Jesuits and Eucharistic

Concelebration

James J. Conn, S.J.

Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood,

and Eucharistic
Concelebration

John F. Baldovin, S.J.

51/1 SPRING 2019

 THE SEMINAR ON JESUIT SPIRITUALITY

Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits is a publication of the Jesuit Conference

of Canada and the United States.

The Seminar on Jesuit Spirituality is composed of Jesuits appointed from their

provinces. The seminar identifies and studies topics pertaining to the spiritual
doctrine and practice of Jesuits, especially US and Canadian Jesuits, and gath-
ers current scholarly studies pertaining to the history and ministries of Jesuits
throughout the world. It then disseminates the results through this journal.

The opinions expressed in Studies are those of the individual authors. The
subjects treated in Studies may be of interest also to Jesuits of other regions
and to other religious, clergy, and laity. All who find this journal helpful are
welcome to access previous issues at: ejournals@bc.edu/jesuits.

CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE SEMINAR

Note: Parentheses designate year of entry as a seminar member.

Casey C. Beaumier, SJ, is director of the Institute for Advanced Jesuit Studies,
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. (2016)

Brian B. Frain, SJ, is Assistant Professor of Education and Director of the St.
Thomas More Center for the Study of Catholic Thought and Culture at Rock-
hurst University in Kansas City, Missouri. (2018)

Barton T. Geger, SJ, is chair of the seminar and editor of Studies; he is a research
scholar at the Institute for Advanced Jesuit Studies and assistant professor of the
practice at the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College. (2013)

Michael Knox, SJ, is director of the Shrine of the Jesuit Martyrs of Canada in
Midland, Ontario, and lecturer at Regis College in Toronto. (2016)

Gilles Mongeau, SJ, is professor of systematic theology and coordinator of the

first studies program at Regis College in Toronto. (2017)

Peter P. Nguyen, SJ, is Assistant Professor of Theology at Creighton University

in Omaha, Nebraska. (2018)

Hung T. Pham, SJ, teaches spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology at Santa
Clara University, Santa Clara, California. (2015)

John R. Sachs, SJ, is superior of Gonzaga Eastern Point Retreat House in

Gloucester, Massachusetts, and is a Board Member and Associate Editor of
Theological Studies. (2014)

Copyright © 2019 and published by the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the
United States.

ISSN 1084-0813
Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration
JAMES J. CONN, SJ

Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and

Eucharistic Concelebration
JOHN F. BALDOVIN, SJ

STUDIES IN THE SPIRITUALITY OF JESUITS

51/1  SPRING 2019

a word from the editor. . .

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

O f all the questions that Jesuits have debated among themselves

since the close of Vatican II—including the relationship between
faith and justice, how to preserve the Catholic identity of Jesuit
schools, and where to mission our declining numbers of Jesuits—
perhaps no subject has proven quite so neuralgic as whether Jesuit
priests can and should concelebrate at Mass, especially at the daily
masses celebrated in their own communities.

The reasons for and against concelebration being generally well-

known, I will not review them here; Frs. Conn and Baldovin will discuss
some of them in their respective contributions to this issue of Studies.
But let me suggest that the question of concelebration, unlike other con-
troversial subjects, goes to the heart of what it means to be a Jesuit. If the
other questions concern what Jesuits should do, or for whom they should
do it, then concelebration points to who Jesuits are. In other words, are
Jesuits primarily apostolic religious, most of whom have priestly min-
istry as an additional qualifier? Or is the Society essentially a priestly
institute, with religious life a universal but secondary characteristic?

At daily mass, Jesuits can keep their personal convictions

about the other issues to themselves, so that, as a result, Jesuits of
every stripe can find respite at that moment of communal worship.
But when Jesuit priests choose either to concelebrate or to sit in
the congregation, they seem to lay bare their convictions about Je-
suit identity—and perhaps also, by implication, what they believe
should be the convictions of everyone else at the liturgy. No won-
der, then, that concelebration can be such a flashpoint.

However, one would err to suppose that these tensions have

resulted from the Second Vatican Council’s (re)introduction of con-
celebration. On the contrary, they have existed almost since the be-
ginning of institutional religious life.

In fourth-century Egypt, and continuing into the early Mid-

dle Ages in Europe, monasteries were composed largely of illit-

iii
erate laypersons. And evidence suggests that monks in general
were wary of—if not outright hostile to—having their members be
ordained, and having priests join their communities. The monks
wished to cultivate humility and equality as much as possible, and
they worried that priests would require deferential treatment. They
also believed that the monastic way of life offered the most ideal ex-
pression of the Gospel, especially when compared to the diluted and
compromised witness of the broader church, in which the ordained
clergy played a prominent role.1 Of course, the monks did need or-
dained ministers to preside at liturgy; but when monasteries lacked a
priest, they often forced ordination on one of their members.2

Given this background, one might reasonably conclude that the

monks would have greeted any suggestion of concelebration—if the
practice existed back then, which it did not—very negatively!

And so, the question arises: if the Society of Jesus is a religious

order, and if all religious orders in some sense descend from Eastern
monasticism, then should Jesuits regard themselves firstly as religious
and secondly as priests? For in fact, some Jesuits have argued against
daily concelebration in Jesuit houses on just these grounds.

Unfortunately, the problem is more complicated than that. In the

eleventh century, priests called canons, who lived next to and cared for
the liturgical functions of cathedrals, began to adopt an ancient rule,
usually the Rule of St. Augustine, to structure their common life. As a
result, a new form of religious life, the canons regular, developed, where
the word regular denotes the fact that these priests lived by a rule. In

1
St. Jerome (327–420) is famous for his caustic descriptions of the laxities of the
Roman clergy. On a related point, Fr. Hugo Rahner, SJ (1900–1968) argued that the pe-
rennial value of the Rule of St. Benedict and the Rule of St. Basil lies in the fact that both
founders understood their monastic communities to be at the service of, rather than
in opposition to, the wider church. See Hugo Rahner, SJ, The Spirituality of St. Ignatius
Loyola: An Account of Its Historical Development, trans. Francis John Smith, SJ (Loyola Uni-
versity Press, 1980), 65–78.
2
See William Harmless, SJ, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of
Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 323. Fr. Harmless notes that
Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine all were ordained
against their will.

iv
this sense, canons regular were priests with religious life added, and
it seems reasonable to speculate that they would have considered any
question of daily concelebration with sympathetic ears.

Then, the sixteenth century witnessed the rise of clerks regular,

which were communities of priests dedicated to sacramental and ap-
ostolic work “in the field”—which is to say, they were not associated
with a specific place, like a cathedral. The clerks regular considered
priesthood central to their mission, since they desired to serve the
church in ways that the secular clergy had served poorly; and for that
reason, the faithful often called them “reformed priests.”3

The first institute of clerks regular was the Theatines (1524),

followed by the Barnabites (1533) and the Somaschi (1534). Our own
First Companions were aware of these precedents when, in 1539, they
deliberated the characteristics of the new Society of Jesus (1540). Still
later, more communities of clerks regular developed, including the
Camillians (1582), the Adorno Fathers (1588), and the Piarists (1597).

In short, if one is going to point to a specific movement in the his-

tory of religious life to guide discussion of Jesuit concelebration, then it
makes all the difference in the world where one points.

As Frs. Conn and Baldovin both observe, some Jesuits approach

the issue of concelebration by affirming that the Society is a pastoral
priesthood as opposed to cultic priesthood. According to the first
model, priests provide sacraments only as pastoral need requires;
otherwise, they function as ordinary members of the community.
For this reason, only one priest is needed for community liturgy,
and the atmosphere of the liturgies tends to be more casual. But
according to the cultic model, the Mass is a participation in the one
eternal sacrifice of Christ, by means of which priests acquire merits
and graces for the sake of themselves and others. From this point of
view, the more masses celebrated, the greater the sanctification of
the entire church . . . and since the priests experience the act of pre-

3
For an excellent introduction to clerks regular, see Mark A. Lewis, SJ, “Recov-
ering the Apostolic Way of Life: The New Clerks Regular of the Sixteenth Century,” in
Early Modern Catholicism: Essays in Honour of Fr. John W. O’Malley, SJ, ed. Kathleen M.
Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 280–96.

v
siding as a principal source of mission and consolation, they often
pay greater attention to questions of rubrics and solemnity.

If one chooses to abide by these categories, then it is fair to say that

there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Ignatius envisioned a pastoral
priesthood. For instance, he asked Jesuits not to refer to each other as
Father or Brother, but rather to call one another by name.4 Likewise, the
“Autobiography” does not indicate either when he chose to become a
priest or his reasons for doing so, on which basis some have argued that
he did not consider priesthood a specific emphasis of his apostolic spiri-
tuality.5 In a similar vein, the Constitutions make only fleeting references
to priestly ordination as part of Jesuit formation.6 Furthermore, when
Ignatius was superior general, he apparently was content often simply
to hear Mass at the Roman College rather than to preside.7

On the other hand, there can be no question that Ignatius had

a strong cultic sensibility. For example, when it looked in 1539 like
curial officials might succeed in resisting the pope’s oral approba-
tion of the Society, Ignatius asked priests to offer, in honor of the
Holy Trinity, three thousand masses. Not thirty. Not three hun-
dred. Three thousand. And because Ignatius himself asked for this,
it is a fair bet that he said many of them himself. On this note, the
Constitutions frequently refer to a theology of merit and economy
of graces within the Society; and, with an emphasis unique among

4
Gonçalves Mem. 142, 372; Luís Gonçalves da Câmara, SJ, Remembering Iñigo:
Glimpses of the Life of St. Ignatius Loyola, trans. Alexander Eaglestone and Joseph A. Mu-
nitiz, SJ (Leominster, UK and St. Louis, MO: Gracewing and the Institute of Jesuit Sourc-
es, 2004), 86, 207.
5
But one should keep in mind that the “Autobiography” contains little or noth-
ing on many important aspects of Ignatius’s life, such as his pre-conversion piety; the
specific content of his illumination at the Cardoner; his eventual explicit dedication to
the greater glory of God; the origins of his Romanità (i.e., his dedication to the See of
Rome); the 1539 Deliberation of the First Fathers; and, perhaps most curiously, the for-
mal moment in November 1538 when the Companions placed themselves at the service
of the pope, thereby fulfilling the terms of the conditional vow that they had made at
Montmartre.
6
Constitutions 45, 112, 365, 401, hereafter Const.
7
Gonçalves Mem. 179; Gonçalves da Câmara, Remembering Iñigo, 108.

vi
classic rules and constitutions, Ignatius requires priests to offer masses
regularly for deceased companions and benefactors.8

I have heard some Jesuits maintain that Ignatius conceived a

whole new way of being a priest. But based on the precedent set by
other institutes of clerks regular, I am not sure that I agree. I also
question their implication that Ignatius had found a way to recon-
cile the tension between the two models of priesthood. Rather, I
suspect that his strong devotion to both apostolic service and ritual
worship brought into bold relief a reality that has existed since the
beginning of religious life and probably always will.

For my own part, I usually am happy to sit in the congrega-

tion at masses in Jesuit houses. But at times, I do have a desire to
concelebrate—either out of devotion or because I am obliged to
offer Mass for a specific intention—and I would like to be able to
do so without worrying that others will perceive me as divisive. I
suspect that many Jesuits feel the same.

Which brings us to the current issue of Studies. Our contributors, Frs.

Conn and Baldovin, have been colleagues and dear friends for many
years. As such, both men have expressed to the Seminar on Jesuit Spir-
ituality their hope that readers will see in their exchange the Ignatian
presupposition in action, and that this will inspire Jesuits to practice
the presupposition when they themselves discuss concelebration.

In light of the complicated history of concelebration in the

church, and also of the many holy companions on both sides of the
issue, it seems likely that the debate will not be ended by a decisive
argument, but rather by a slowly-growing consistency of practice
guided by the Holy Spirit. May the Lord grant that these essays
facilitate that journey by promoting an ever-greater union of minds
and hearts in this least Society.
Barton T. Geger, SJ
Editor

8
Const. 309–19, 598, 638, 640. Earlier constitutions, like those of the Dominicans,
had required masses for deceased members only at the time of the deaths and on spec-
ified anniversaries.

vii
 CONTENTS
Jesuits and Eucharistic Conelebration
James J. Conn, SJ

Introduction......................................................................................1
I. A Historical Perspective................................................................2
II. The Current Situation....................................................................8
A. Reasons for the Current Practice................................................9
B. Current Ecclesiastical Discipline.............................................11
III. A Note on Jesuit Norms.................................................................14
IV. Consequences of the Practice.....................................................15
Epilogue..............................................................................................16

Jesuits, The Ministerial Priesthood, and

Eucharistic Concelebration
John F. Baldovin, SJ

Introduction....................................................................................17
I. Why Did Vatican II (Re-)Introduce Concelebration?.........20
II. Issues Regarding Ecclesiology and Ordained Ministry.....23
III. Specific Issues Regarding the Eucharist.................................28
1. Daily Celebration of the Eucharist..........................................28
2. “Private Mass”: vs. Concelebration.........................................29
3. Co-Consecration..........................................................................30
4. Mass Intentions and Offerings.................................................32
5. Unity of the Priesthood and Unity of the Assembly............34
Conclusion........................................................................................35

Fr. Conn’s Response to Fr. Baldovin.....................................................36

Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn.....................................................39

ix
 Fr. James J. Conn (mar), a Philadelphia native, entered the
Society of Jesus at Wernersville in 1966 and is currently pro-
fessor of the practice of canon law at the Boston College School
of Theology and Ministry. He studied theology at Woodstock
College and received a doctorate in canon law from the Grego-
rian University, where he served in the 2000s as ordinary pro-
fessor. Also a civil lawyer with a JD from Fordham, he served
there as executive assistant to the president in the 1980s. In
the 1990s, he was dean at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore.
His primary research area has been the relationship between
Catholic educational institutions and ecclesiastical authority.

Fr. John F. Baldovin (une) entered the Society of Jesus at St.

Andrew Hall, Syracuse, New York, in 1969. He is presently
professor of historical and liturgical theology at the Boston Col-
lege School of Theology and Ministry. Previously, he taught at
Weston Jesuit (1999–2008), the Jesuit School of Theology at
Berkeley (1984–1999), and Fordham University (1981–1984).
He hold s a PhD in Religious Studies from Yale University and
an MDiv from the Weston School of Theology. He has pub-
lished in liturgical history and liturgical theology, especially
on the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood.

x
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration

James J. Conn, SJ

Following Vatican II, the delegates of GC 31 encour-

aged concelebration in Jesuit houses. Since then, how-
ever, the practice has become controversial. The author
points out that the current predominant custom of
Jesuit priests attending Mass modo laico is contrary
to the norms of the church and has various negative
consequences. For example, Jesuits today who wish to
concelebrate sometimes have to compromise their con-
sciences lest their communities regard them as divisive.

