Since when do we call priests presiders?

[Rosalinda]

Our new missalette “Living with Christ” is using the term “the presider prays quietly” instead of simply stating “the priest”. Last night my father confronted the priest after the Eucharistic Liturgy because he was so upset and our parish priest had no problem calling himself a “presider”. I feel my father’s instincts are correct; there is a hidden agenda at work here.

The publisher, Novalis, is a partnership between Saint Paul University and Bayard Presse Canada. We have just emailed one of the editors with our complaint; however I wanted some feedback in this forum before contacting our local bishop and all the other administrative staff of Novalis. What would you say? Can anyone put their finger on exactly what is the problem of referring to our priests as mere “presiders”?

 

[puzzleannie]

this resource uses the NRSV translation of the lectionary approved for use in Canada, and so is not very helpful for US Catholics who wish to follow and meditate with the Sunday readings. Many times its articles and devotional commentaries are also problematic and misrepresent Church teaching. I used if for years before I found Magnificat, but I cannot recommend it at all. Its attraction is its size, and that it is less expensive than Magnificat, which is a far better resource. that being said, presiders is legitimate translation of presbyter, but your father’s instincts are right, it is usually used by those who have an agenda, generally revolving around the ordination of women.

Rosalinda:

Our new missalette “Living with Christ” is using the term “the presider prays quietly” instead of simply stating “the priest”. "?

 

[Joysong]

You are unduly upset, I believe, for the word presider can not only mean priest, but also bishop, monsignor, archbishop, cardinal. To state it more simply, a common definition was no doubt adopted rather than use the multiple possibilities.

 

[BillyT92679]

Joysong:

You are unduly upset, I believe, for the word presider can not only mean priest, but also bishop, monsignor, archbishop, cardinal. To state it more simply, a common definition was no doubt adopted rather than use the multiple possibilities.

I don’t think the original poster is. “Presider” gives the connotation that the Priest merely oversees the Mass, as if it were a Lions Club or PTA meeting. That is a lessening of the distinct charism of Holy Orders. A more appropriate term would be Celebrant. The Priest celebrates the Sacred Mysteries as a remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary, to install Sacramental grace, and to celebrate the sacred banquet.

Presider is a word that modernists use to minimize the sacrosanct nature of Holy Mass.

 

[Agricola]

puzzleannie:

this resource uses the NRSV translation of the lectionary approved for use in Canada, and so is not very helpful for US Catholics who wish to follow and meditate with the Sunday readings

Unfortunately, the lectionary that is in use in Canada is not approved either. It was rejected by the Holy See, but not until after the old lectionaries were disposed of. The Holy See is allowing the CCCB (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) to use the NRSV based lectionary until a new lectionary is produced. Hopefully a new translation will be ready soon and the “presider” fad will die out.

It does bring up an interesting problem though, doesn’t it? Why does it seem like there is a movement to change or abolish the priestly character? This does not stem from Vatican II innovation at all. The participation of the laity in the life of the parish does not negate the character of the priest as the representative of Christ and the shepherd of the congregation… it depends upon it.

The term “presider” has bothered me since I first heard it used. It seems to imply that the priest is just a regular member of the congregation, elected to moderate the interaction between the other members… oh yes, and possibly between them and God. The fact of the matter is that the priest has a much more important role than moderation. He, acting in persona Christi, consecrates the host, offers Christ’s life to the Father in reparation for our sins, and administers the Eucharist and the other sacraments. No matter how educated liturgists consider themselves, they can not fulfill the duties of the priest, nor act with his authority.

There is a need, I believe, for all Catholics to be educated about the character of the priesthood, their relationship to the priest in the liturgy and in parish life, and the reality of the liturgy. Much error results from ignorance in these areas.

Pray for our priests, our bishops conferences, and the Church Magisterium as a whole, that they may proclaim God’s Word fully with orthodoxy, courage, and forthrightness.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[JKirkLVNV]

BillyT92679:

I don’t think the original poster is. “Presider” gives the connotation that the Priest merely oversees the Mass, as if it were a Lions Club or PTA meeting. That is a lessening of the distinct charism of Holy Orders. A more appropriate term would be Celebrant. The Priest celebrates the Sacred Mysteries as a remembrance of the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary, to install Sacramental grace, and to celebrate the sacred banquet.

