The Archbishop of Dijon has, apparently, revealed that PF intends to enjoin Concelebration upon all presbyters of the Roman Rite.
I had better be honest here.
(1) About three years ago, I concelebrated the Novus Ordo with a fine young priest who was being hounded out of his parish by bigotted 'liberals'. I did it as a sign of my solidarity with him, and I have no regrets.
(2) Every year, pandemics permitting, I concelebrate the Chrism Mass, and do so with immense joy. If anybody wants to know why, I will reprint a series of articles on the History of Concelebration, which I wrote a few years ago.
Right. When you've calmed down, I will continue.
I think it is a mistake to let crafty and manipulative liberals back us into a corner on this issue.
Here are some observations.
In the Traditional Roman Rite, no presbyter can be ordained without concelebrating the Ordination Mass with the ordaining Bishop. If diocesan bishops were to ordain traditional ordinands, doing so in the Old Rite, then the 'test issue' of Concelebration as a sign of Unity would have been met.
Would it not be a an admirable sign of unity for clergy who favour the Novus Ordo, from time to time, to be ordained at a Traditional ordination?
If Traditional clergy take part in the Chrism Mass, sitting in choro, how is this not a manifestation of ecclesial unity? I regard the Renewal of Vows as unnecessary and, frankly, not a little bit silly, but would it be a matter of principle for traditional clergy to refuse to join in this rite?
Bishop Tissier, in his scrupulous biography of the Great Archbishop, refers to photographic evidence that Marcel Lefebvre did concelebrate at least once (and versus populum). Was this a terrible apostasy?
If a bishop ... even an Archbishop of Dijon ... were to celebrate a Solemn Pontifical High Mass in the Old Rite, with traddy priests deaconing, subdeaconing, serving, administering Holy Communion, would this not be a sign of ecclesial unity? Why is concelebration the only acceptable such sign of unity? How can the Archbishop of Dijon claim that concelebration is essentially required by the very nature of the Church, when, for centuries, Roman Rite clergy, once their own ordination was over, never concelebrated again? Does the Archbishop really believe that the Catholic Church did not exist until the 1970s?
In 1965, when the old Missal and the old Pontifical were still in use, Rome authorised a new rite of Concelebration and ordered it to be added to the (1962) Missal and the old Pontifical. Presumably, this was the Rite which Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated about nine months after Rome had authorised it. It was more traddy than the rite of Concelebration now in use. Would Traddy clergy be prepared to take part in it? Would Trendy clergy be prepared to take part in it?
If traddy laity occasionally saw, in their own diocese, trendy clergy being forced to take part in traddy Pontifical Liturgy with the Bishop, might they not be more open to the idea that it really was 'unity' that the Bishop was keen on, and not just the humiliation of Tradition?
I shall not enable comments which simply express a dislike of Concelebration, or which argue that Concelebration deprives the Church of the fruits of many Masses. That is not what this post is about.
It is about not letting ourselves be fooled and wrong-footed by crafty men with dubious motives.