I
t is hardly a secret among Jesuits that it is a disputed question
whether or when they—or, for that matter, any priests—should
concelebrate at the eucharistic celebration. Full disclosure requires
me to admit that my own position on the question has changed over
time. Ordained in 1974, I initially followed the practice that since has
become typical in our communities. Later, my studies in canon law
(1980–1983) changed my opinion to the one that I will elaborate short-
ly. My present practice, when not presiding at a scheduled mass for
the benefit of the faithful, is to concelebrate at the daily mass at St.
John’s Seminary, where I teach, or with a willing confrere at home. I
attend the weekly prescribed community Mass, but I refrain from con-
celebrating, since I prefer not to be a source of distraction in a commu-
nity where no one else concelebrates, whether he might like to or not.

I first wrote these observations in the summer of 2006 as a

personal exercise that I passed on to individuals seeking my opin-
ion on the subject. I was invited by the leadership of the Jung-
mann Society of international Jesuit liturgists to present the paper
2  James J. Conn, SJ

at their plenary meeting in June 2008 at the Abbey of Montserrat.

It was subsequently published by the Jungmann group in Spanish
translation but has not yet been published in English. 1 The text
that follows is almost identical to the 2008 version.

I. A Historical Perspective

T
he rite of eucharistic concelebration was extended in the Latin
Church during and after the Second Vatican Council. The prac-
tical context of the council made the extension of the rite partic-
ularly timely. Concelebration was a means of accommodating the large
number of bishops and priests present for the council and eliminated
the need for them to celebrate Mass individually.2 It should be recalled
that the daily celebration of—not attendance at—Mass by priests in the
Latin Church has long been and remains the presumption and prefer-
ence of the church’s spiritual tradition and discipline. Canon 904 has as
its source the Vatican II Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Pres-
byterorum Ordinis (1965), which affirms that especially at Mass the priest
acts in the person of Christ.3 The canon reads as follows:

Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharis-

tic sacrifice the work of redemption is exercised continually,
priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed, daily celebration is
recommended earnestly since, even if the faithful cannot be
present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests
fulfill their principal function.4

1
James J. Conn, SJ, “Los Jesuitas en la concelebración eucarística” in Jesuitas,
Sacerdocio y Liturgia: III Congreso de la Asociación Internacional Jungmann para Jesuitas y
Liturgia. Abadía de Montserrat–Cataluña, España. Junio 23–28 de 2008 (Mexico City: Obra
Nacional de la Buena Prensa, 2010), 57–76.
2
Sacred Congregation of the Rites, Ecclesiae Semper (March 7, 1965), in Acta Apos-
tolicae Sedis [AAS] 57 (1965): 410–12. The decree asserts that the theological reasons,
“much more than any at a purely practical level,” are the ones that explain why concele-
bration in one form or other has always been accepted by the church (p. 411).
3
Presbyterorum Ordinis (December 7, 1965), 13, http://www.vatican.va/archive/
hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-or-
dinis_en.html (hereafter cited as PO).
4
Canon 904 ; Codex Iuris Canonici auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus (Vati-
can City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983); trans. Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition,
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  3

Conciliar teaching in Sacrosanctum Concilium acknowledged the

theological grounding to this practically useful rite—namely, its ap-
propriate manifestation of the unity of the priesthood (SC 57). This
conciliar text and the postconciliar liturgical reform called for con-
celebration on certain occasions—to wit, priestly ordination and the
Masses of Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil, when individual, or
so-called private, celebration of Mass is forbidden. Discretion for its
more extensive application was left to local authority.

The widespread practice of concelebration in the Latin Church

was probably not foreseen by the council. The pattern of eucharis-
tic practice then as now was envisioned as that of individual priests
celebrating Mass for assemblies of the faithful in parishes and other
churches and oratories. Religious communities and other residenc-
es of priests—for example, seminaries and colleges—were viewed as
exceptional situations in which concelebration would be practiced
on a more frequent and even daily basis. Not only did concelebration
eliminate the need for multiple individual celebrations, but it pro-
vided these communities with a new means of celebrating their unity
in faith and grace around one table of word and sacrament.

The right to celebrate Mass individually—not privately, since all

liturgy is by definition public, and not without at least one member of
the faithful present (canon 906)—was guaranteed by the documents
first extending concelebration and later by the Code of Canon Law (c.
902). One may reasonably presume that this conciliar provision was
made to accommodate older priests or those with problems of con-
science over such matters as the moral simultaneity of pronouncing
the words of consecration. The celebration of Mass individually—that
is, without an assembly—remains widely practiced in some quarters
of the Society of Jesus. In such celebrations, liturgical norms may or
may not be carefully observed. The same is probably true of the re-
quirement that at least one of the faithful be present.5

New English Translation (Washington: Canon Law Society of America, 1999), 295. All ci-
tations of the code refer to the former edition, and all translations to the latter, hereafter
cited as CLSA (1999), followed by the page number.
5
The faculty of celebrating Mass “in a case of necessity . . . without a server” is
included in the 1963 Elenchus Facultatum, appendix seconda, n. 9. It is not clear whether
4  James J. Conn, SJ

The Society welcomed the rite of concelebration at the time of

the 31st General Congregation, and for about a decade thereafter
widely practiced that rite in our communities, especially in houses
of formation. The congregation cited the provisions of Presbyterium
Ordinis 13 and Sacrosanctum Concilium 57 noted above, declaring that
“Concelebration, by which the unity of the priesthood is appropri-
ately manifested, is encouraged in our houses when allowed by the
proper authority, while each priest shall always retain his right to
celebrate Mass individually.”6 Proper authority here meant the uni-
versal and local authority of the Apostolic See, the episcopal confer-
ence, and the diocesan bishop or local ordinary.

During this same period, many other liturgical reforms were

legitimately introduced, such as the gradual use of the vernacular in
the celebration of Mass and the other sacraments, the simplification
of many rites in the celebration of the Eucharist according to the first
typical edition (1970) of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal
(GIRM), several new eucharistic prayers, and the option of the faith-
ful receiving Holy Communion in the hand and under both kinds.7
While competent ecclesiastical authority eventually mandated these
innovations, Jesuits often had anticipated them within the more se-
cluded context of their religious houses.

At the same time, Jesuits also introduced other unapproved prac-

tices, some of the less outrageous of which were the elimination of the
lavabo, abandoning some or all of the required liturgical vesture, alter-
nate postures for both celebrants and assembly, and using unapproved
texts. The anticipation of reforms before their official approval or im-

celebrating “without a server” is the same as celebrating without at least one of the
faithful present.
6
GC 31, d. 14, no. 10; Jesuit Life and Mission Today: The Decrees and Accompanying
Documents of the 31st–35th General Congregations of the Society of Jesus, ed. John W. Pad-
berg, SJ (St. Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources [IJS], 2009), 103.
7
Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, in Missale Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti
Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II Instauratum Auctoritate Pauli PP. VI Promulgatum, Editio
Typica (Città del Vaticano, 1970), 15–92. Hereafter, editions of this document are cited in
the text and notes of this essay as GIRM, followed, where applicable, by year of promul-
gation and paragraph number.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  5

plementation and the spontaneous introduction of other innovations

gradually eroded the careful if simple liturgical observance formerly
common among Jesuits and compromised the consensus that the rites
and texts of the liturgical books were normative.

Such general relaxation of liturgical observance created a ready

context for unauthorized changes in the rite of concelebration in Jesu-
it communities, including the reduction or elimination of vestments,
words, or gestures on the part of concelebrants. Eventually, some Je-
suits appropriately refrained from this kind of minimalism in the rite
of concelebration; but instead of celebrating individually, they began
simply to assist modo laico at masses celebrated by only one member of
the community.8 An article published by Fr. John Baldovin (une) in Wor-
ship in 1985 provides a certain scholarly justification for this practice.9
Reflecting on the practice of the so-called “private mass” in religious
communities of priests, he writes, “Given the nature of the eucharist
as a communal act symbolizing the church’s unity, it seems to me that
concelebration in such circumstances is far preferable to individual cel-
ebrations with or without a server.”10 With this, I fully agree.

Alas, however, Fr. Baldovin’s praise is faint, for he goes on to as-

sert, “Frankly, although I think that concelebration can be an effective
sign of the unity of the church, there are circumstances in which priests
should assist at the eucharist in the same manner as lay people and
that ritual concelebration should be extremely rare.”11 He bases his po-
sition on the notion that lay persons feel that the distinction between
priests and assembly somehow highlights disunity in the church, and
on the concept that priests sometimes need more to be ministered unto
than to minister. He further asserts, “Another occasion which seems to
warrant priests refraining from concelebration is the frequent or daily

8
Here and elsewhere in this essay, the verb assist, when referring to a person at
Mass, means “to attend” rather than “to give support or help.” And when referring to a
priest, it implies that he is not concelebrating. –Ed. note.
9
John Baldovin, “Concelebration: A Problem of Symbolic Roles in the Church,”
Worship 59 (1985): 32–47.
10
Baldovin, “Concelebration,” 43.
11
Baldovin, “Concelebration,” 44.
6  James J. Conn, SJ

Eucharist. Here no sacramental or ecclesial purpose is served by the

outward manifestation of the unity of the priesthood, especially when
there may be a very small minority of unordained people present.”12
On this point we disagree. I for one have been deeply moved by the
truth of the one priesthood I share with the other priests with whom
I have concelebrated at a daily Eucharist. Furthermore, I suspect that
the brothers and scholastics present are not inclined to dismiss that
sign so easily. Unfortunately, the unavailability of concelebration may
have resulted in some priests resorting to the liturgically less prefera-
ble choice of celebrating Mass individually.

Perhaps back in 1985, Fr. Baldovin’s discomfort with concele-

bration may have been more deeply motivated by its poor implemen-
tation along the lines of his comments at the end of the article. There
he raises several valid questions on such issues as voice volume,
vesture, spatial arrangements, and the like. Perhaps these neuralgic
points are troubling enough to an attentive liturgist that refraining
from concelebration is for him the best solution.

On that note, he admits that his view is at odds with the 1972
declaration on concelebration of the then Sacred Congregation for Di-
vine Worship.13 That document bases its contrary position on the well-
known principle that “in liturgical celebrations each person, minister
or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only,
those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the
principles of liturgy” (SC 28). The declaration on concelebration ap-
plies this principle to concelebration when it says:

Because of the distinct sacrament of orders, priests exercise a

function peculiar to them in the celebration of the Mass when,
either individually or together with other priests, by a sacra-
mental rite they bring about the presence of Christ’s sacrifice,
offer it, and through communion share in it.

12
Baldovin, “Concelebration,” 44.
13
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, In Celebratione Missae (August 7,
1972), in AAS 64 (1972): 561–63.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  7

Consistent with this, priests should celebrate or concele-

brate in order to take part in the Mass more fully and in their
own distinctive way; nor should they receive communion in
the manner proper to the laity.14

The declaration does not articulate a new norm. It is rooted in the

notion of the priest acting in persona Christi (PO 13), and it found early
expression in the postconciliar instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium of
the Sacred Congregation of Rites.15 This 1967 document similarly com-
mends to priests the exercise of the order proper to them by celebrat-
ing or concelebrating “and not simply receiving communion like the
laity.”16 Not only does it confirm the council’s teaching that concelebra-
tion “aptly expresses the unity of the sacrifice and the priesthood,” but
it adds another dimension—namely, that concelebration “symbolizes
and strengthens the fraternal bond between priests.”17 The instruction
further extends the permission for the use of concelebration, especial-
ly in communities of priests. It adds the following practical provision:
“Those who live in community or serve the same church should gladly
welcome visiting priests to concelebrate with them.”18

While in more recent years Jesuits have eliminated other un-

authorized liturgical practices in many places, it has nonetheless be-
come the almost universal practice in Jesuit houses in the US that
priests do not concelebrate but rather simply assist at daily Mass.
While local or house policies may or may not permit concelebration,
the practice of concelebrating at daily Mass in our houses has nearly
disappeared. By way of exception, many but not all Jesuits do con-
celebrate at ordinations, first masses, funerals, masses of religious
profession, and certain masses on special occasions celebrated in
schools and universities. Also, some priests still celebrate individu-

14
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, In Celebratione Missae, 561; trans.
Thomas C. O’Brien, Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts
(Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1982), 563.
15
Sacred Congregation of Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967), in AAS
59 (1967): 539–73 (hereafter cited as EM).
16
EM 43.
17
EM 47.
18
EM 47.
8  James J. Conn, SJ

ally in “private” chapels. Others, of course, celebrate Mass for the Je-
suit community, for groups of students, in our own and other parish
churches, for religious sisters and brothers, and so forth.

Although Fr. Baldovin does not argue this point in this Worship
article, except perhaps indirectly by his use of the term ritual concele-
bration, there is a certain widespread belief, often mentioned but not
readily documented, that any time a priest takes part in the celebration
of the Eucharist, he does so as a priest and therefore, in a sense, “con-
celebrates.” This notion, however, is not easily reconciled with the long
tradition, carried out before and since the Vatican II extension of concel-
ebration beyond ordination masses, of priests assisting at the Eucharist
in choir, which suggests a clear distinction between the roles of cele-
brant or concelebrants and assisting though not concelebrating clergy.

On May 23, 1957, the Holy Office published a response, ap-

proved in forma communi by Pope Pius XII (1876–1958), to a dubium
de valida concelebratione that had been submitted to it.19 The question
posed in the doubt was whether several priests validly concelebrate
the sacrifice of the Mass if only one of them pronounces the words of
consecration over the bread and wine while the others do not but, with
the knowledge and consent of the celebrant, have and manifest their
intention of making his words and actions their own. The response
was “negative, because by the institution of Christ, he alone celebrates
validly who pronounces the words of consecration.”20

II. The Current Situation

T
o my mind, most US Jesuits would agree with the facts of the cur-
rent practice of eucharistic concelebration as stated above. There
is probably less agreement about the reasons for the practice, its
relationship to the law of the church, or its consequences. Observations

19
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Dubium de Valida Concelebra-
tione (May 23, 1957), in AAS 49 (1957): 370.
20
Ibid.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  9

on each of these follow. Note, however, that I base what I say about
the reasons for the current practice primarily on my own experience of
watching and listening to our confreres. And some of these comments
are hypotheses that may need further testing.

A. Reasons for the Current Practice

1. Many Jesuits appear to imitate uncritically the practice of others.
Specifically, many of our elders abandoned their former practices
because, some forty years ago, the young—including superiors—
set a new pace. Likewise, some younger men today observe the
practice they learned in houses of formation, whether they have
reflected carefully on it or not. Other younger men do not accept
their elders’ practice regarding the Eucharist, though some are
more vocal about the matter than others.

2. It is probable that many Jesuits do not know the pertinent liturgical

norms. Some of our men have extensive knowledge, but some appear
to have only partial or selective knowledge. For a variety of reasons,
disputes in this area are very difficult to settle; and of all arbiters, Je-
suits rarely consider the opinions of canonists authoritative.

3. Some Jesuits may believe that liturgical practice is simply a matter

of taste, style, and opinion. From this perspective, they might view
the dominant practice of rare concelebration as simple, comfortable,
and informal. These are subjective values that many Jesuits wish to
cultivate in their lives, and they apply them to liturgical practice. This
is a positive or neutral interpretation of behavior that the more cen-
sorious might attribute, perhaps too rashly, to sloth or irreverence.

4. Some Jesuits may have a mistaken understanding of how ec-

clesiastical law, including liturgical law, is properly interpret-
ed and of how the canonical concept of custom is applied to
situations regulated by liturgical law.

5. Some Jesuits tend to equate concelebration with liturgical solemnity,

which they feel has its place but is not for every day. This is a line of
argument that can be inferred from Fr. Baldovin’s article.
10  James J. Conn, SJ

6. For some Jesuits, the dominant practice reflects a notion of the

priesthood that may be characterized as functional, in that it
views the ministerial priesthood as a service of liturgical lead-
ership offered to the community. From this perspective, when a
priest is entrusted with “leading” or “presiding at” the Eucharist
on a certain occasion, it is then that he fulfills a priestly role;
otherwise, he remains a member of the assembly in the manner
of the lay faithful. In this spirit, some Jesuits are uneasy with the
term priest and prefer minister or presider.

Their critics would characterize this functional notion as ne-

glectful of the principle that the priesthood is an ontological real-
ity and that the ordained priest acts at Mass in persona Christi Ca-
pitis whether he is principal concelebrant or not. Opponents of the
dominant practice also appeal to the principle cited above from
the constitution on the liturgy that at the Eucharist each should
do all and only what is appropriate to his or her condition in the
church (SC 28). They further recall the close connection made in
the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia between the priesthood and
the Eucharist, and John Paul II’s (1920–2005) repeated emphasis
on the distinction between the common priesthood of all the faith-
ful and the ministerial priesthood of the ordained.21

7. Some Jesuits seem to view concelebration as an exercise in clericalism

whereby those who are ordained display their superiority over those
who are not. In response, their opponents appeal to the principle of
equality in dignity but difference in condition (canon 208). Moreover,
some Jesuits refrain from concelebration because of the antipathy

21
John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (April 17, 2003), 28–30, http://www.vatican.
va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_
eucharistia_en.html. Regarding the distinction, see John Paul II, Christifideles Laici
(December 30, 1988), 21–23, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhor-
tations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html; Pastores Dabo Vobis
(March 15, 1992), 13–15, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhorta-
tions/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis.html; and the interdicast-
erial instruction approved in forma specifica, Ecclesiae de Mysterio, “On Certain Questions
Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of
Priests” (August 15, 1997), “Theological Principles 1: The Common Priesthood of the
Faithful and the Ministerial Priesthood,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre-
gations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  11

toward it displayed by some women in the church for whom it high-

lights their exclusion from holy orders, and with whom some Jesuits
wish to be in solidarity. Opponents of this view point to the definitive
character of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II.22

B. Current Ecclesiastical Discipline

Unlike the preceding seven points, which are conjecture, the com-
ments that follow are based on juridically-binding texts and their
proper interpretation.

First, the 1983 Code of Canon Law permits rather than requires
concelebration, providing as follows:

Unless the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or suggests

otherwise, priests can concelebrate the Eucharist. They are
completely free to celebrate the Eucharist individually, how-
ever, but not while a concelebration is taking place in the same
church or oratory.23

The source of this norm is Mysterium Eucharisticum, the 1967 instruc-

tion cited above. Here, the “welfare of the faithful” that limits con-
celebration is obviously the need of the faithful for masses to be cel-
ebrated for their pastoral advantage. In other words, priests should
not, for the sake of concelebrating Mass, neglect their pastoral ob-
ligation to celebrate Mass at times and in places convenient to the
faithful. This hardly presents a problem in Jesuit contexts, and even
if pastoral duties required a Jesuit to celebrate Mass for the faithful,
the discipline of canon 905 §1 on bination would allow him to concel-
ebrate at a community mass on the same day.

It should be noted, however, that this norm on its own strength

establishes no right to concelebrate; rather, it guarantees a priest the
right to celebrate Mass individually. In view of the reason for this norm,

22
John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994), http://w2.vatican.va/
content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-
sacerdotalis.html.
23
Canon 902; trans. CLSA (1999), 295.
12  James J. Conn, SJ

“individually” here probably means “without an assembly”; in other

words, it is not within a priest’s rights to exclude concelebrants, since it
is the function of the superior of a community or the rector of a church
to “facilitate and encourage” concelebration.24

Note here that the code establishes no right to concelebration, al-

though other sources of law favor it. On the other hand, the third typi-
cal edition of the GIRM (2002) contains new material on concelebration
that is relevant to this discussion. The relevant provision appears in the
document’s fourth chapter, which deals with the different forms of cel-
ebrating Mass. Regarding masses presumably celebrated in religious
institutes and societies of apostolic life, the GIRM reaffirms the faculty
of priests who belong to such communities and have already celebrated
Mass on a given day “for the pastoral benefit of the faithful” to binate
by concelebrating the conventual or community Mass.25 But this new
edition of the text goes a step further than its earlier versions, stating:

For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic

Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule
exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as
concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they
wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.26

Note that the phrase “should as a rule” implies the imposition of

a duty, from which follows the corresponding right to fulfill that
duty. And so, this provision not only affirms a preference for con-
celebration, but also suggests the right of a priest to concelebrate,
at least in the context of special groups like religious communities.

By way of commentary, I suggest that this new norm responds to

a mistaken ideology and abusive practice whereby concelebration
is perceived as a sign of clericalism and as somehow offensive
to the non-ordained members of a clerical religious institute, to

24
EM 47.
25
GIRM (2002), 114; trans. International Commission on English in the Liturgy
[ICEL], General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Liturgical Documentary Series 2 (Wash-
ington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003), 54. See also canon 905
§1.
26
GIRM (2002), 114; trans. ICEL, 54.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  13

laypersons generally, or to women specifically. By contrast, the

norm simply applies the principle of Sacrosanctum Concilium 28
cited above—namely, that each person is to carry out all and only
those parts of the liturgy that are proper to him.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum provides a still broad-

er norm—that is, one not limited to concelebration in religious com-
munities—and adds a final proscription:

Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts

of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constitut-
ed, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and
the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according
to his own condition. It is preferable therefore that “Priests
who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused
for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper
to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wear-
ing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper
choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.” It is not fitting,
except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable
cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to exter-
nals, in the manner of the lay faithful.27

This clarification seems to reinforce the notion of a right to concelebra-

tion consequent to the duty that this norm imposes. One should keep
in mind, however, that the needs of the faithful for Mass, the norms
regarding bination, and other practical considerations may limit concel-
ebration in particular circumstances. These considerations may include,
among other things, time, vessels, vesture, common language, and the
configuration of the worship space. Very clearly, however, this norm
precludes the restriction of concelebration arising from an ideological
antipathy toward it, and identifies as its foundation the principle that
the church’s hierarchical constitution is reflected in its liturgical action.

Furthermore, the 2002 GIRM, to the degree that it establishes a

right to concelebrate, trumps the code’s silence on the matter. And

27
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Re-
demptionis Sacramentum (March 25, 2004), 128, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramen-
tum_en.html. The internal quotation is from GIRM (2002), 114.
14  James J. Conn, SJ

Redemptionis Sacramentum, while an instruction and therefore of lesser

juridical moment than the GIRM, is nonetheless a source of law (ius)
and, following canon 34, normative, unless it contradicts an ecclesias-
tical law (lex). Moreover, Redemptionis Sacramentum and its proscrip-
tion of priests participating at Mass modo laico in any but rare and
exceptional cases has the effect of reprobating and extinguishing a
non-legal custom contrary to the law (canons 23–26), as some may
wish to categorize the dominant practice in many Jesuit communities.

III. A Note on Jesuit Norms

D
aily Mass has long been the norm for all Jesuits. As noted above,
GC 31 affirmed the universal norm of Presbyterorum Ordinis en-
couraging daily eucharistic celebration by priests. It further en-
couraged concelebration when the law permitted it, and by the time of
GC 32, concelebration was more widespread in both the church and the
Society. Accordingly, the congregation provided that: “all of our mem-
bers should consider daily celebration of the Eucharist as the center of
their religious and apostolic life.”28 It adds that “Concelebrations are
encouraged, especially on days when the community can more easily
gather together.”29 The Complementary Norms repeat these words, except
that “Concelebrations” is replaced by “Communitarian celebrations.”30
Perhaps that change in terminology was intended to include in a clear-
er fashion non-ordained members; regardless, the universal law still
would apply to members who are priests.31

28
GC 32, d. 11, no. 35; Jesuit Life and Mission Today, ed. Padberg, 348.
29
Ibid.
Complementary Norm 227, 2; The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their
30

Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, ed. John
W. Padberg, SJ (St. Louis, MO: IJS, 1996), 259.
31
In Ignatius’s time, as the Constitutions indicate, the practice was different: “The
frequentation of the sacraments should be highly recommended; and Holy Communion
or the celebration of Mass should not be postponed beyond eight days without reasons
legitimate in the opinion of the superior.” See Constitutions 584; ed. Padberg, 254.
 Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration  15

IV. Consequences of the Practice

W
hat are or may be the consequences of Jesuits in the US and
perhaps elsewhere neglecting the rite of concelebration? Here
are some suggestions:

1. Numerous bishops and diocesan clergy view Jesuits who violate

norms of liturgical discipline as giving scandal and undermining
ecclesiastical discipline more broadly. In short, they perceive them
as not thinking with the church, which endangers our reputation
and the effectiveness of our ministries.

2. In violating this lex orandi (“rule of prayer”), Jesuits run the risk of
eroding the lex credendi (“rule of belief”)—in this case, the authen-
tic church doctrine on the nature of the priesthood.

3. Policies in Jesuit houses that prohibit concelebration—or even

customary dispositions, upheld by superiors, against concelebra-
tions—create problems of conscience for observant Jesuits. From
this perspective, at least permitting liturgical discipline to be ob-
served would better serve unity in religious communities. Then,
violations happen as a function of freewill and personal choice
rather than as a function of a general imposition of policy.

4. The prohibition of concelebration makes our retreat centers un-

attractive and unfriendly to many diocesan priests who properly
desire to celebrate Mass daily while on retreat.

5. The view of the priesthood and the antipathy toward concelebra-

tion that this current practice promotes discourage men whom a
Jesuit vocation might otherwise attract. I make this observation
based on anecdotal evidence from conversations with men aspir-
ing to the priesthood and consecrated life over the course of my
twenty-seven years in the ministry of priestly formation.

6. The Society runs the risk of promoting or committing grave injustice

by accepting stipends from the faithful for a Jesuit’s mere assistance
at Mass or for his marginal concelebration. For this reason, Jesuits
who are priests should review the norms that govern this matter.
16  James J. Conn, SJ

Epilogue

When I began my academic and professional formation as a can-

onist in 1980, I probably did so with eyes half shut, thinking that I
could remain in the mainstream of Jesuit life and work, even in the
increasingly secular context of university ministry. I soon learned
that teaching diocesan seminarians in Baltimore, then future canon
lawyers at the Gregorian, and, most recently, younger Jesuits and
lay students in Boston, was to be my sphere of ministry, along with
many kinds of ad hoc service at various levels of ecclesial life.

I learned too that, at least in the United States, I would have

very few Jesuit companions in my field. While I have noted with
delight that a good number of my Jesuit students have found
their few required credits in canon law to be quite useful in their
early years of ministry, I have no illusions that, in Jesuit circles in
years to come, my discipline is likely to be anything but margin-
al. However, our recent congregations have affirmed that we Je-
suits are supposed to be working at the margins—which is where
other Jesuits know to find us canonists when they need us.

Finally, I have lived happily as a Jesuit for over fifty-two years,

and I look forward to more of the same. Even if I find myself in the
minority on a variety of controversial issues, I always have trea-
sured the respect of my brother Jesuits. For this reason, I hope that
what I have written here will not imperil that friendship but rather
provoke further study, reflection, and good conversation.

 
 Jesuits, The Ministerial Priesthood,
and Eucharistic Concelebration
John F. Baldovin, SJ

Post-conciliar developments on the meaning of the minis-

terial priesthood and its relationship to the priesthood of
all the baptized make concelebration less than ideal. The
norms of the church often do not keep pace with such de-
velopments. Furthermore, the church needs to re-examine
the theology behind other practices, such as the offering of
Mass intentions, that encourage concelebration.

I
n an essay entitled “Concelebration: A Problem of Symbolic Roles
in the Church,” published over thirty years ago, I argued that
daily concelebration by priests was less preferable than simple
participation in the Eucharist.1 Why? Because the post-Vatican II re-
formed liturgy requires us to re-think how priests are related to the
common or baptismal priesthood of the faithful, in line with a re-
newed understanding of the communal nature of the liturgy. While I
stand by that basic thesis, I realize that it must be argued with much
more finesse and complexity than I could do at that time.

At the outset, I need to be clear. The subject of this essay is not the
practice of concelebration considered without qualification, but rather
the practice of concelebrating daily and in a formal way—which is to
say, properly vested and saying the eucharistic prayer in a low voice
along with the principal celebrant. In a concelebration as the official
documentation of the Catholic Church envisions it, the church is clearly

1
John F. Baldovin, “Concelebration: A Problem of Symbolic Roles in the Church,”
Worship 59 (1985): 32–47.
18  John F. Baldovin, SJ

arrayed in its hierarchical form. I certainly would argue that there are
occasions on which manifesting the church’s hierarchical arrangement
is most appropriate—for example, at ordinations, weddings, and funer-
als—but I do not believe that such a practice is the same as daily concel-
ebration; I leave the profession of vows here as an open question.

Although the Society of Jesus is a clerical order, many of us,

me included, would consider manifesting our identity as Jesuits—
ordained and non-ordained alike—on a vow day a more powerful
witness to our Jesuit brotherhood than distinguishing our ecclesial
roles by concelebrating at Mass. This would follow the practice of
Franciscans, both ordained and not, whom I have seen processing
together as brothers on their vow days. And I also maintain that
there are good reasons why many Jesuits and members of other
religious orders refrain from daily concelebration.

