Since when do we call priests presiders?

[Chatter163]

Same thing with the use of the term “presider.” It’s perfectly possible to critique the worth of the word “presider,” as Pope John Paul II did, without rash judging anyone who uses the term, and without being hung up on it.

And part of what occasioned my remarks was a familiarity with many of the distributed works of the publisher, Novalis, a partnership between Saint Paul University and Bayard Presse Canada, as well as some of the works of individuals associated with them. Even a casual perusal of their resources will indicate that much is amiss, when it comes to their extrapolations of the sacred liturgy. It was not criticism in a vaccuum.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think is wrong to use the term presider instead of priest in a Mass sheet.

According to the Code of Canon Law, Canon 826.2 “For the reprinting in whole or in part of liturgical books as well as their vernacular translation, the ordinary of the place in which they are published must attest that they correspond with the approved edition.” (Code of Canon Law-Latin English Edition, Canon Law Society of America, 1995, ISBN 0-943616-20-4, page 309).

I have not seen the Living With Christ missalette. But by calling it a “missalette” at livingwithchrist.us/whatis.asp I think is fair to assume that it is intended to reprint part of the Roman Missal.

The approved translation of the Roman Missal, at least in the USA (and I am fairly sure in Canada) has, for example:

“Then the priest joins his hands and says inaudibly:”

So it would be wrong for a bishop to attest that priest=presider and inaudibly=quietly.

Even if people are of the opinion that “celebrant” is a better word because he may be a bishop, they should accept that this is not the currently approved translation of the liturgical book.

I think a good case could be made for using the term “presider” if the leaflet were not to be used for Mass, but for a Word/Communion service or a “Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest”. A lay person would be presiding.

But the Vatican Instruction of 2004, Redemptionis Sacramentum, seems to even disapprove of using the term this way:

“165. … It will be preferable, moreover, when both a Priest and a Deacon are absent, that the various parts be distributed among several faithful rather than having a single lay member of the faithful direct the whole celebration alone. Nor is it ever appropriate to refer to any member of the lay faithful as “presiding” over the celebration.”

Despite this the approved translation for the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours in the USA includes: “258. In the absence of a priest or deacon, the one who presides at the office is only one among equals and does not enter the sanctuary or greet and bless the people.”

It is made clear that the term “presider” is different from “celebrant” in the Ceremonial of Bishops (i.e. Ceremoniale Episcoporum, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1995, ISBN 88-209-4217-8). Here Part II, Chapter III describes what a bishop should do at a Mass when he presides but not as celebrant (“DE MISSA CUI EPISCOPUS PRAESIDET QUIN EUCHARISTIAM CELEBRET”).

 

[Rosalinda]

Joysong, Thank you for your feedback. Yes, I do agree with you and share your dismay when people misjudge others rashly; it is especially disconcerting when it involves our clergy. Likewise, your point about contacting the bishop is one we are in agreement on too; a priest with a predilection for donning mouse costumes to deliver his homily during the Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist would supersede my list of urgent reasons to contact the bishop over and above the use of the word “prelate” which remains an archaic term familiar to only a privileged few. Unfortunately, the parishioners have allowed this anomaly to become an annual tradition.

In answer to your questions: yes, it is the pastor; yes, this takes place in church; yes, he exits the sanctuary after the gospel reading and returns dressed like a mouse to tell an inane Christmas story totally devoid of inspiration or instruction for either children or adults. Afterwards, he exits once again before returning dressed in priestly vestments. This act is staged for the midnight Mass and all subsequent celebrations of The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist on Christmas Day.
As if this performance doesn’t suffice to distract the congregation the life-size crucifix, suspended forty feet above the sacrificial altar is draped with a white sheet adorned with a star.

Obviously, this priest has an identity problem as he has taken painstaking efforts to remove all symbols which would remind him he is there to offer sacrifice. All the more reason not to call them prelates.

By the way, I now attend an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and our missals clealy state: Priest, Deacon, choir. When the bishop came to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with us we had no problem following the prayers because it is understood a bishop, even the Pope himself is first and foremost a priest.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Rosalinda,

In answer to your questions: yes, it is the pastor; yes, this takes place in church; yes, he exits the sanctuary after the gospel reading and returns dressed like a mouse to tell an inane Christmas story totally devoid of inspiration or instruction for either children or adults. Afterwards, he exits once again before returning dressed in priestly vestments. This act is staged for the midnight Mass and all subsequent celebrations of The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist on Christmas Day.

:bigyikes:

While I thank you for responding to my question about this, I’m sure I don’t like the reality of the answer. OMG!

Carole

 

[BillyT92679]

otm:

it might be better if you actually do some research as to what Modernism is really all about, since it was a philosophy of the late 19th century, spilling over into the early 20th century. we have gone through any number of “isms” since then.

Too many people use the term Modernism to mean anything they don’t like, particularly if they feel it is liberal. That is an abuse of the term Modernism.

I’ve done plenty of research, please refrain from making petty attacks.

 

[Ghosty]

The reason the term presider is used is because many priests can be a part of the Mass, and the person presiding may be a bishop. It’s important for such things as Masses that are concelebrated by a number of priests, because only one of the priests would be the one directing the Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Chatter163]

The reason the term presider is used is because many priests can be a part of the Mass, and the person presiding may be a bishop. It’s important for such things as Masses that are concelebrated by a number of priests, because only one of the priests would be the one directing the Liturgy.

Sorry, but that would not be a legitimate reason to use the term. All of the Church’s liturgical documents regarding concelebrated Masses use the terms celebrant and concelebrants to distinguish these roles.

The term presider frequently appears in missalettes and other publications that are distributed by publishing houses. The term is most commonly used outside the context of concelebrated Masses, when speaking of a Mass celebrated by a single priest.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

The reason the term presider is used is because many priests can be a part of the Mass, and the person presiding may be a bishop. It’s important for such things as Masses that are concelebrated by a number of priests, because only one of the priests would be the one directing the Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

Well then why does our lector say before Mass “the presider will be Father xxxx” and no other Priests or Deacons are present?

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Well then why does our lector say before Mass “the presider will be Father xxxx” and no other Priests or Deacons are present?

Prior the entrance hymn when the head of the choir reminds people to turn off their cell phones, announce the feast day, and tell us the opening hymn, they also will announce who is the “celebrant”, who are the altar servers, which deacon is participating, and which family is bringing up the gifts to the altar (bread/wine and the offeratory collection) on behalf of the congregation.

Is this really a subject causing consternation whether the Priest is called celebrant or presider? IMHO, it is probably most proper to say celebrant when there is one Priest and concelebrant when there is more than one but I don’t think this is really a matter to get tied up in knots over. It is my understanding that presider is a universal term that could be applied to Bishop, Priest, Deacon or lay person (the latter two when it is a service in the absence of a Priest).

 

[Rosalinda]

Orionhunter:
No one is tied up in knots; I am very happy we have a forum to bounce ideas off one another and to receive background and information from so many contributors. As I once heard Fr. Corapi say the priesthood and the Eucharist are both under attack. Therefore what we call priests defines who they are and our attitudes and ideas towards them are shaped by our words. While everyone who uses the title “presider” may not necessarily have an agenda publishers and editors are quite cognizant about the power of words. In all likelihood, they do have reasons for choosing presider over celebrant or priest.

As an artist, I draw this analogy from my background. In painting a canvas with a million strokes of color a palette can be selected from bold, primary colors; rich, earth tones or pretty, pastel shades to give a few examples. If there is one daub of paint which doesn’t belong the discerning eye of the artist can readily see it because it jumps out. Likewise writers select their words every bit as carefully as artists select their palettes.

So the question does pose itself wherefore the need to use the term “presider” when this one is so restrictive and diminutive. Let’s state the obvious, the definition of preside, as found in the dictionary, is “to sit in authority, as over a meeting; act as a chairman or president.” To the average person in the congregation that is the only meaning of the word they are familiar with. The definition and historical usage of the word -as a few posters have so kindly elucidated - is archaic, arcane and more properly suited to an academic milieu. In other words: it isn’t vernacular. Used in scholarly essays fine; otherwise, respect the unique, sacerdotal mission of the priesthood and avoid using such a mundane term when the faithful prepare to approach the heavenly mysteries.

 

[otm]

BillyT92679:

I’ve done plenty of research, please refrain from making petty attacks.

I do not presume to make a petty attack. I am tired of the use of the term “Modernism” to cover anything and everything someone doesn’t like. Modernism is the whipping boy of the conservatives who don’t know enough history of philosophical and social movements of the last 150 years to be able to identify what actully may have been the true source of what they consider an aberration.

A goodly proportion of what is complained about has more to do with relativism and secualrism than it does to a movement from the turn of the century, who’s proponents died out about 50 years ago.

It is sloppy thinking that got Modernism going; it is sloppy thinking that got a lot of other off the wall philosophical "isms’ going. If we are going to offer a critique of the sourcing of an attitude of philosophy we don’t like, it would seem the basic prerequisite that we don’t also engage in sloppy thinking.

 

[Chatter163]

I do not presume to make a petty attack. I am tired of the use of the term “Modernism” to cover anything and everything someone doesn’t like. Modernism is the whipping boy of the conservatives who don’t know enough history of philosophical and social movements of the last 150 years to be able to identify what actully may have been the true source of what they consider an aberration.

A goodly proportion of what is complained about has more to do with relativism and secualrism than it does to a movement from the turn of the century, who’s proponents died out about 50 years ago.

It is sloppy thinking that got Modernism going; it is sloppy thinking that got a lot of other off the wall philosophical "isms’ going. If we are going to offer a critique of the sourcing of an attitude of philosophy we don’t like, it would seem the basic prerequisite that we don’t also engage in sloppy thinking.

The poster stated nothing that indicated that he was ignorant of the meaning of the term modernism, its history or applicability to the current situation. He did not need to be admonished to do research, and the attack was indeed petty. The presumption was on the part of the person who admonished him. Many here would concur with the position stated–not simply in isolation, but because of trends that they have observer for nearly forty years. Many of them are quite knowledgeable and do not need to be admonished to “do research” because their position is disliked by a progressive.

 

[fix]

Chatter163:

The poster stated nothing that indicated that he was ignorant of the meaning of the term modernism, its history or applicability to the current situation. He did not need to be admonished to do research, and the attack was indeed petty. The presumption was on the part of the person who admonished him. Many here would concur with the position stated–not simply in isolation, but because of trends that they have observer for nearly forty years. Many of them are quite knowledgeable and do not need to be admonished to “do research” because their position is disliked by a progressive.

Well said.

 

[otm]

Chatter163:

The poster stated nothing that indicated that he was ignorant of the meaning of the term modernism, its history or applicability to the current situation. He did not need to be admonished to do research, and the attack was indeed petty. The presumption was on the part of the person who admonished him. Many here would concur with the position stated–not simply in isolation, but because of trends that they have observer for nearly forty years. Many of them are quite knowledgeable and do not need to be admonished to “do research” because their position is disliked by a progressive.

I am not a progressive.

The fact that many use the term Modernism to identify anything and everything that they don’t like coming from the liberal wing doesn’t mean that Modernism is the source. It is simply used as the catch all phrase for what they don’t like.

In my first post to him I made no diasagreement with his premise that those in the liberal end of the Church use the term presider to minimize, in his words, the sacrosanct aspects of the Mass. As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with him on that point. But to simply pass it off as Modernism is to misunderstand what Modernism was about, and to misunderstand or misjudge liberals. The two simply are not synonymous.