Presider is a word that modernists use to minimize the sacrosanct nature of Holy Mass.

I think the word is actually used in Vatican documents, as in “presider’s chair,” etc., though I couldn’t pull them up. I think the word celebrant is, as well. I don’t think anyone should be upset about the agenda of the person using the word “presider” until they find out what that agenda is. The “presider” at a Catholic Mass is always a priest and should be understood as such.

 

[fix]

There is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the “presider,” instead of the “celebrant” or the “priest.” Now it’s true, he is a presider. But that’s an abstraction; and I think there’s an agenda behind the abstraction. You see, all the Sacraments need someone who presides: at Confirmation, at the Eucharist, at Confession — and at Baptism. And who can preside at Baptism? The priest is the ordinary minister and presider, but under certain unusual circumstances a layman — man or woman — and even a non-Catholic can preside at Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us in the habit of thinking of the priest as a presider primarily because that’s an abstract term, which could include women.

What does the Pope say about the matter? “The priest, therefore, is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.” You see, only the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the name of the Bridegroom (Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in the nuptial act, which is the Mass

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html

 

[thistle]

Presider is not a new word in use. Below is the third paragraph in a letter from St Ambrose in 396 AD to Christians at Vercellae. He refers to Christ himself as the Presider over the ordination.

QUOTE

For if according to the Lord’s saying, that which two shall have agreed upon on earth concerning anything which they shall ask, shall be done for them, as He says, by My Father, Who is in heaven, for: "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them, how much less, where the full congregation is gathered in the Name of the Lord. Where the demand of all is unanimous, ought we to doubt that the Lord Jesus is there as the Author of that desire, and the Hearer of the petition, the Presider over the ordination, and the Giver of the grace?

UNQUOTE

 

[AltarMan]

“Presider” = prottie-speak.

 

[buffalo]

The Pope has recently said it should not be used. It was within the last month or so.

I will look for the original text.

Meanwhile from the Bishops site:

The terminology given in the liturgical books is to be followed. Note that the word “presider” is not to be used as it is not used in the Sacramentary.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

buffalo:

The Pope has recently said it should not be used. It was within the last month or so.

The best information, then! This is what we should go with…though I still don’t think we should look for things to upset ourselves over.

 

[buffalo]

I found it!

Here in the Mass of Vatican II

Pope John Paul II Addresses the Bishops
This is why it’s so important that liturgical law be respected: an objective act is taking place. “The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character,” says the Holy Father.

Then he talks about “The core of the mystery of Christian worship.” Is the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are the people of God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding? Not according to the Pope, who says, “The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen Christ who sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign.” The sacrifice of Christ, sanctification. That’s what the Pope says. Remember, he’s looking now to lead the Church in the new millennium liturgically. He continues: “It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.”

There is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the “presider,” instead of the “celebrant” or the “priest.” Now it’s true, he is a presider. But that’s an abstraction; and I think there’s an agenda behind the abstraction. You see, all the Sacraments need someone who presides: at Confirmation, at the Eucharist, at Confession — and at Baptism. And who can preside at Baptism? The priest is the ordinary minister and presider, but under certain unusual circumstances a layman — man or woman — and even a non-Catholic can preside at Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us in the habit of thinking of the priest as a presider primarily because that’s an abstract term, which could include women.

What does the Pope say about the matter? “The priest, therefore, is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.” You see, only the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the name of the Bridegroom (Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in the nuptial act, which is the Mass.

 

[Chatter163]

You are unduly upset, I believe, for the word presider can not only mean priest, but also bishop, monsignor, archbishop, cardinal. To state it more simply, a common definition was no doubt adopted rather than use the multiple possibilities.

