– as our “alter Christus” (as “another Christ”). The priest leads us at holy Mass, instructs us in the Word of God, and consecrates the Holy Eucharist. The priest– as well as the faithful– are both really supposed to prayerfully face God– that is the most ancient tradition. And also, for priest and worshippers to face East, when we pray. Catholic churches used to be built to face East. Due to difficult terrain, St. Peter’s faces West– so, the Pope has always faced East, at the altar there, with the Pope facing the people. In churches similar to ours, there is the same tradition– the priest or minister and people, all face God, and face East. There is an ancient teaching, from the Bible, that Mass is to be offered “until Christ comes again”– and His Second Coming is supposed to be from the East! There are no pews or benches in St. Peter’s Basilica– which is huge, and covers about six acres!— except for some side chapels. Instead, seating is brought in for special occasions, with some people still standing, too. Standing is also an ancient tradition– it is done in Orthodox churches, too. You really ought to learn to understand, appreciate, and cherish the very great Tridentine Latin Mass– at least for its great Catholic historical value! It is very holy, theologically exact, and the sacred liturgical traditions are very beautiful! Strange that you are not sensitive nor touched by its great beauty, majesty, holiness, and mystical transcendence!