Bishop Schneider praised this archbishop's speech against concelebration at Vatican II

(LifeSiteNews) — A Dominican archbishop’s opposition to non-traditional ideas of how priests should concelebrate Mass, a topic debated at the Second Vatican Council, is making the rounds online.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his 2022 book The Catholic Mass, referred to a speech by Archbishop Paul-Pierre Philippe, OP as “one of the most doctrinally and liturgically sound contributions during the conciliar debate on concelebration.”

“The ritual form of Eucharistic concelebration introduced after the Second Vatican Council, and its practice in the life of the Church today, is certainly contrary to the entire tradition of both the Eastern and Western Church,” Schneider wrote.

“The vision of the Council Fathers corresponded to the constant practice of the Church, where the concelebration of the Eucharist was done according to hierarchical order, that is, the cardinals and bishops with the pope and the priests with the bishop,” Schneider added.

Liturgical expert Dr. Peter Kwasniewski wrote in a recent blog post, “It cannot be said that the good archbishop was in any way mistaken, either in his theological synopsis or in his prognostication of the spiritual and liturgical effects of routine concelebration.”

The entire speech given by Archbishop Pierre, as quoted in Schneider’s book, can be read below.

READ: Bishop Schneider: German bishops will go down as ‘great disgrace’ for betraying Catholic faith

Full speech of Archbishop Paul-Pierre Philippe against concelebration

I agree that the faculty of sacramental concelebration should be extended in the Latin Church to the Chrism Mass, on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, as well as, for example, to the Mass celebrated by the bishop during the diocesan synod or on the occasion of a pastoral visit or spiritual exercises of diocesan priests, because in this way the union of the priests with the bishop in the one priesthood of Christ is manifested.

This reason, however, is not valid for extending concelebration to the daily Conventual Mass of religious, which some Fathers have called for. For the union of many concelebrating priests comes about only as a consequence of the union of each priest with Christ the Priest, whose sacred person he represents at Mass. For the priest, as Pope Pius XII says in the encyclical Mediator Dei, “by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is made like to the High Priest and possesses the power of performing actions in virtue of Christ’s very person. Wherefore in his priestly activity he in a certain manner ‘lends his tongue and gives his hand’ to Christ” (AAS 1947:518). In fact, the action of Christ who sacrifices and offers himself through the sacramental action is manifested more expressively in the Mass celebrated by one priest than in a concelebrated Mass, and is better perceived both by the celebrant himself and by the faithful who see in this one priest “the image of Christ” the Priest (cf. ST III, Q. 83, art. 1, ad 3).

Priestly spirituality is principally based on this doctrine and through it the Eucharistic devotion of priests is nourished. Now, however, if many priests habitually concelebrate, it is to be feared that they will gradually feel less like an “alter Christus” and that their Eucharistic piety will diminish. Religious who concelebrate daily may run into this danger in a particular way.

Certainly, it has been said that the freedom of individual celebration must be safeguarded, but in reality, the insistence of superiors and confreres as well as external difficulties and the force of custom will impede that freedom. Moreover, too frequent or daily concelebration can lead to a certain contempt for the so-called “private” Mass. For every Mass, according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, is truly public, since it is celebrated by the public minister of the Church for all the faithful belonging to the Body of Christ.

Finally, the doctrine of Pius XII on the fruits of the Mass must be recalled (cf. AAS 1954:669). In this matter one must consider not only the fruit produced by a devout and fraternal celebration, but first and foremost the nature of the action taking place, that is, the sacramental sacrifice of Christ. Indeed, the objective fruit of the Mass, that is, the fruit of propitiation and impetration for the living and the dead, is the principal fruit. And because this fruit is not the same in a concelebrated Mass and in many Masses celebrated by many priests, if the use of frequent concelebration becomes widespread it is to be feared that right doctrine will be obscured and the faithful will no longer take care that many Masses be celebrated for the living and the dead.

Therefore, practical convenience is not acceptable as a reason or criterion in favor of extending concelebration, but only the sometimes appropriate manifestation of the unity of the priesthood through concelebration with the bishop or religious superior.