But as long as he participates in the consecration (and, I suppose, epiclesis), has he not been one of the priests who consecrates — even though nobody except he knows this — and thus a “concelebrant”. just as much as the priests on the altar? Is that not par excellence the most important part of the Mass?
He partakes in very specific parts of the liturgy in his role as a priest no matter where he is physically in the building. But this does not make him a concelebrant of the mass as a whole. At least not as how the church sees it.
In theory, yes - he is still, in a sense, celebrating mass but if he’s doing it without the knowledge of the principal celebrant it’s an affront to the unity which concelebration is supposed to express. That aside, it’s also highly illicit - while concelebrants don’t’ necessarily need to be in the sanctuary (if, for example, space doesn’t permit) the do need to be vested in at least an alb and stole.
A priest may choose to be present “in choir” - so not concelebrating but still vested. This is different to simply sitting in the pews however.
Thank you, Father. This addresses my concern. Evidently I was not being so “nitpicky” after all.
Also, if he’s in a parish that doesn’t offer Communion under both species and doesn’t identify himself as a priest in order to receive the Precious Blood, he has not completed the Sacrifice, has he?
[quote=“Phemie, post:26, topic:606502, full:true”]
Good question, and a point I didn’t even think of.
Is it, in fact, necessary for every priest who concelebrates a Mass, to receive both species?
I honestly don’t know.
Yes. Possibly some exception is made for those (few) priests unable to consume the precious blood for medical reasons but I can’t be bothered checking.
Also a priest who is concelebrating must consume a host consecrated at that mass which might not necessarily be what he receives in the communion line.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.