"The question of concelebration points (I think) to another issue for Traditionalists. There is, it seems to me, a real danger that in our zeal to resume our rightful place in the Church’s life & (as it were) prove ourselves to be Good Modern Catholics we may end up surrendering the very things we have fought for for so long. Acquiescing to concelebration is one aspect of this. Others one sometimes sees might include the zeal for the introduction of vernacular readings or vernacular hymnody at Mass or the adoption of Modernistic styles of Vestments & vesture....."
I have to admit on my few experiences of it, I don't much like the low mass with hymns. I don't mind the idea of an entrance and hymn and recessional so much, but Fr Finigan over at the Hermaneutic of Continuity has recently written a nice post on why they are a bad way to go in the novus ordo context, and exactly the same rationale applies to the TLM.
But the bad news is that this is not a post-Vatican II innovation but an invention of the Jesuits post-Trent to counter the perceived attractiveness of Protestant services. It hasn't been a large part of the Australian or American tradition (though you can experience it at Lewisham) due to the Irish influence (the heritage of super-silent hedge masses lest one get caught), but rather comes to us via continental immigrants.
I do agree that we should resist having the readings done in the vernacular instead of Latin.
I even hate the practice of reading them out all over again in English - I find it insulting as it implies we can't read our missals (or propers sheet), or haven't done our proper preparation!
But again, there is a bit of custom behind, and the battle is already well and truly lost in many places such as France.
I have to admit I personally hate concelebration and for a long time refused to receive at concelebrated masses in protest, on the rare occasion I ended up at one (usually inadvertently). Although I've modified my position in recent years, I still think it is a practice that should be (strongly) discouraged as, aside from the archeologism involved, we need as many masses said as possible, particularly given the declining number of priests! It is certainly not something that should be introduced into the TLM.
All the same, if a trad priest who is free to do so, for whatever reasons, really wants to or feels he has to join in a diocesan or some special event concelebration, I really don't see that this is the end of the world. I'd prefer him to take a stand, and attend in choir, however uncomfortable that might feel. Trad priests, though, already have to put up with a lot from their peers (and us!), and so I can certainly understand if they just don't need one more piece of stress in their lives!
I'm not even going to attempt to get into the whole Roman vs Gothic thing. I'd suggest however a careful read of Michael Sternbeck's discussion of the subject, and debates on the New Liturgical Movement. Suffice it to say that I don't think this one is clear cut either...
- the right to kneel to receive on the tongue, except for those unable to for health reasons;
- no female servers;
- no (non-clerical) extraordinary ministers or lectors (and yes that does include occasions like the Easter Vigil and Tenebrae in my book, I hate the mangling of the readings that almost invariably occurs on these occasions!);
- no communion under both kinds (except in exceptional circumstances where, for example, the Precious Blood might be offered instead of the host such as gluten or wheat allergies);
- the right to use the full Easter Vigil pre-Pius XII;
- no masses without server or at least a congregation member to say the responses;
- as many sung and Solemn masses as possible!
Other views or suggestions?