There was already a word for that, celebrant, which has been used for centuries. It is the word that is used in the missal. Although the priest is indeed a presider, he is far more than that. To subsitute ecclesiastical and liturgical terms with secular, far more generic, ones is surely evidence of an agenda.:tsktsk:

 

[AltarMan]

Chatter163:

There was already a word for that, celebrant, which has been used for centuries. It is the word that is used in the missal. Although the priest is indeed a presider, he is far more than that. To subsitute ecclesiastical and liturgical terms with secular, far more generic, ones is surely evidence of an agenda.:tsktsk:

But as the “church” we are all “celebrants” of the “liturgy”

 

[palmas85]

If I could weigh in with my opinion, just an opinion mind you. It has always seemed to me to be an attempt to draw the people and the priest into a closer relationship and to more or less re define and lessen his role in the Mass while at the same time elevating and re-defining the role of the laity… In order to understand that you would need to know the way the Mass was celebrated in the Traditional Mass and compare it to the manner of the Mass now. There are distinct differences with more equality and opportunities given to the Laity in the current mass… Since in the current system we are all called in some fashion to the Priesthood, there needed to be some way to differentiate between the two groups, clergy and laity, thus the terms Presider and Presbytier are now appled to the Priest.

The Mass now has a much more communal aspect to it than it did before . The roles of the ordained Priesthood and the Laity were much more rigidly defined as were the differences between the two.

And yes, I am aware that in the primitive church the term presbitier was often used although I am unsure as to the term presider…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

And yes, I am aware that in the primitive church the term presbitier was often used although I am unsure as to the term presider…

I don’t think it was, though I’ve heard the term “president” was used.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Chatter,

To subsitute ecclesiastical and liturgical terms with secular, far more generic, ones is surely evidence of an agenda.:tsktsk:

… and to get all upset over the use of a word, without realizing the intent of the person who printed it, is to** judge rather rashly**.
If anyone makes a mistake in using a correct term, and I myself slip with this on occasion, does it imply a hidden agenda?" worthy of a “Tsk” smilie?

Dear JKirk,

I think the word is actually used in Vatican documents, as in “presider’s chair,” etc., though I couldn’t pull them up. I think the word celebrant is, as well. I don’t think anyone should be upset about the agenda of the person using the word “presider” until they find out what that agenda is.

You can find both used together in the Instruction on the Liturgy, Section III, #92:

The seat for the celebrant and ministers, according to the structure of individual churches, shall be so placed that it may be easily seen by the faithful and that the celebrant may truly appear to preside over the entire community of the faithful.

My goodness, what nits will people pick next?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Joysong:

Dear Chatter,

… and to get all upset over the use of a word, without realizing the intent of the person who printed it, is to** judge rather rashly**.
If anyone makes a mistake in using a correct term, and I myself slip with this on occasion, does it imply a hidden agenda?" worthy of a “Tsk” smilie?

Dear JKirk,

You can find both used together in the Instruction on the Liturgy, Section III, #92:

The seat for the celebrant and ministers, according to the structure of individual churches, shall be so placed that it may be easily seen by the faithful and that the celebrant may truly appear to preside over the entire community of the faithful.

My goodness, what nits will people pick next?

That’s the one! It’s about the chair! Well, in fairness, to me it does sound a little “Robert’s Rules of Order” ish, but I DO try not to look for things to upset myself over. I’ve always said priest, I don’t know anyone who refers to it as presider, it just doesn’t come up that much.

We sometimes seem like those baboons at the zoo, picking each other over! Right out of a Gary Larson cartoon.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t think it was, though I’ve heard the term “president” was used.

I heard that too, Kirk, but I wasn’t sure in what context they used it. I wasn’t sure if it was used for Priests, Bisops or whatever.

 

[Rosalinda]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I found an answer on EWTN’s website in the “Ask the Expert” forum date 02-01-2005 by Colin Donovan.

The term presider dates to the second century (St. Justin Martyr) and is not of itself objectionable. It refers to the main celebrant, as opposed to the priests in general, of which there may be several concelebrating a particular Mass. The liturgical documents speak frequently of the one who presides, though “presider” is not itself used. However, it is simply a nominative form. Unless some agenda seems to be at work, I would not get hung up on the use of this term.

The key word here is “agenda”. It is fundamentally a question of trust. Wouldn’t you be just a little wary of a priest who thinks it’s O.K. to give his Christmas sermons dressed up in a mouse costume from head to toe? You bet there is nitpicking going on; our sanctuary has been overrun by vermin; little wonder the faithful are left scratching their heads.:bigyikes: