On Zenit, His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Cañizares writing on Concelebrated Masses,says daily concelebrations of priests only, ... do[es] not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition.
He accepts the antiquity in the West of Concelebration but only with the bishop or his delegate.
Here is the whole paragraph:
In this sense, it is important to look, however briefly, into the history of concelebration. The historical panorama that Msgr. Derville offers us, even if it is —as he modestly points out— only a brief summary, is sufficient to let us glimpse areas of obscurity, that show the absence of clear data on Eucharistic celebration in the earliest times of the Church. At the same time, and without falling into a ingenuous “archaeologism”, it does provide us with enough information to be able to state that concelebration, in the genuine tradition of the Church, whether eastern or western, is an extraordinary, solemn and public rite, normally presided over by the Bishop or his delegate, surrounded by his presbyterium and by the entire community of the faithful. But the daily concelebrations of priests only, which are practised “privately”, so to speak, in the eastern Churches instead of Masses celebrated individually or “more privato”, do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition.Thanks Clever Boy
I agree concelebration needs a bishop, otherwise it gives the impression the Church is a headless; a sort of presbyterial democracy. I never know who should preside when it is just priests, do you do "eaney meany miny mo" or should it always be the Parish Priest, or the oldest priest, or longest ordained, or what?