In any case, this issue of daily concelebration has become a neu-

ralgic and at times divisive one in our Jesuit communities. The ques-
tion I want to ask is: why is it that so many Jesuits opt for attendance
at daily eucharistic celebrations as opposed to concelebrating? To an-
swer this question, I think that we need to reflect first on the profound
change and renewal that has taken place in our theology and practice
of liturgy in the past fifty years, second on developments in the the-
ology of the Eucharist, and then on how both influence our identity
and practice as priests. For this reason, I will be dealing in this essay
with some rather sensitive and complex issues, including the nature
of the eucharistic sacrifice and the practice of Mass intentions and
stipends. As such, I will attempt to look beyond the church’s official
prescriptions, for I believe that many Jesuits and other religious are
operating at least implicitly out of a contemporary theology that rais-
es important questions regarding our official practice.

To be clear, according to the current rules, priests may not,

except “in rare and exceptional cases,” participate in the Eucharist
modo laico—that is, in distinguishing vestments. 2 Thus, they have

2
General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) 114, http://www.usccb.org/prayer-
and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfm
(hereafter cited in this essay as GIRM): “For it is preferable that Priests who are present
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  19

three choices: concelebration, the individual celebration of Mass,

and assisting in choro—that is, vested in cassock and surplice and
taking a place in the sanctuary. 3 Thus, official church teaching clear-
ly expects priests to participate in the Eucharist according to their
“order” in the church. In short, both canon law and liturgical law,
the latter as presented in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal,
urge priests to celebrate the Eucharist daily if possible. 4

With this in mind, the question arises as to whether Jesuits

and other religious who do not follow these prescriptions can de-
fend their practice. It seems to me that there are a number of prior
and more fundamental issues that come to bear on this question:
the relationship between the ministerial and common priesthood,
especially in the celebration of the sacraments; the nature of the
Mass as a sacrifice, as well as what that sacrifice effects; and the
meaning of Mass intentions and stipends. Of course, these are pro-
found questions; but I would maintain that even if I cannot do them
justice here, we cannot avoid them if we want to understand what
is at stake when priests refrain from concelebration.

And so, after a brief recap of the history of concelebration and of

the reasoning that led the fathers at Vatican II to introduce presbyteral
concelebration into the church’s practice, I will discuss some of the most
pertinent issues from ecclesiology, the theology of the priesthood, and
eucharistic theology relating to the question of daily concelebration.

at a celebration of the Eucharist, unless excused for a just reason, should usually exer-
cise the function proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing
sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cas-
sock.” See also Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament,
Redemptionis Sacramentum (March 25, 2004), 128, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramen-
tum_en.html, which adds: “It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and
with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the
manner of the lay faithful.”
3
Here and elsewhere in this essay, the verb assist, when referring to a person at
Mass, means “to attend” rather than “to give support or help.” And when referring to a
priest, it implies that he is not concelebrating. –Ed. note.
4
Canons 904, 912; GIRM 114. Section three, below, deals with the recommenda-
tion for daily celebration by priests.
20  John F. Baldovin, SJ

I. Why Did Vatican II (Re-)Introduce Concelebration?

P
lease note that the title of this section reads “(re-)introduce,” since
prior to Vatican II, concelebration—in the sense of verbal co-conse-
cration—was unusual in the church’s eucharistic practice. This is
certainly true for the first seven centuries, in which we have evidence—
for example, in the third-century Apostolic Tradition—of only bishops
and presbyters concelebrating, in the sense of extending their hands
during the eucharistic prayer. We also have evidence of bishops ceding
parts of the prayer to a visiting bishop or sharing it among presbyters.5
From the eighth century on, however, there is evidence that presbyters
and bishops concelebrated verbally with the pope on certain feast days.

Still, by the thirteenth century, concelebration was practiced as

co-consecration only at the ordination of priests and by a newly-ordained
bishop with the one who ordained him. But even then, the practice raised
some questions. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) asks how
it is that several priests can participate in one eucharistic consecration.
The question is whether one of the concelebrants can consecrate by fin-
ishing the formula “this is my body” before the others.6 He responds,
on the basis of the church’s practice at priestly ordination—what today
we would call the lex orandi or “rule of prayer”—and the authority of
Pope Innocent III (1160–1216), that the ordaining bishop and the new-
ly-ordained priests all should direct their intention to the same moment
of consecration.7 Nevertheless, in the twentieth century, permission was
sometimes given for “synchronized” masses at which one priest would
celebrate at the main altar and other priests would celebrate separately
but in a synchronized fashion at side altars.8

5
For a survey of this evidence, see Jean C. McGowan, Concelebration: Sign of the
Unity of the Church (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 23–53; and Archdale King,
Concelebration in the Christian Church (London: Mowbray, 1966), 65–68.
6
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [ST] 3, q. 82, a. 2. Thomas’s teacher, Albert the Great
(1193–1280), himself opposed concelebration on the grounds that one of the concel-
ebrants might confect the Eucharist before the principal celebrant. On this point, see
Pierre Jounel, The Rite of Concelebration of the Mass and of Communion under Both Species
(New York: Desclee De Brouwer, 1967), 98.
7
ST 3, q. 82, a. 2, resp.
8
See King, Concelebration, 60.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  21

There was a vigorous theological debate around the issue of con-

celebration during the 1940s and 1950s, much of it centering on an ar-
ticle by Karl Rahner (1904–1984) dealing with the relationship between
many masses and the one sacrifice.9 Rahner’s proposal went to the heart
of the matter: given the fact that every mass is of infinite value as the
representation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, how is the effectiveness
of a particular mass to be applied?10 In brief, his solution was that the ef-
fectiveness of the Mass depends on the faith and devotion of those who
offer it, lay and ordained alike. By Rahner’s logic, a priest celebrating
privately could be offering with more faith and devotion than he would
by concelebrating. This is an issue with which I deal below, where I
draw on the implications of Rahner’s argument as a whole.

For the time being, note that, in a speech entitled Magnificate Domi-
num Mecum, Pius XII vigorously condemned Rahner’s position. Accord-
ing to the pope, one hundred masses celebrated individually by one
hundred priests is not the same as a mass at which one hundred priests
assist: if they merely assist, then they are “considered to be on the same
plane as the lay-members of the faithful.”11 Rahner responded by distin-
guishing among four types of concelebration, wherein:

1. the concelebrating priests do not intend to exercise their priestly

power and so function only ceremonially;
2. only the principal celebrant says the consecratory words, such that
the concelebrating priests exercise their priestly function by offering
the Mass but are not co-consecrators;

9
Karl Rahner, “Die vielen Messen und das eine Opfer: Ein Untersuchung über
die rechte Norm der Messhäufigkeit,” in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 71 (Freiburg:
Herder and Herder, 1949), 257–317. This essay was expanded and translated into En-
glish as Karl Rahner and Angelus Häussling, The Celebration of the Eucharist (New York:
Herder and Herder, 1968).
10
See Council of Trent, session 22, Decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, chapter
2; Denzinger–Hünermann, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions
and Declarations of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 1548. Note
too that the effects of the Mass are often referred to as its “fruits,” following the usage
of Duns Scotus; on this point, see Rahner and Häussling, The Celebration of the Eucharist,
61–87.
11
Pope Pius XII, Magnificate Dominum Mecum (November 2, 1954), in Acta Apostol-
icae Sedis 46 (1954), 666–77, at 669; cited in McGowan, Concelebration, 85.
22  John F. Baldovin, SJ

3. the principal celebrant alone pronounces the words, but in the name
of the other concelebrants who are in moral union with him; and
4. the concelebrants all pronounce the words with the principal cele-
brant, each intending to confect the sacrament and so exercising his
priestly power.12

Vigorous theological discussion continued all the way to the Sec-

ond Vatican Council, where during the first session the debate over
concelebration was mirrored in a speech by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani
(1870–1979) lamenting that concelebrated masses meant fewer masses.13
In the end, the liturgy document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, reads as fol-
lows: “Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appro-
priately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the church both
in the east and in the west.”14 It goes on to give the following examples:
Holy Thursday at both the Chrism Mass and the Mass of the Lord’s
Supper; masses during priests’ conferences and synods; the blessing of
an abbot; and, at the bishop’s discretion, the “conventual” Mass of a re-
ligious community or the principal masses in churches. The constitution
also adds that priests retain their right to celebrate Mass individually
and mandates a new rite for concelebration.

Finally, a Vatican instruction issued in 1965 decided the primary

theological questions around co-consecration and the ability of a priest
to apply a stipend to a concelebrated mass.15 This teaching required
concelebrating priests to say sotto voce the part of the eucharistic prayer
from the epiclesis until the end of the anamnesis and decreed that those
priests could apply a stipended intention once a day, including at a con-
celebrated mass. I will revisit these issues in part III, below.

12
Karl Rahner, “Dogmatische Bemerkungen über die Frage der Konzele-
bration,” in Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 6 (1955), 81–106; McGowan, 77–107.
13
Alfredo Ottaviani, Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumnenici Vaticani
Secundi, session 1, 20–21. For a description of the debate by Mathijs Laberights,
see Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph Komonchak, The History of Vatican II, vol. 2
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 129–31.
14
Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963), 57–58, http://www.vatican.
va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_
sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html (hereafter cited as SC).
15
For a full commentary, see Jounel, The Rite of Concelebration, passim.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  23

II. Issues Regarding Ecclesiology and

Ordained Ministry

P
rofound theological issues underly the question of concelebra-
tion. These issues affect, at least implicitly, the practice of not con-
celebrating that has become common among Jesuits.

Several of these issues relate to ecclesiology in general and spe-

cifically to ordained ministry. First, the seventeen documents of Vati-
can II, four of which are constitutions, do not all bear the same weight.
Furthermore, they do not always present a unified vision—for exam-
ple, the vision of full, conscious, and active liturgical participation that
characterized both the constitution on the liturgy (1963) and the con-
stitution on the church (1964) seems to fade from the picture by the
time that the council’s last document, the Decree on the Ministry and
Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis), was issued in 1965.

As the historian Massimo Faggioli has pointed out, Sacrosanctum

Concilium promoted a radical rethinking about the Eucharist as the
act of the whole church, including the head and members. The doc-
ument also formed the basis for a new vision of church that begins
with liturgy—the lex orandi or rule of prayer—rather than juridically
with the church’s hierarchical structure. The communion ecclesiology
of the constitution on the church then follows from the eucharistic ec-
clesiology of the liturgy constitution, which proposed a radically new
liturgically-based vision of the church.16 Radically new, that is, with
regard to the second millennium of the church’s history; but not with
regard to the church of the first millennium.17 For instance, the council
fathers clearly affirmed the essentially communal nature of the liturgy
as a major factor in this reclaimed vision of the liturgy.

Among the general norms for reforming the liturgy that Sacrosanc-
tum Concilium outlines, we find the following:

16
On the importance of the liturgy constitution for the hermeneutics of Vatican
II, see Massimo Faggioli, True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 13–18.
17
Often referred to as ressourcement, or “going back to the sources”; see Faggioli,
True Reform, 19–58.
24  John F. Baldovin, SJ

Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebra-

tions of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely,
the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.

Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of

the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but
they concern the individual members of the Church in dif-
ferent ways, according to their differing rank, office, and
actual participation.

It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their

specific nature, make provision for communal celebration
involving the presence and active participation of the faith-
ful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as
possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass

and the administration of the sacraments, even though every
Mass has of itself a public and social nature.

In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman,

who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those
parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and
the principles of liturgy. (SC 26–28)

One could read the last paragraph as arguing that priests must
always assist at Mass only as priests. On the other hand, we do not
expect all deacons present at a celebration of the Eucharist to serve
in their capacity as deacons. For this reason, it seems that we should
read the passage more as discouraging priests from doing those things
that are appropriate to others—for example, offering the prayer of the
faithful—rather than as promoting concelebration, as well as forbid-
ding lay persons from taking on roles assigned to deacons and priests.

In any case, this communal vision of worship from the liturgy

document is echoed in chapter 2 of the dogmatic constitution on the
church (Lumen Gentium), which reads:

Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount

and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine
Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. Thus both
by reason of the offering and through Holy Communion
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  25

all take part in this liturgical service, not indeed, all in the
same way but each in that way which is proper to himself.
Strengthened in Holy Communion by the Body of Christ,
they then manifest in a concrete way that unity of the peo-
ple of God which is suitably signified and wondrously
brought about by this most august sacrament. 18

How one interprets this paragraph has far-reaching implications.

In some ways the post-conciliar history of the Catholic Church can be
characterized by a division between, on the one hand, those stressing
the communality of the offering of the Eucharist; and, on the other hand,
those who emphasize the phrase “each in the way which is proper to
himself” by differentiating sharply between the role of the priest and
that of the rest of the assembly. In my opinion, the desire to highlight the
distinctiveness of the priest’s role came in reaction to the large number
of departures from the priesthood during the 1960s and 1970s. Many
today would support that emphasis because of the dearth of vocations
to the priesthood. Finally, there can be little debate that there is a clear
differentiation of roles in the liturgy and that the priest is indispensable;
the question comes with how these roles relate to one another.

Regarding priests (presbyters), the dogmatic constitution on the

church goes on to associate their function directly with that of Christ:

They exercise their sacred function especially in the Eu-

charistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which
acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming His mystery
they unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of
their Head and renew and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass
until the coming of the Lord the only sacrifice of the New
Testament namely that of Christ offering Himself once for
all a spotless Victim to the Father. (LG 28)

Then, in chapter 2, “On the People of God,” the document makes an

important distinction between the common priesthood that all the

18
Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964), 11, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_
councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
(hereafter cited as LG), my italics.
26  John F. Baldovin, SJ

faithful enjoy by virtue of their baptism, and the ministerial priest-

hood that some have by virtue of holy orders:

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only
in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the min-
isterial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated:
each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one
priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred pow-
er he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in
the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice,
and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faith-
ful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the
Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving
the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a
holy life, and by self-denial and active charity. (LG 10)

Here, the document is emphasizing the unity between the baptis-

mal and ministerial forms of Christ’s one priesthood. In doing so here
and elsewhere in the text, the council affirms the idea of the ministeri-
al priest acting “in the person of Christ” (in persona Christi)—a concept
since refined and clarified in terms of the priest acting “in the person of
Christ the Head” of the church (in persona Christi Capitis).19

As subsequent theological debates have illustrated, this use of in

persona Christi begs for more theological reflection than conciliar docu-
ments can articulate. For instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
explains that “the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common
priesthood.”20 In this sense, we can say that the common priesthood has
a certain primacy over the ordained priesthood. Regardless, surely no
one would argue that the ordained ministry exists for itself.21

19
As, for example, in Presbyterorum Ordinis (December 7, 1965), 2,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html (hereafter cited as
PO).
20
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1547, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_
css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm.
21
This issue is handled with some delicacy by John Paul II in his post-syn-
odal apostolic exhortation on the formation of priests, where he insists on the
relational nature of the ministerial priesthood and at the same time its charac-
ter as ontological configuration to the person of Christ. See John Paul II, Pastores
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  27

Once again, I think that a serious postconciliar division exists

between those who emphasize the power that priests receive at their
ordination and those who argue that the primary manifestation of
Christ’s priesthood is that of the baptized who are called to join Christ
in offering the world back to the Father. In my opinion, the more we
can do to help the people of God to appreciate their priestly service of
the Gospel, the better. For this reason, although no one should ques-
tion the necessity of the ministerial priesthood or its essential differ-
ence from that of the common priesthood, it is appropriate that priests
express their solidarity with the faithful in addition to carrying out
their ministerial duties.22 This relates directly to the issue of concele-
bration, in that ordinary Catholics have had such difficulty appreciat-
ing the importance of their baptismal priesthood.

Returning to concelebration, Sacrosanctum Concilium explains

the practice in terms of manifesting the unity of the priesthood. Now,
following the line that I have been developing, I would argue that
the nature of the assembly as offering the eucharistic sacrifice should
take precedence over the role of priests. To phrase this as a question,
do priests act in the person of Christ insofar as they act in the person
of the church; or do they act in the person of the church insofar as
they act in the person of Christ?23 For my part, I prefer the first for-
mulation. In any case, differing attitudes and practices about concel-

Dabo Vobis (March 15, 1992), 16–18, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/

apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis.html.
See also Gerald O’Collins, SJ, and Michael Keenan Jones, Jesus our Priest: A Chris-
tian Approach to the Priesthood of Christ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012),
279–84.
22
I am avoiding the unnecessary opposition so often made between a functional
and an ontological understanding of the ministerial priesthood, since a balanced view
requires both. It is interesting to note, however, that the council’s decree placed the func-
tional aspect first, as in the title itself, “On the Ministry and Life of Priests.”
23
See Edward J. Kilmartin, SJ, “The Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic Theology:
Towards the Third Millennium,” Theological Studies 55 (1994): 405–57; Robert J. Daly,
SJ, “Sacrifice Unveiled or Sacrifice Revisited: Trinitarian and Liturgical Perspectives,”
Theological Studies 64 (2003): 24–42. Kilmartin frequently refers to his own critique of
the “average modern Catholic theology of the Eucharist.” See the excellent synthesis of
Kilmartin’s thought on the priesthood and the Eucharist in Edward Hahnenberg, “The
Ministerial Priesthood and Liturgical Anamnesis in the Thought of Edward J. Kilmartin,
SJ,” Theological Studies 66 (2005): 253–78.
28  John F. Baldovin, SJ

ebration clearly reflect the differing ecclesiologies that have emerged

from Vatican II and from theological debates about the ministerial
priesthood in the decades following the council.

III. Specific Issues Regarding the Eucharist

M
y experience teaching theology has convinced me that all
theological topics relate to one another, and the relationship
between ecclesiology and the sacraments, especially the Eu-
charist and baptism, offers a case in point. Ultimately, the question can
be summarized as, “of which God do we speak?”24

On this note, the following issues regarding eucharistic theology

are relevant to our discussion: (1) the encouragement of priests to cel-
ebrate the Eucharist frequently if not daily; (2) the question of “private
mass”; (3) the idea of co-consecration, which in turn relates to (4) how
the priest offers the eucharistic sacrifice, and how that offering relates to
Mass intentions and stipends; and finally (5) the Mass as a manifestation
of the unity of the priesthood. While I do not hope to do these issues
justice here, I will suggest what each has to do with concelebration.

1. Daily Celebration of the Eucharist

It is often repeated that the Eucharist is at the center of the priest’s life. I
should hope so—not because he is a priest, but because he is a Christian.
Indeed, canon law urges priests to celebrate the Eucharist frequently,
since “in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice the work of redemp-
tion is exercised continually”—but it does not oblige them to do so.25
Now, does this mean that, as Pius XII asserted, the more masses, the
better? Not necessarily. A better interpretation would consider the pas-

24
Louis-Marie Chauvet brilliantly demonstrates this point when he insists that
we take the cross and Resurrection of Christ as our theological starting points. See Chau-
vet, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body (Collegeville: Liturgical
Press, 2001), 158–69.
25
Canon 904.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  29

toral good of the people, recognizing that priests who refrain from cele-
brating the Eucharist out of their own predilection and without regard
for the needs of the faithful are surely negligent in their duties. On this
point, Jesuits should note that the 32nd General Congregation mandat-
ed daily participation in the Eucharist for all.26

2. “Private Mass” vs. Concelebration

Is there such a thing as a private mass? Strictly speaking, every mass,

even when celebrated without the assistance of at least one person, is
an act of Christ and the whole church. While we cannot deny this, if
we consider the meaning of the eucharistic celebration as a whole, we
must recognize that a private mass is a far cry from what the Eucharist
is intended to be. On this point, consider only St. Paul’s treatment of the
Eucharist in First Corinthians 11. In short, the Eucharist is a sacrificial
banquet, and there is a great difference between dining alone and with
others. For this reason, canon law states that “A priest may not celebrate
the Eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the
faithful, unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.”27

Here we find another area in which the insights and values of the
constitution on the liturgy conflict with an older sacramental theology.
Celebrating alone—or even with a few people—represents a very tenu-
ous theology. For this reason, even allowing for circumstances where a
solitary mass may be permitted, regular celebration of masses with few
people present constitutes an abuse. I for one find the persistence of this
practice in Jesuit communities troubling, since this practice is not in the
spirit of the post-Vatican II renewal of the liturgy.

26
Complementary Norm 227, 2; The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their
Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, ed. John
W. Padberg, SJ (St. Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996), 259. See also the
letter of Fr. General Peter Hans Kolvenbach (1928–2016) to All Major Superiors, “The
Eucharist,” February 15, 2006.
27
Canon 906; see also GIRM 254.
30  John F. Baldovin, SJ

3. Co-Consecration

In his 1949 essay and the book he published later with Angelus Häus-
sling, OSB, Karl Rahner took up the issue of the multiplication of
masses. In the book, he addresses the issues of private masses and
concelebration versus assistance at Mass. Although he was willing to
admit that, in terms of the priest’s private prayer, a mass celebrated
alone might result in with more “faith and devotion”—an important
phrase for him—than one celebrated in the presence of others, there
are other issues at stake, including the essentially communal nature of
the liturgy.28 He also pointed out that in some instances, the church re-
stricts the multiplication of masses—for example, on Holy Thursday.
This fine insight ought to be applied much more broadly.

Furthermore, Rahner argued against the idea that only verbal

co-consecration constitutes concelebration.29 Without going into de-
tail here, let it suffice to note that concelebration consisting simply of
priests extending their hands over the offerings seems to have been
church practice for the first seven centuries.30 He goes on to argue that
the theory, which Duns Scotus (1266–1308) developed in the four-
teenth century, of the fruits of the Mass has no theological foundation.
From this, Rahner argued further that a priest might simply assist at
Mass with greater faith and devotion than if he were concelebrating.31

How, then, did the church decide to insist on verbal consecra-

tion as opposed to simple gestures or even to vested participation at
the altar? It is not easy to say. As noted above, until the eighth cen-
tury verbal co-consecration does not seem to have been the practice
in the West, and it has never been the practice in the Christian East.32

28
Rahner and Häussling, The Celebration of the Eucharist, 91–96.
29
Rahner and Häussling, The Celebration of the Eucharist, 109.
30
See McGowan, Concelebration, 24–30; and King, Concelebration, 18–25.
31
Rahner and Häussling, The Celebration of the Eucharist, 109–14.
32
See King, Concelebration, 102–15. In any case, there has long been a debate in
the Christian East regarding a “moment of consecration.” Many Eastern theologians
consider the epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit to be the moment when the trans-
formation happens.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  31

And, thus, there seems to be no clear theological reason why concel-

ebration requires verbal co-consecration.

From one perspective, co-consecration insures that priests satis-

fy their obligation from accepting Mass stipends. On the other hand,
only one mass—one sacrifice—is being celebrated. From this, it seems
to follow that priests might assist at Mass modo laico and still offer an
intention, just as any Jesuit—lay or ordained—is bound to do.33 Of
course, a priest always remains a priest; but he need not manifest this
identity at every mass. Yet precisely this rationale seems to operate in
the ordinary practice of many religious communities.

Moreover, the notion of co-consecration involving the saying of

certain formulae (e.g., epiclesis, institution narrative, and anamnesis)
needs to be re-thought in light of a growing consensus among theo-
logians that the eucharistic prayer as a whole is consecratory. Church
teaching has in fact acknowledged as much in declaring valid the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which is a eucharistic prayer of the As-
syrian Church or Church of the East, although it contains no explicit
institution narrative.34

On this same note, some Jesuits ignore the directions given for
concelebration that require priests to join sotto voce in the prayers
from the epiclesis until the end of the anamnesis and second epi-
clesis (e.g., in Eucharistic Prayer III, up to and including the words
“one Body, one Spirit in Christ”). The problem is that simply recit-
ing the words of institution takes them out of their context within
the prayer and runs the risk of reducing them to a magical formula.

33
See the Manual for the Juridical Practice of the Society of Jesus (Rome: Curia of the
Superior General of the Society of Jesus, 1997), 303–07.
34
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, “Guidelines for Admission
to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East”
(July 20, 2001), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/docu-
ments/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html. For an analysis of
this question, see Robert F. Taft, “Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agree-
ment on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East
Promulgated 26 October 2001,” Worship 77 (2003): 482–509.
32  John F. Baldovin, SJ

I hasten to add, however, that our current rubrics give the impres-
sion that only the institution narrative really matters. 35

4. Mass Intentions and Offerings

Since at least the third century, the Eucharist has been offered
with particular intentions in mind. In fact, it has been argued that
the success of Christianity has related in part to how Christians
honored their dead, especially in the cemeteries. 36 But in the early
church, this offering did not detract from the offering made by any
and all of the faithful. M. Francis Mannion has argued that the mi-
gration of Christianity north of the Alps introduced a new sense of
economy into the Eucharist, whereby sacred actions became reified
and a restrictive notion of offering came into play. 37

In this context, the offering went from being inclusive to exclu-

sive with regard to the intention of the donor, and a money value was
attributed to it. Of course, the church has never taught that one can buy
or pay for a sacrament. Indeed, all such offerings are made as free-will
donations for the support of the church in general and especially for the
priest. While in theory this makes sense, in practice it is difficult for peo-
ple not to imagine that they are paying for a mass to be said. Even the
common though unofficial use of the word stipend connotes a payment.
Here, the Protestant Reformers were responding to real abuses.

And so, while remembering individuals at the Eucharist has

been a constant practice in the church, this offering of intentions was
not restrictive until the Middle Ages, when Christianity adapted to a
new social and cultural milieu. This is not to say that a parish com-
munity should not announce an intention at any given mass; but we

35
In passing, note that the rubrics make the extension of both hands at the epi-
clesis mandatory, whereas the gesture of pointing to the gifts during the words of insti-
tution is optional.
36
See Ramsay MacMullen, The Second Church: Popular Christianity, AD 200–400
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009).
37
See M. Francis Mannion, “Stipends and Eucharistic Praxis,” Worship 57 (1983):
194–214.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  33

need to consider how best to articulate this. It seems to me that there

is a big difference between saying “I am offering this mass for N.,”
and “today we are remembering in a special way N.” In other words,
we must never lose sight of the fact that we are not offering the Mass
for anything other than for the glory of God and the salvation of the
world.38 Which is to say that the offering of a mass, whether by a lay-
person or by a priest, regardless of whether a monetary offering has
been made, cannot be thought of in terms of a transaction. Rather, our
constant and healthy Christian instinct has been that to have a certain
intention in mind is a salutary way of remembering the person before
God. Theologically, we cannot say more.

In addition, the reintroduction of the universal prayer or general

intercessions to the eucharistic liturgy should raise questions about
limiting the intentions for a mass. For example, if Mrs. Smith is in at-
tendance and praying for the repose of her late husband, I fail to see
any difference in the value of a particular Mass offering, except that
the priest may voice the intention aloud on behalf of the church. From
this perspective, while a priest has a moral and canonical obligation
to remember at a mass an intention for which a monetary offering has
been received for that mass, this does not mean that the priest’s in-
tention has any more value than the intention of anyone else at the
celebration.39 All we can safely say when a priest has offered a mass for
a donor’s intention is that he has offered that mass for that intention.

All the same, under current church discipline, if I have re-

ceived a monetary offering for a mass, or if my superiors have asked
me to apply that intention to a given mass, then I have an obligation
either to preside at or to concelebrate that mass. For Jesuits, the
Complementary Norms explicate these rules. 40

38
As the French order of Mass puts so well in its response to the invitation, “pray,
brothers and sisters”: “for the glory of God and the salvation of the world” (Pour la gloire
de Dieu et le salut du monde).
39
See canons 945–58, especially canons 947, 949; John Huels, “Stipends in the
New Code of Canon Law,” Worship 57 (1983): 215–24.
40
CN 184; ed. Padberg, 243. See too the Manual for the Juridical Practice of the Society
of Jesus, 165–67.
34  John F. Baldovin, SJ

Of course, the whole issue of stipends is complex. On one level, it

relates to the welfare of priests and of religious orders—an issue to con-
sider carefully, but no excuse for misleading people as to what they are
“getting” when they make a monetary offering for an intention. Finally,
at the very least we should not regard the effects of the Eucharist as a
pie that can be cut into so many pieces. Instead, Catholic doctrine teach-
es that the sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value; but, as Rahner argued,
how we relate to that value is a matter of our faith and devotion.

5. Unity of the Priesthood and Unity of the Assembly

The rationale that both Vatican II and the General Instruction of the Ro-
man Missal give for (re)introducing eucharistic concelebration is the
manifestation of the unity of the priesthood. Certainly, this unity is a
positive value, apparent in such occasions as celebrations of a diocesan
presbyterate with its bishop. But the unexpressed motivation for this
policy was the elimination of private masses.41 Note, however, that pri-
vate masses have not been eliminated altogether, perhaps from a resis-
tance to or ignorance of the theological issues discussed above. Further-
more, I have no doubt that concelebration has been a positive advance
over the offering of private masses. Still, I feel the need to ask whether
individual priests have a right to concelebrate, especially given that the
diocesan bishop is to regulate concelebration, from which it follows that
permission to concelebrate can be restricted.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the issues that I have

treated in this article—for example, the communal nature of the lit-
urgy, the relationship between liturgy and ecclesiology, the sacra-
mental activity of the priest and his identity, daily celebration, pri-
vate masses, and Mass intentions—can help us to appreciate how
the practice of so many Jesuits and so many Jesuit communities has
developed over the past fifty years. As examples of how practice and

41
Goffredo Boselli, “Concelebración eucarística y ministerio de los presbiteros,”
in Jesuitas, Sacerdocio y Liturgia: III Congreso de la Asociación Internacional Jungmann para
Jesuitas y Liturgia. Abadía de Montserrat–Cataluña, España. Junio 23–28 de 2008 (Mexico
City: Obra Nacional de la Buena Prensa, 2010), 77–94.
 Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration  35

official directives developed after Vatican II, I would point to the

celebration of Mass versus populum, the giving of communion to the
faithful under both kinds, and the celebration of the sacraments en-
tirely in the vernacular. And by the same token, I would argue that,
in order to appreciate more fully the celebration of the Eucharist as
a communal act of the people of God in Christ, it would be better to
refrain from regular—which is to say, daily—concelebration.

Conclusion

To be clear, I freely admit that canon 902 of the Code of Canon Law per-
mits priests to concelebrate except in cases where they should celebrate
a particular mass for the good of the faithful. Now, whether it is advisable
for priests to concelebrate at a daily community mass is another ques-
tion. Granted, daily concelebration is, in fact, the practice of many good
Jesuits and other priests. However, I hope that this essay will help my
brother Jesuits to see the deeper issues here, for which reason I affirm
that, for the most part, it is better not to concelebrate on a daily basis.

Again, I understand that many of the theological issues that I

have raised are controversial; but I do not think that we can afford to
avoid discussing them. The Society has always held the celebration
of the Eucharist to be central to its life and well-being, and we know
well the devotion with which St. Ignatius himself celebrated Mass.
But he was a man of his time, celebrating according to the best prac-
tices and theology of his day.42 And we should do likewise.

Finally, I do not see the point of either forbidding or requiring

priests to concelebrate. Because daily concelebration is a significant
aspect of priestly ministry and identity for many Jesuits, they should,
in the absence of some compelling pastoral reason, be allowed to do
so. On the other hand, I hope that Jesuits will ask themselves whether
these reasons are generally persuasive. As always, dialogue on these

42
See Robert F. Taft, SJ, “Jesuit Liturgy—An Oxymoron?” Worship 84
(2010): 38–70.
36  Fr. Conn’s Response to Fr. Baldovin

issues helps; and we should be talking to one another rather than

hovering in silos. To quote the old Latin adage, In necesariis, unitas;
in dubiis, libertas; sed in omnibus, caritas: in essential matters, unity; in
unessential matters, freedom; but in all things, love.

Fr. Conn’s Response to Fr. Baldovin

T
he single-most gratifying experience of my eleven years serv-
ing at the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College
was twice team-teaching the Rites Practicum with my long-
term friend Fr. John Baldovin. Perhaps because of our well-known
disagreement on the question of concelebration, our students were
pleasantly surprised to see how consistently he and I were on the
same page as regards our understanding and interpretation of the
church’s sacred rites, especially the celebration of the Eucharist. In
other contexts, as well, Fr. Baldovin has great respect for the disci-
pline of canon law and often consults me on matters of mutual in-
terest, as I do him. He has been an exemplary and valued colleague.

After reading several times his contribution to this issue of

Studies, I am confirmed in my belief that canon law and theology
are different though intersecting disciplines. As I learned nearly fifty
years ago from my legendary canon law professor at Woodstock Col-
lege, the late Fr. John Reed (1913–1979) canon law is only as good as
the theology that grounds it. And so, in my many years of teaching
canon law at various levels and places, I have always tried to help my
students understand how canonical norms protect and foster theo-
logical—and especially ecclesiological—values. That is not always
easy, perhaps because those values are more fluid than the norms.

Now, I agree with many of the points that Fr. Baldovin raises
in his piece. Perhaps the most important of these is the interplay be-
tween the universal priesthood of all the baptized and the ministerial
priesthood of the ordained, and that the latter is at the service of
the former. I also agree that not all the faithful fully appreciate their
priestly dignity and responsibility. I further agree that it is incum-
 Fr. Conn’s Response to Fr. Baldovin  37

bent on the church’s ordained ministers to help their fellow believers

grow in their rightful role in the eucharistic assembly.

But I fail to see how priests adopting the role of the lay faithful
at Mass achieves this objective. Rather, I believe that solidarity among
the people of God at the Eucharist is fostered by each of the members
carrying out his or her own role, as the liturgy document asks (SC 28).
For this reason, I do not find compelling Fr. Baldovin’s argument that
there is not a special role for more than one or two deacons at Mass,
since the rite of Mass specifically provides a role for all priests—namely,
concelebration.

On this point, it would be interesting for Jesuits and other reli-

gious to ask themselves and to share with each other the reasons why
they choose to participate at Mass as they do. Is daily Mass part of their
ordinary spiritual life? What are the reasons why some choose or desire
to concelebrate, while others do not? Then, are these answers proper to
understandings of the charism of different institutes? And what does
the Jesuit charism have to contribute to such reflection?

I would answer that I desire to share in the Eucharist both as

an ordained priest, and according to the norms that the church has
established. I concede that canon law’s use of the jussive subjunctive
in calling for priests’ frequent celebration and strongly commending
daily celebration is less than the imposition of a strict legal obligation
(c. 904). But the sources of the canon do not at all propose participat-
ing at Mass in the manner of the lay faithful as a regular option for
priests. I would add to my answer that I do not want to draw atten-
tion to myself at Mass but rather to do in the least ostentatious way
permissible what the church does and requires.

As I said in my own contribution, I acknowledge that there is

not an absolute right for a priest to concelebrate, and I would not
impose my own desire in a situation where, with or without good
reason, concelebration is not welcome. So burdensome is the practice
of demanding letters of good standing, which far exceed the simple
requirement of canon 903, that it undoes the presumptive right or
obligation to concelebrate that a priest may feel.
38  Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn

Fr. Baldovin and I agree on three more points. First, even

if the notion of the “special fruit” attached to the intention of a
priest who celebrates or concelebrates may not be theologically
strong, it is a matter of strict justice that when someone has ac-
cepted an offering for a priest to apply a mass to a specific inten-
tion, that priest has the obligation to celebrate or concelebrate that
mass for that intention. The law of the Society could, I suppose,
mitigate the manner whereby the monthly required intentions and
suffrages for our deceased members are satisfied. However, I, for
one, would be saddened at the loss of an old and noble practice.

A second point of convergence is our shared antipathy for

the individual Mass—that is, for masses celebrated alone or with
at least one other. The theology of the Eucharist expressed in var-
ious conciliar documents favors communal celebration of the Eu-
charist, even though canon law guarantees a right to individual
celebration (c. 902). With this in mind, from my perspective, disfa-
vor for individual celebration ought to favor an individual Jesuit’s
option to concelebrate in a communal setting.

Fr. Baldovin puts the third point of agreement this way: “I

do not see the point of either forbidding or requiring priests to con-
celebrate.” 1 I agree; but the reader might detect in this statement
a tone of half-heartedness, and one that is not likely to go away
soon among those who share Fr. Baldovin’s perspective. Granted,
Fr. Baldovin is persuaded in his opposition to daily concelebration
by theological reasons—notably, his inclination to favor the com-
monality of the universal and ministerial priesthoods—and he is
willing to act on his theological position. But for my part, I am at
peace with the coexistence of the commonality and divergence of
the two priesthoods and am persuaded to follow the norms that the
church has established in the Code of Canon Law and in the litur-
gical books, unless and until a competent authority changes them.

Finally, I do not believe we Jesuits as members of a religious

community have adequately considered or discussed this matter

1
See p. 35, above.
 Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn  39

among ourselves, and I applaud the Seminar on Jesuit Spirituality

for its willingness to engage it and to do so in a fraternal spirit.
In the meantime, our practice should be characterized by mutual
respect, perhaps with special care for those who hold the minority
view, lest they feel marginalized or even foolish in their convictions
and choices. In omnibus, caritas, indeed!

Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn

I
am happy to respond to Fr. Jim Conn’s very well-written essay
on Jesuits and concelebration. It’s important to note at the outset
that this conversation has been going on between us for a number
of years and that we remain good friends. In fact, as Fr. Conn men-
tions in his response to my own essay, we very happily team-taught
a course on liturgical presiding for two years. Despite our differenc-
es—which are significant—we regard one another highly, and I think
that’s a good example of what being “friends in the Lord” means.

I freely grant Fr. Conn’s main thesis that the church’s di-
rectives expect priests to celebrate/preside at the Eucharist fre-
quently and preferably daily. I also grant that, according to the
directives, if priests do not preside or concelebrate, then they
should attend dressed in cassock and surplice.

However, the fact that most of us Jesuits do not even own a cassock
or a surplice indicates that our approach to the priesthood and to the li-
turgical/sacramental life of the church differs from what the documents
clearly expect. The burden of my article is to ask why this difference
and to give some theological and pastoral reflection to that question.
My premise is that, in its teaching about the ministerial priesthood, the
church has not been consistent with Vatican II’s revolutionary under-
standing of the full, conscious, and active participation required of all
the faithful. I have no doubt that many Jesuits will disagree with this
assessment; but I am certainly not alone in making it. Understanding
the ministry and life of presbyters—to use the title and vocabulary of
the council’s document on the priesthood—remains a neuralgic issue
40  Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn

in the church, especially with so many questions being raised present-

ly, in the wake of the sex abuse crisis and its mishandling.

For my part, I contend that, at an existential level, many if not most

Jesuits neither concelebrate nor assist at Mass in choir dress, because
they are at least implicitly in agreement with the vision of full, con-
scious, and active participation that I mentioned above. Furthermore, in
my experience, most Jesuits attend or celebrate daily Mass primarily as
an act of devotion; and I suggest that it might be helpful for us to move
forward in our understanding of the Eucharist as more than this.

To be clear, I do not want to downplay the value of devotion; but

again, much more is going on at the Eucharist, which is the celebration
of the Paschal Mystery: the passion, death, and Resurrection of the Lord.
That celebration has profound implications for the world itself and for
the way in which all of us—Jesuit and lay alike—live our lives. As the
prayer over the offerings for the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time and
for the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper puts it so strikingly,
“Grant us, O Lord, we pray, that we may participate worthily in these
mysteries, for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work
of our redemption is accomplished” (my italics). It takes me about fifteen
weeks to flesh that out in my course on eucharistic theology. Which is to
say that one major issue is to contextualize our own personal devotion
within the broader context of the Eucharist considered as a whole.

Here, I think it’s useful to take care how we regard St. Ignatius’s
obvious devotion at his daily private mass. For example, note the dis-
tinction that Jesuit scholar Robert Taft makes between what pertains to
Ignatius and what is Ignatian.1 As Fr. Taft points out, the attitude toward
the liturgy in Ignatius’s time was vastly different from the attitude to-
day, which is far more conscious of the communitarian and evangelical
orientation of our worship. In other words, to be Ignatian is not to be an
Ignatian fundamentalist. And far from it, since he was such an exempla-
ry man of his times.

1
Robert Taft, “Jesuit Liturgy—An Oxymoron?” Worship 84 (2010): 38–
70, at 42–49.
 Fr. Baldovin’s Response to Fr. Conn  41

This brings me to a second observation, which for Jesuits in gener-

al and especially for those who are ordained priests is even more signif-
icant, and this involves the question of Mass intentions. As every atten-
tive Jesuit knows, the Society expects all Jesuits, ordained or not, to offer
Mass each month for a variety of intentions, as well as to offer Mass for
our brothers who have died. But I contend that we need to re-evaluate
the manner in which we fulfill this expectation. Granted, as I mention
in my essay, there exists a venerable tradition, stretching back at least to
the second century, of Christians praying for the dead. And so, to “offer
Mass” presumably means that we would lift up, at a particular liturgy,
a specific intention for which someone may have made a monetary of-
fering. But I do want to raise the question, with which no one as far as
I know has dealt dogmatically, of whether the priest qua priest is doing
anything more than what the church is doing and what individuals are
doing when they pray for someone or something at the Eucharist.

Lastly, since Fr. Conn raises the specter of giving scandal to di-
ocesan priests and bishops, I wonder if we are not so much provoking
scandal as raising challenging questions for a church that continues to
grow in its understanding of the relation of ministerial priests to the rest
of the baptized.

In any case, these are the deeper questions of theology, spiritu-

ality, and piety that in my opinion underlie the practice of many good
Jesuits as regards concelebration. I hope that Fr. Conn and I both have
been able to further the conversation.

 
 Past Issues of Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits
1/1 John R. Sheets, A Profile of the Contemporary Jesuit: His Challenges and Op-
portunities (Sep 1969).
1/2 George E. Ganss, The Authentic Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius: Some
Facts of History and Terminology Basic to Their Functional Efficacy Today
(Nov 1969).
2/1 William J. Burke, Institution and Person (Feb 1970).
2/2 John Carroll Futrell, Ignatian Discernment (Apr 1970).
2/3 Bernard J. F. Lonergan, The Response of the Jesuit, as Priest and Apostle, in
the Modern World (Sep 1970).
3/1 John H. Wright, The Grace of Our Founder and the Grace of Our Vocation
(Feb 1971).
3/2 Vincent J. O’Flaherty, Some Reflections on Jesuit Commitment (Apr 1971).
3/3 Thomas E. Clarke, Jesuit Commitment—Fraternal Covenant?; John C.
Haughey, Another Perspective on Religious Commitment (Jun 1971).
3/4 Jules J. Toner, A Method for Communal Discernment of God’s Will (Sep
1971).
3/5 John R. Sheets, Toward a Theology of the Religious Life: A Sketch, with Par-
ticular Reference to the Society of Jesus (Nov 1971).
4/1 David B. Knight, Saint Ignatius’ Ideal of Poverty (Jan 1972).
4/2 John R. Sheets, William W. Meissner, William J. Burke, Thomas E.
Clarke, and John H. Wright, Two Discussions: I. On Spiritual Direction
[and] II. On Leadership and Authority (Mar 1972).
4/3 Ladislas Orsy, Some Questions about the Purpose and Scope of the General
Congregation (Jun 1972).
4/4 George E. Ganss, John H. Wright, John W. O’Malley, Leo J. O’Donovan,
and Avery Dulles, On Continuity and Change: A Symposium (Oct 1972).
4/5 John Carroll Futrell, Communal Discernment: Reflections on Experience
(Nov 1972).
5/1–5/2 Vincent J. O’Flaherty, Renewal: Call and Response (Jan and Mar 1973).
5/3 Pedro Arrupe, “Art and the Spirit of the Society of Jesus”; Clement J.
McNaspy, “Art in Jesuit Life,” in The Place of Art in Jesuit Life (Apr 1973).
5/4 John C. Haughey, The Pentecostal Thing and Jesuits (Jun 1973).
5/5 Ladislas Orsy, Toward a Theological Evaluation of Communal Discernment
(Oct 1973).
6/1–6/2 John W. Padberg, The General Congregations of the Society of Jesus: A Brief
Survey of Their History (Jan and Mar 1974).
6/3 David B. Knight, Joy and Judgment in Religious Obedience (Apr 1974).
6/4 Jules J. Toner, The Deliberation That Started the Jesuits: A Commentario on
the Deliberatio primorum Patrum, Newly Translated, with a Historical In-
troduction (Jun 1974).
6/5 Robert L. Schmitt, The Christ-Experience and Relationship Fostered in the
Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola (Oct 1974).
7/1 John H. Wright, George E. Ganss, and Ladislas Orsy, On Thinking with
the Church Today (Jan 1975).
7/2 George E. Ganss, The Christian Life Communities as Sprung from the Sodal-
ities of Our Lady; Miss José Gsell and Sister Françoise Vandermeersch, A
Specimen Copy of Communications from the International Service in Ignati-
an Spirituality, Rome (Mar 1975).
 7/3 William J. Connolly, Contemporary Spiritual Direction—Scope and Princi-
ples: An Introductory Essay (Jun 1975).
7/4 Thomas E. Clarke, Ignatian Spirituality and Societal Consciousness; Ladis-
las Orsy, Faith and Justice: Some Reflections (Sep 1975).
7/5 Michael J. Buckley, The Confirmation of a Promise: A Letter to George Ganss;
John W. Padberg, Continuity and Change in General Congregation XXXII
(Nov 1975).
8/1 Charles E. O’Neill, Acatamiento: Ignatian Reverence in History and in Con-
temporary Culture (Jan 1976).
8/2–8/3 Horacio de la Costa, “A More Authentic Poverty”; Edward F. Sheridan,
“The Decree on Poverty,” in On Becoming Poor: A Symposium on Evangel-
ical Poverty, with discussions by Michael J. Buckley, William J. Connolly,
David L. Fleming, George E. Ganss, Robert F. Harvanek, Daniel F. X.
Meenan, Charles E. O’Neill, and Ladislas Orsy (Mar and May 1976).
8/4 Robert L. Faricy, Jesuit Community: Community of Prayer (Oct 1976).
8/5 Michael J. Buckley, Jesuit Priesthood: Its Meaning and Commitments (Dec
1976).
9/1–9/2 Joseph M. Becker, “Section I: The Statistics and a Tentative Analysis”;
Ladislas Orsy, Robert F. Harvanek, James J. Gill, David L. Fleming, and
William J. Connolly, “Section II: Other Reactions and Explanations from
Different Backgrounds,” in Changes in U.S. Jesuit Membership, 1958–1975:
A Symposium (Jan and Mar 1977).
9/3 Robert F. Harvanek, The Reluctance to Admit Sin (May 1977).
9/4 Bill Connolly, “A Letter on the Problematic, To Phil Land,” and “A Reply
to Phil Land: Afterthoughts”; Phil Land, “A Reply about the Problemat-
ic,” in Jesuit Spiritualities and the Struggle for Social Justice (Sep 1977).
9/5 James J. Gill, A Jesuit’s Account of Conscience—For Personal and Organiza-
tional Effectiveness (Nov 1977).
10/1 Alfred C. Kammer, “Burn-Out”: Contemporary Dilemma for the Jesuit So-
cial Activist; Richard L. Smith, Francisco Ornelas, and Noel Barré, Other
Viewpoints (Jan 1978).
10/2–10/3 William A. Barry, Madeline Birmingham, William J. Connolly, Robert J.
Fahey, Virginia Sullivan Finn, and James J. Gill, Affectivity and Sexuality:
Their Relationship to the Spiritual and Apostolic Life of Jesuits—Comments on
Three Experiences (Mar and May 1978).
10/4 Robert F. Harvanek, The Status of Obedience in the Society of Jesus; Philip
S. Land, Reactions to the Connolly-Land Letters on Faith and Justice: A Digest
(Sep 1978).
10/5 John W. Padberg, Personal Experience and the Spiritual Exercises: The Ex-
ample of Saint Ignatius (Nov 1978).
11/1 Thomas H. Clancy, Feeling Bad about Feeling Good (Jan 1979).
11/2 Dominic Maruca, Our Personal Witness as a Power toward Evangelizing
Our Culture (Mar 1979).
11/3 J. Leo Klein, American Jesuits and the Liturgy (May 1979).
11/4 Michael J. Buckley, Mission in Companionship: Of Jesuit Community and
Communion (Sep 1979).
11/5 Joseph F. Conwell, The Kamikaze Factor: Choosing Jesuit Ministries (Nov
1979).
12/1 Thomas H. Clancy, ed., Veteran Witnesses: Their Experience of Jesuit Life
[reflections of fifteen Jesuits] (Jan 1980).
 12/2 Peter J. Henriot, Joseph A. Appleyard, and J. Leo Klein, Living Together
in Mission: A Symposium on Small Apostolic Communities (Mar 1980).
12/3 Joseph F. Conwell, Living and Dying in the Society of Jesus or Endeavoring
to Imitate Angelic Purity (May 1980).
12/4–12/5 J. Peter Schineller, The Newer Approaches to Christology and Their Use in the
Spiritual Exercises (Sep and Nov 1980).
13/1 Simon Peter [pseudonym], Alcoholism and Jesuit Life: An Individual and
Community Illness (Jan 1981).
13/2 Paul Begheyn, A Bibliography on St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises: A Work-
ing Tool for American Students (Mar 1981).
13/3 George E. Ganss, Toward Understanding the Jesuit Brothers’ Vocation, Espe-
cially as Described in the Papal and Jesuit Documents (May 1981).
13/4 James W. Reites, St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jews (Sep 1981).
13/5 David J. O’Brien, The Jesuits and Catholic Higher Education (Nov 1981).
14/1 John W. O’Malley, The Jesuits, St. Ignatius, and the Counter Reformation:
Some Recent Studies and Their Implications for Today (Jan 1982).
14/2 Avery Dulles, Saint Ignatius and the Jesuit Theological Tradition (Mar 1982).
14/3 Paul V. Robb, Conversion as a Human Experience (May 1982).
14/4 Howard J. Gray, An Experience in Ignatian Government: Letters to a New
Rector (Sep 1982).
14/5 Francisco Ivern, The Future of Faith and Justice: A Critical Review of Decree
Four (Nov 1982).
15/1 John W. O’Malley, The Fourth Vow in Its Ignatian Context: A Historical
Study (Jan 1983).
15/2 Francis A. Sullivan and Robert L. Faricy, On Making the Spiritual Exercis-
es for the Renewal of Jesuit Charisms (Mar 1983).
15/3–15/4 John W. Padberg, The Society True to Itself: A Brief History of the 32nd Gen-
eral Congregation of the Society of Jesus (December 2, 1974–March 7, 1975)
(May and Sep 1983).
15/5–16/1 Joseph A. Tetlow, The Jesuits’ Mission in Higher Education: Perspectives &
Contexts (Nov 1983 and Jan 1984).
16/2 John W. O’Malley, To Travel to Any Part of the World: Jerónimo Nadal and
the Jesuit Vocation (Mar 1984).
16/3 Daniel J. O’Hanlon, Integration of Christian Practices: A Western Christian
Looks East (May 1984).
16/4 Gregory I. Carlson, “A Faith Lived Out of Doors”: Ongoing Formation of
Jesuits Today (Sep 1984).
16/5 E. Edward Kinerk, Eliciting Great Desires: Their place in the Spirituality of
the Society of Jesus (Nov 1984).
17/1 William C. Spohn, St. Paul on Apostolic Celibacy and the Body of Christ (Jan
1985).
17/2 Brian E. Daley, “In Ten Thousand Places”: Christian Universality and the
Jesuit Mission (Mar 1985).
17/3 Joseph A. Tetlow, A Dialogue on the Sexual Maturing of Celibates (May
1985).
17/4 William C. Spohn, John A. Coleman, Thomas E. Clarke, and Peter J.
Henriot, Jesuits and Peacemaking: A Symposium (Sep 1985).
17/5 E. Edward Kinerk, When Jesuits Pray: A Perspective on the Prayer of Apos-
tolic Persons (Nov 1985).
18/1 Donald L. Gelpi, The Converting Jesuit (Jan 1986).
18/2 Charles J. Beirne, Compass and Catalyst: An Essay on the Ministry of Ad-
ministration (Mar 1986).
18/3 Richard A. McCormick, Bishops as Teachers and Jesuits as Listeners (May
1986).
18/4 Brian O. McDermott, With Him, In Him: Graces of the Spiritual Exercises
(Sep 1986).
18/5 Joseph A. Tetlow, The Transformation of Jesuit Poverty (Nov 1986).
19/1 John M. Staudenmaier, United States Technology and Adult Commitment
(Jan 1987).
19/2 J. A. Appleyard, The Languages We Use: Talking about Religious Experience
(Mar 1987).
19/3 J. William Harmless and Donald L. Gelpi, Priesthood Today and the Jesuit
Vocation (May 1987).
19/4 Roger Haight, Foundational Issues in Jesuit Spirituality (Sep 1987).
19/5 Philip Endean, Who Do You Say Ignatius Is? Jesuit Fundamentalism and
Beyond (Nov 1987).
20/1 Dean Brackley, Downward Mobility: Social Implications of St Ignatius’s Two
Standards (Jan 1988).
20/2 John W. Padberg, How We Live Where We Live (Mar 1988).
20/3 James M. Hayes, John W. Padberg, and John M. Staudenmaier, Symbols,
Devotions, and Jesuits (May 1988).
20/4 Arthur F. McGovern, Jesuit Education and Jesuit Spirituality (Sep 1988).
20/5 William A. Barry, Jesuit Formation Today: An Invitation to Dialogue and
Involvement (Nov 1988).
21/1 George B. Wilson, Where Do We Belong? United States Jesuits and Their
Memberships (Jan 1989).
21/2 Adrien Demoustier, “The First Companions and the Poor”; Jean-Yves
Calvez, “The Preferential Option for the Poor: Where Does It Come
From For Us?”, in The Disturbing Subject: The Option for the Poor, trans.
Edward F. Sheridan; includes short reflections by Dan Weber, James K.
Voiss, Michael L. Cook, Jack Morris, James E. Royce, Phil Boroughs, J. D.
Whitney, Kevin Connell, and Chuck Schmitz (Mar 1989).
21/3 Paul A. Soukup, Jesuit Response to the Communication Revolution (May
1989).
21/4 Joseph A. Tetlow, The Fundamentum: Creation in the Principle and Founda-
tion (Sep 1989).
21/5 Past and Present Seminar Members, Jesuits Praying: Personal Reflections
(Nov 1989).
22/1 L. Patrick Carroll, The Spiritual Exercises in Everyday Life: A Practical Im-
plementation (Jan 1990).
22/2 Joseph A. Bracken, Jesuit Spirituality from a Process Prospective (Mar 1990).
22/3 John R. Shepherd with Paul A. Soukup, Fire for a Weekend: An Experience
of the Spiritual Exercises (May 1990).
22/4 Michael J. O’Sullivan, Trust Your Feelings, but Use Your Head: Discernment
and the Psychology of Decision Making (Sep 1990).
22/5 John A. Coleman, A Company of Critics: Jesuits and the Intellectual Life
(Nov 1990).
23/1 Frank J. Houdek, The Road Too Often Traveled: Formation—“Developing
the Apostolic Body of the Society” (Jan 1991).
23/2 James J. DiGiacomo, Ministering to the Young (Mar 1991).
23/3 Paul Begheyn and Kenneth Bogart, A Bibliography on St. Ignatius’s Spiri-
tual Exercises (May 1991).
23/4 Charles M. Shelton, Reflections on the Mental Health of Jesuits (Sep 1991).
23/5 David S. Toolan, “Nature Is a Heraclitean Fire”: Reflections on Cosmology in
an Ecological Age (Nov 1991).
24/1 Frank J. Houdek, Jesuit Prayer and Jesuit Ministry: Context and Possibilities
(Jan 1992).
24/2 Thomas H. Smolich, Testing the Water: Jesuits Accompanying the Poor (Mar
1992).
24/3 David J. Hassel, Jesus Christ Changing Yesterday, Today, and Forever (May
1992).
24/4 Charles M. Shelton, Toward Healthy Jesuit Community Living: Some Psy-
chological Reflections (Sep 1992).
24/5 Michael L. Cook, Jesus’ Parables and the Faith That Does Justice (Nov 1992).
25/1 Thomas H. Clancy, Saint Ignatius as Fund-Raiser (Jan 1993).
25/2 John R. Donahue, What Does the Lord Require?: A Bibliographical Essay on
the Bible and Social Justice (Mar 1993).
25/3 John W. Padberg, Ignatius, the Popes, and Realistic Reverence (May 1993).
25/4 Thomas H. Stahel, Toward General Congregation 34: A History “from Be-
low” of GC 31, GC 32, and GC 33 (Sep 1993).
25/5 John F. Baldovin, Christian Liturgy: An Annotated Bibliography for Jesuits
(Nov 1993).
26/1 Joseph A. Tetlow, The Most Postmodern Prayer: American Jesuit Identity
and the Examen of Conscience, 1920–1990 (Jan 1994).
26/2 Séamus Murphy, The Many Ways of Justice (Mar 1994).
26/3 John M. Staudenmaier, To Fall in Love with the World: Individualism and
Self-Transcendence in American Life (May 1994).
26/4 John B. Foley, Stepping into the River: Reflections on the Vows (Sep 1994).
26/5 Thomas M. Landy, Myths That Shape Us: Jesuit Beliefs about the Value of
Institutions (Nov 1994).
27/1 Brian E. Daley, “To Be More like Christ”: The Background and Implications
of “Three Kinds of Humility” (Jan 1995).
27/2 Edward W. Schmidt, Portraits and Landscapes: Scenes from Our Common
Life (Mar 1995).
27/3 Gerard L. Stockhausen, “I’d Love to, but I Don’t Have the Time”: Jesuits and
Leisure (May 1995).
27/4 George M. Anderson, Jesuits in Jail, Ignatius to the Present (Sep 1995).
27/5 Charles M. Shelton, Friendship in Jesuit Life: The Joys, the Struggles, the
Possibilities (Nov 1995).
28/1 Paul Begheyn, Bibliography on the History of the Jesuits: Publications in En-
glish, 1900–1993 (Jan 1996).
28/2 Joseph Veale, Saint Ignatius Speaks about “Ignatian Prayer” (Mar 1996).
28/3 Francis X. Clooney, In Ten Thousand Places, in Every Blade of Grass: Un-
eventful but True Confessions about Finding God in India, and Here Too (May
1996).
28/4 Carl F. Starkloff, As Different as Night and Day: Ignatius’s Presupposition
and Our Way of Conversing across Cultures (Sep 1996).
28/5 Edward F. Beckett, Listening to Our History: Inculturation and Jesuit Slave-
holding (Nov 1996).
29/1 Dennis Hamm, Preaching Biblical Justice: To Nurture the Faith That Does It
(Jan 1997).
29/2 John W. Padberg, The Three Forgotten Founders of the Society of Jesus: Pas-
chase Broët (1500–1652), Jean Codure (1508–1541), Claude Jay (1504–1552)
(Mar 1997).
29/3 Peter D. Byrne, Jesuits and Parish Ministry (May 1997).
29/4 James F. Keenan, Are Informationes Ethical? (Sep 1997).
29/5 Ernest C. Ferlita, The Road to Bethlehem—Is it Level or Winding?: The Use
of the Imagination in the Spiritual Exercises (Nov 1997).
30/1 Paul Shore, The “Vita Christi” of Ludolph of Saxony and Its Influence on the
Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (Jan 1998).
30/2 Carl F. Starkloff, “I’m No Theologian, but . . . (or so . . . )?”: The Role of The-
ology in the Life and Ministry of Jesuits (Mar 1998).
30/3 James S. Torrens, The Word That Clamors: Jesuit Poetry That Reflects the
Spiritual Exercises (May 1998).
30/4 Clement J. Petrik, Being Sent: A Personal Reflection on Jesuit Governance in
Changing Times (Sep 1998).
30/5 Charles J. Jackson, One and the Same Vocation: The Jesuit Brother, 1957 to
the Present—A Critical Analysis (Nov 1998).
31/1 Richard J. Clifford, Scripture and the Exercises: Moving from the Gospels and
Psalms to Exodus and Proverbs (Jan 1999).
31/2 Timothy E. Toohig, Physics Research: A Search for God (Mar 1999).
31/3 Gerald M. Fagin, Fidelity in the Church—Then and Now (May 1999).
31/4 J. Peter Schineller, The Pilgrim Journey of Ignatius: From Soldier to Laborer
in the Lord’s Vineyard and Its Implications for Apostolic Lay Spirituality (Sep
1999).
31/5 Lisa Fullam, Juana, SJ: The Past (and Future) Status of Women in the Society
of Jesus (Nov 1999).
32/1 John P. Langan, The Good of Obedience in a Culture of Autonomy (Jan 2000).
32/2 Richard A. Blake, Listen with Your Eyes: Interpreting Images in the Spiritual
Exercises (Mar 2000) [misnumbered on the front cover as “31/2.”].
32/3 Charles M. Shelton, When a Jesuit Counsels Others: Some Practical Guide-
lines (May 2000).
32/4 William A. Barry, Past, Present, and Future: A Jubilarian’s Reflections on
Jesuit Spirituality (Sep 2000).
32/5 Carl F. Starkloff, Pilgrimage Re-envisioned: Mission and Culture in the Last
Five General Congregations (Nov 2000).
33/1 Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, “The Service of Faith and the Promotion of Jus-
tice in American Jesuit Higher Education,” in Faith, Justice, and American
Jesuit Higher Education: Readings from the Formula of the Institute, the Con-
stitutions, the Complementary Norms, GC 32, Pedro Arrupe, and GC 34; and
an address by Peter-Hans Kolvenbach (Jan 2001).
33/2 James F. Keenan, Unexpected Consequences: A Jesuit and Puritan Book, Rob-
ert Persons’s Christian Directory, and Its Relevance for Jesuit Spirituality To-
day (Mar 2001).
33/3 Pedro Arrupe, The Trinitarian Inspiration of the Ignatian Charism (May
2001).
33/4 Joseph Veale, Saint Ignatius Asks, “Are You Sure You Know Who I Am?”
(Sep 2001).
33/5 William A. Barry and James F. Keenan, eds., How Multicultural Are We?
Six Stories, by Claudio M. Burgaleta, Gregory C. Chisholm, Eduardo C. Fer-
nandez, Gerdenio M. Manuel, J-Glenn Murray, and Hung T. Pham (Nov
2001).
34/1 Richard A. Blake, City of the Living God: The Urban Roots of the Spiritual
Exercises (Jan 2002).
34/2 Francis X. Clooney, A Charism for Dialogue: Advice from the Early Jesuit
Missionaries in Our World of Religious Pluralism (Mar 2002).
34/3 William Rehg, Christian Mindfulness: A Path to Finding God in All Things
(May 2002).
34/4 Dean Brackley, Expanding the Shrunken Soul: False Humility, Ressentiment,
and Magnanimity (Sep 2002).
34/5 Robert Bireley, The Jesuits and Politics in Time of War: A Self-Appraisal
(Nov 2002).
35/1 William A. Barry, Jesuit Spirituality for the Whole of Life (Jan 2003).
35/2 V. Rev. John Baptist Janssens, Instruction and Ordinance Concerning the
Training of Ours in the Sacred Liturgy, with introduction by Lawrence J.
Madden (Mar 2003).
35/3 Douglas Marcouiller, Archbishop with an Attitude: Oscar Romero’s Sentir
con la Iglesia (May 2003).
35/4 Ronald Modras, A Jesuit in the Crucible: Friedrich Spee and the Witchcraft
Hysteria in Seventeenth-Century Germany (Sep 2003).
35/5 Thomas M. Lucas, Virtual Vessels, Mystical Signs: Contemplating Mary’s
Images in the Jesuit Tradition (Nov 2003).
36/1 Thomas P. Rausch, Christian Life Communities for Jesuit University Stu-
dents? (Spring 2004).
36/2 James Bernauer, The Holocaust and the Search for Forgiveness: An Invitation
to the Society of Jesus? (Summer 2004).
36/3 David E. Nantais, “Whatever!” Is Not Ignatian Indifference: Jesuits and the
Ministry to Young Adults (Fall 2004).
36/4 János Lukács, The Incarnational Dynamic of the Constitutions (Winter
2004).
37/1 Dennis C. Smolarski, Jesuits on the Moon: Seeking God in All Things . . .
Even Mathematics! (Spring 2005).
37/2 Peter McDonough, Clenched Fist or Open Hands? Five Jesuit Perspectives on
Pluralism (Summer 2005).
37/3 James S. Torrens, Tuskegee Years: What Father Arrupe Got Me Into (Fall
2005).
37/4 Kevin O’Brien, Consolation in Action: The Jesuit Refugee Service and the
Ministry of Accompaniment (Winter 2005).
38/1 Peter Schineller, In Their Own Words: Ignatius, Xavier, Favre and Our Way
of Proceeding (Spring 2006).
38/2 Charles J. Jackson, Something That Happened to Me at Manresa: The Mysti-
cal Origin of the Ignatian Charism (Summer 2006).
38/3 William Reiser, Locating the Grace of the Fourth Week: A Theological Inquiry
(Fall 2006).
38/4 John W. O’Malley, Five Missions of the Jesuit Charism: Content and Method
(Winter 2006).
39/1 Gerald L. McKevitt, Italian Jesuits in Maryland: A Clash of Theological Cul-
tures (Spring 2007).
39/2 Patrick M. Kelly, Loved into Freedom and Service: Lay Experiences of the
Exercises in Daily Life (Summer 2007).
39/3 T. Frank Kennedy, Music and the Jesuit Mission in the New World (Autumn
2007).
39/4 William E. Creed, Jesuits and the Homeless: Companions on Life’s Journey
(Winter 2007).
40/1 Luce Giard, The Jesuit College: A Center for Knowledge, Art and Faith 1548–
1773 (Spring 2008).
40/2 Wilkie Au, Ignatian Service: Gratitude and Love in Action (Summer 2008).
40/3 Robert J. Kaslyn, The Jesuit Ministry of Publishing: Overview of Guidelines
and Praxis (Autumn 2008).
40/4 William Rehg, The Value and Viability of the Jesuit Brothers’ Vocation: An
American Perspective (Winter 2008).
41/1 Markus Friedrich, Governance in the Society of Jesus, 1540–1773: Its Meth-
ods, Critics, and Legacy Today (Spring 2009).
41/2 Gerdenio Sonny Manuel, Living Chastity: Psychosexual Well-Being in Jesu-
it Life (Summer 2009).
41/3 Jeremy Clarke, Our Lady of China: Marian Devotion and the Jesuits (Au-
tumn 2009).
41/4 Francis X. Hezel, A Life at the Edge of the World (Winter 2009).
42/1 Michael C. McCarthy, Thomas Massaro, Thomas Worcester, and Mi-
chael A. Zampelli, Four Stories of the Kolvenbach Generation (Spring 2010).
42/2 Roger Haight, Expanding the Spiritual Exercises (Summer 2010).
42/3 Thomas M. Cohen, Jesuits and New Christians: The Contested Legacy of St.
Ignatius (Autumn 2010).
42/4 R. Bentley Anderson, Numa J. Rousseve Jr.: Creole, Catholic, and Jesuit
(Winter 2010).
43/1 Milton Walsh, “To Always Be Thinking Somehow about Jesus”: The Prologue
of Ludolph’s Vita Christi (Spring 2011).
43/2 Michael C. McCarthy, “Let Me Love More Passionately”: Religious Celibacy
in a Secular Age (Summer 2011).
43/3 Gerald L. McKevitt, The Gifts of Aging: Jesuit Elders in Their Own Words
(Autumn 2011).
43/4 John Gavin, “True Charity Begins Where Justice Ends”: The Life and Teach-
ings of St. Alberto Hurtado (Winter 2011).
44/1 Michael D. Barber, Desolation and the Struggle for Justice (Spring 2012).
44/2 Barton T. Geger, The First First Companions: The Continuing Impact of the
Men Who Left Ignatius (Summer 2012).
44/3 Emanuele Colombo, “Even among Turks”: Tirso González de Santalla
(1624–1705) and Islam (Autumn 2012).
44/4 Thomas D. Stegman, “Run That You May Obtain the Prize”: Using St. Paul
as a Resource for the Spiritual Exercises (Winter 2012).
45/1 Hilmar M. Pabel, Fear and Consolation: Peter Canisius and the Spirituality of
Dying and Death (Spring 2013).
45/2 Robert E. Scully, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus: A Perfect Storm in
the Age of the “Enlightenment” (Summer 2013).
45/3 Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Writings on Jesuit Spirituality I, trans. Philip En-
dean (Autumn 2013).
45/4 Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Writings on Jesuit Spirituality II, trans. Philip En-
dean (Winter 2013).
46/1 Anthony J. Kuzniewski, “Our American Champions”: The First American
Generation of American Jesuit Leaders after the Restoration of the Society
(Spring 2014).
46/2 Hung T. Pham, Composing a Sacred Space: A Lesson from the Cathechismus
of Alexandre de Rhodes (Summer 2014).
46/3 Barton T. Geger, Hidden Theology in the “Autobiography” of St. Ignatius
(Autumn 2014).
46/4 Nicholas Austin, Mind and Heart: Towards an Ignatian Spirituality of Study
(Winter 2014).
47/1 John W. O’Malley, Jesuit Schools and the Humanities Yesterday and Today
(Spring 2015).
47/2 Paul [L.] Mariani, The Mystery and the Majesty of It: Jesuit Spirituality in the
Poetry of Gerald Manley Hopkins (Summer 2015).
47/3 Mark Lewis, Unfinished Business: The Spiritual Coadjutor in the Society of
Jesus Today (Autumn 2015).
47/4 Francis X. Hezel, Let the Spirit Speak: Learning to Pray (Winter 2015).
48/1 Joseph A. Tetlow, The Preached Weekend Retreat: A Relic or a Future?
(Spring 2016).
48/2 Hung T. Pham and Eduardo C. Fernández, Pilgrims in Community at the
Frontiers: A Contemplation on Jesuit Mission Today (Summer 2016).
48/3 E. Edward Kinerk, Personal Encounters with Jesus Christ (Autumn 2016).
48/4 Barton T. Geger, Bending the Knee to Baal? St. Ignatius on Jesuit Vocation
Promotion (Winter 2016).
49/1 William C. Woody, “So We Are Ambassadors for Christ”: The Jesuit Minis-
try of Reconciliation (Spring 2017).
49/2 Henry J. Shea, The Beloved Disciple and the Spiritual Exercises (Summer
2017).
49/3 Members of General Congregation 36, The Moment of GC 36 for Its Mem-
bers (Autumn 2017).
49/4 Richard J. Baumann, Our Jesuit Constitutions: Cooperation as Union (Win-
ter 2017).
50/1 Barton T. Geger, Ten Things That St. Ignatius Never Said or Did (Spring
2018).
50/2 Ted Penton, Spiritual Care for the Poor: An Ignatian Response to Pope Fran-
cis’s Challenge (Summer 2018).
50/3 William McCormick, “A Continual Sacrifice to the Glory of God”: Ignatian
Magnanimity as Cooperation with the Divine (Autumn 2018).
50/4 Brian O. McDermott, Spiritual Consolation and Its Role in the Second Time
of Elction (Winter 2018).
51/1 James J. Conn, Jesuits and Eucharistic Concelebration; John F. Baldovin,
Jesuits, the Ministerial Priesthood, and Eucharistic Concelebration (Spring
2019).
 Subscription Information Effective January 2018
All subscriptions are handled by the business office of STUDIES IN THE SPIRITUALITY OF
JESUITS. Please do not contact the office of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States.

The contact information for the business office is as follows:

Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits Tel: 314-781-6505

Modern Litho Fax: 314-781-0551
5111 Southwest Avenue Contact: Mark McCabe
St. Louis, MO 63110 Admin Asst. Georgette Grman

The Jesuit Conference provides a free annual subscription to all U.S. and Canadian Je-
suits. All other subscribers should place orders by contacting the business office or by
sending an email to mmccabe@modernlitho.com.

U.S. and Canadian Jesuits should NOT contact the business office about changes of address;
the Jesuit Conference regularly updates the business office on these changes. If U.S. Jesuits
are not receiving issues, they should contact their respective provinces to ensure that the
latter have their correct addresses. However, all paid subscribers should notify the business
office directly of address changes or send an email to mmccabe@modernlitho.com.

Subscription Fees

Within the U.S. One year = $22. Two years = $40.

Within Canada and Mexico. One year = $30. Two years = $52.
All Other Locations. One year = $34. Two years = $60.

Makes checks payable to: Jesuit Conference – Seminar on Jesuit Spirituality.

Payments required at time of ordering, and must be in U.S. currency only.
Annual subscriptions run from Jan. 1 to Jan 1. All renewals are needed by Jan. 15.

Back Issues

A complete archive of previous issues is accessible on-line through the Boston College Library:
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jesuit

More recent issues are also available through the website of the Jesuit Conference:
http://jesuit.org/publications?C=journals&#publications

Hard copies of some back issues are available. Contact the general editor at
JCUStudies@jesuits.org. Copies are $6.00 each plus postage.

“Letters to the Editor,” and all other questions or comments regarding the content of
STUDIES or the submission of essays, should be sent to the general editor at:

Fr. Barton Geger, SJ, General Editor Office: 617-552-9097

Institute of Advanced Jesuit Studies Fax: 617-552-0811
140 Commonwealth Avenue
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 E-mail: JCUStudies@jesuits.org
 NON-PROFIT
Jesuit Conference, Inc. U.S. POSTAGE
1016 16th St. NW Suite 400 PAID
MODERN LITHO
Washington, DC 20036-5727