SPLIT: Presider or Celebrant?

[Digitonomy]

By the way, a presider is a bishop at Mass and but celebrating. It is a very specific liturgical function. The proper name for the primary priest conducting the Mass is celebrant.

I realize this is a little far afield from our topic, but quick clarification: If one is uncertain whether it is a bishop or priest celebrating the mass, the proper generic term is “celebrant” rather than “presider”?

 

[superamazingman]

I realize this is a little far afield from our topic, but quick clarification: If one is uncertain whether it is a bishop or priest celebrating the mass, the proper generic term is “celebrant” rather than “presider”?

Let me a little more clear:

Presider is a specific liturgical role that is not involve being the cleric at the altar saying “this is my body.”

No matter what “level” a cleric is, if he is the priest standing at the altar saying “this is my body,” he is the celebrant.

A presider is a bishop who is at the Mass, but does not act as celebrant. But even in that case, another priest would act as celebrant for the Mass. Rather the presiding bishop plays a role (I think giving the final blessing, and one or two other things along those lines).

In 99% of cases, whether a bishop or priest is there, he is properly named as the “celebrant” of the Mass.

You can find this topic mentioned in GIRM 92, which then refferences the ceremonial of bishops.
GIRM no. 92:

If, on the other hand, the bishop does not celebrate the eucharist but has assigned it to someone else to do this, then it is appropriate that he should preside over the Liturgy of the Word, wearing the pectoral cross, stole, and cope over an alb, and that he should give the blessing at the end of Mas

Does that make a little more sense? Presider is a very specific (and rarely correctly used) liturgical term, not to be confused with celebrant, which is what 99% of priests do at Mass today.

 

[O_Moriah]

By the way, a presider is a bishop at Mass and but celebrating. It is a very specific liturgical function. The proper name for the primary priest conducting the Mass is celebrant.

Let me a little more clear:

Presider is a specific liturgical role that is not involve being the cleric at the altar saying “this is my body.”

No matter what “level” a cleric is, if he is the priest standing at the altar saying “this is my body,” he is the celebrant.

A presider is a bishop who is at the Mass, but does not act as celebrant. But even in that case, another priest would act as celebrant for the Mass. Rather the presiding bishop plays a role (I think giving the final blessing, and one or two other things along those lines).

In 99% of cases, whether a bishop or priest is there, he is properly named as the “celebrant” of the Mass.

You can find this topic mentioned in GIRM 92, which then refferences the ceremonial of bishops.

Does that make a little more sense? Presider is a very specific (and rarely correctly used) liturgical term, not to be confused with celebrant, which is what 99% of priests do at Mass today.

You’re not using the term correctly at all. Througout the GIRM, ‘presider’ is used for the bishop, or, in his absence, the priest. To wit…
*
4. In truth, the nature of the ministerial Priesthood proper to the Bishop and the Priest, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people,

1. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a Priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice.[37]
   {Note that ‘celebrate’ is used here for the priest together with the people… they all ‘celebrate.’}
   [*]A Priest, also, who possesses within the Church the sacred power of Orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ,[80] presides by this fact over the faithful people gathered here and now, presides over their prayer, proclaims to them the message of salvation, associates the people with himself in the offering of sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father, and gives his brothers and sisters the Bread of eternal life and partakes of it with them. Therefore, when he celebrates the Eucharist, he must serve God and the people with dignity and humility, and by his bearing and by the way he pronounces the divine words he must convey to the faithful the living presence of Christ.
   [*]One and the same Priest must always exercise the presidential function in all of its parts, except for those parts which are proper to a Mass at which the Bishop is present (cf. above no. 92).
   [*]… However, in a concelebration where a Priest presides, the concelebrant who in the absence of a Deacon proclaims the Gospel neither requests nor receives the blessing of the principal celebrant.
   [*]The chair of the Priest Celebrant must signify his function of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer.
   ​
   *

 

[superamazingman]

No, purple is not the norm with the other colors optional. #346 says…*
346. As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely: …

d) The color violet or purple is used in Advent and Lent. It may also be worn in Offices and Masses for the Dead.

e) Besides the color violet, the colors white or black may be used at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.*It is clear that all three colors are valid choices. It’s also clear, that by practice, white has become the choice in the overwhelming majority of funerals in the US.

That’s not how I read it. Since the US got an exception to allow white, that, by definition, means that purple is the norm. But even so, if you say that all three are valid options,

Now, why would you say that? Was I saying that liturgical worship is unimportant? It is precisely because it is important that it should be done with care and thought and meaning. Practices which, over time, have lost their meaning should be set aside to let signs which are still meaningful, or new signs, better serve the liturgy.

Like I said before, someone could use that same argument against vestments. When people don’t understand the symbolism of something, you don’t throw it out. You explain it.

So, he’s explaining the pink at the beginning of the homily instead of the beginning of Mass – I don’t see a difference. And that explanation of pinkness relates to the Third Sunday of Advent… how? Is that liturgy more rejoiceful than the other Sundays?

And as a general principle of good liturgy: if a sign has to be explained in order for people to get it… it’s not a very good sign to begin with.

Who’s principle is that?

That’s not what JPII said when he talked about the issue.
Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.

There’s also other papal writings to this same effect. The liturgy is not supposed to be something simple that you look at and instantly understand (as JPII might say, it’s not supposed to be all explicit). There’s supposed to be hidden symbolism and such.

goes back further than that. When Advent was created, it was created in the image of Lent: A lengthy penitential season in preparation of a major Feast. It was later cut back to just four weeks. And then Vatican Council II shifted the focus from a season of penitence to a season of joyful expectation and preparation (which can still encompass some penance… but it’s not the main theme). And because Lent is purple and has a Pink Sunday indicating that the harsh season is almost over, so, buck up, lads; so to did Advent in a slavish imitation of Lent. So, my point is, when they changed the focus of Advent, they should have jettisoned the pink Sunday that was only there because Lent had one and it no longer needed to signal people that this harsh time is almost over with.

My thesis is, and you don’t have to agree with it: Gaudate Sunday is the appendix of Advent. If you go through Advent and ignore it as ‘the pink Sunday’, which is a valid option, I doubt the people in the pew will know it went missing.

Remember, when the rubrics give a choice, those responsible need to choose based on what is the better option for that liturgy and they also need to know the history of the two choices and what they mean so that their choice is an informed choice that serves the liturgy.

If you want to make a point of the joyful nature of Advent (as opposed to Lent), then wear pink all four Sundays!

I will be frank here: what are you talking about?

How does the initial parallel between lent and advent negate the importance of advent traditions?

 

[superamazingman]

You’re not using the term correctly at all. Througout the GIRM, ‘presider’ is used for the bishop, or, in his absence, the priest. To wit…
*
4. In truth, the nature of the ministerial Priesthood proper to the Bishop and the Priest*, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people,

1. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a Priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice.[37]
   {Note that ‘celebrate’ is used here for the priest together with the people… they all ‘celebrate.’}
   [*]A Priest, also, who possesses within the Church the sacred power of Orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ,[80] presides by this fact over the faithful people gathered here and now, presides over their prayer, proclaims to them the message of salvation, associates the people with himself in the offering of sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father, and gives his brothers and sisters the Bread of eternal life and partakes of it with them. Therefore, when he celebrates the Eucharist, he must serve God and the people with dignity and humility, and by his bearing and by the way he pronounces the divine words he must convey to the faithful the living presence of Christ.
   [*]One and the same Priest must always exercise the presidential function in all of its parts, except for those parts which are proper to a Mass at which the Bishop is present (cf. above no. 92).
   [*]… However, in a concelebration where a Priest presides, the concelebrant who in the absence of a Deacon proclaims the Gospel neither requests nor receives the blessing of the principal celebrant.
   [*]The chair of the Priest Celebrant must signify his function of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer.
   ​

Oh yes, the priest presides, but that doesn’t mean he is the presider. Subtle difference. In this case, the GIRM is using presides in the general sense, just as the chair of a board presides at a meeting. When the GIRM uses it, it’s in a general, not specific sense.

The proper title for the priest “leading” (for lack of better words) the Mass is celebrant. A simple word search can emphesise this point as well. “preside” shows up 16 times in the GIRM, and it is in sections speaking more generally (such as how he presides [leads] from the chair, or talk about him presiding over a gathering of a holy people). “celebrant” shows up 115 times, and it shows up in the rubrics where the priest celebrant is actually named. Here’s many examples of what I mean:

140: the bread and wine for the eucharist are carried to the celebrant…
149: if the celebrant is a bishop, in the prayers…
162: they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing…
171: proclaims the gospel and may, at the direction of the priest celebrant…assists the priest celebrant
210: the concelebrating priests walk ahead of the principal celebrant.

Just to name a few. like I said, the GIRM doesn’t use presider as a title for the priest at Mass. It does use celebrant, as I showed with several examples above, and there’s many more. Yes, he presides at Mass. He is leading. But to call him the presider misses the main point of what he is doing: celebrating the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Calling the celebrant a presider is like calling your wife an acquaintance. True, but not even close to complete.

 

[O_Moriah]

Oh yes, the priest presides, but that doesn’t mean he is the presider. Subtle difference. In this case, the GIRM is using presides in the general sense, just as the chair of a board presides at a meeting. When the GIRM uses it, it’s in a general, not specific sense.

Well, then, there are a lot of bishops you need to inform that they’re using the term incorrectly…

**SYNOD OF BISHOPS:
THE EUCHARIST: SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH
(INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS)

The Eucharist: the Mystery of Faith**

1. Using the above phrase, the** priest-presider** at the Eucharist, proclaims, in a spirit of awe, the Church’s faith in the risen Lord, really present under the elements of bread and wine, which have been changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into his Body and Blood.

---

**Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People **
** * People on the Move ***
N° 102, December 2006

** Origin, Role and Importance**
of the Permanent Diaconate in the Airport Ministry

The priest is ordained to the sacerdotal ministry of sacrifice, of acting in persona Christi. The deacon is ordained to the service of Christ, the Deacon. Both have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. The difference between them is to be seen graphically in the Liturgy, the Mass, which is a microcosm of the Church: the Priest presides, he is acting as a presider on behalf of the Bishop, therefore his place and gestures are those of a presider. The Deacon, on the other hand, is the diakonos-servant of the priest-president**.

---

**THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY

† Piero Marini, Titular Archbishop of Martirano
Master of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff

**Article taken from the “Presentation” written by Archbishop Piero Marini for the volume Renouveau liturgique – Documents fondateurs, Centre national de pastorale liturgique, Editions du Cerf, Collection Liturgie n. 14, Paris, 2004.

---

Liturgical presidency***

The quality of signs requires first of all quality in the presidency of the celebration. The one who presides before the assembly is not simply looked at, but also appreciated and judged by the way he discharges his role, which is carried out in persona Christi. At the same time this presidency cannot be exercised without consideration for the quality of the assembly and apart from an ability to respond to the expectations of the People of God. Indeed, the presider in some way also presides in persona Ecclesiæ.

{Note here the Archbishop says that the priest’s presidency is also derived from the Church, and not simply filling in for the bishop}
Renouncing anything that calls attention to himself, a presbyter shaped by the authentic spirit of the liturgy will preside over the synaxis “as one who serves” (Lk 22:27), in the image of the One of whom he is a poor sign. For this reason the quality of liturgical presidency, at its noblest and most fruitful, will go well beyond that of the simple art of presiding, of mere savoir faire, in order to become a principle of communion, in the deep conviction that the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is found only in the fullness of the Church.

​

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[ConstantineTG]

Presider is more correct. The Liturgy is, literally, the work of the people. So it means everyone there is a part of what is happening, and the priest presides. Celebrant has more of an exclusive connotation, meaning the priest celebrates and we’re just the audience. Because there is still a distinction between concelebrant and everyone else.

 

[superamazingman]

Presider is more correct. The Liturgy is, literally, the work of the people. So it means everyone there is a part of what is happening, and the priest presides. Celebrant has more of an exclusive connotation, meaning the priest celebrates and we’re just the audience. Because there is still a distinction between concelebrant and everyone else.

Actually, in the roman rite, the emphasis is more on the priest offering sacrifice on behalf of the people, which is why the documents usually refer to him as the celebrant.

In the traditional language of the roman rite, celebrant is the proper term.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, in the roman rite, the emphasis is more on the priest offering sacrifice on behalf of the people, which is why the documents usually refer to him as the celebrant.

In the traditional language of the roman rite, celebrant is the proper term.

Traditionally presider is correct. Unless by tradition you mean Trent which is only 500 years old. I am talking First Millennium here.

And no, the priest presides. The sacrifice is already offered by Christ, there is no new sacrifice offered. God is called to remembrance (Anamnesis in the Greek) which is to “make present” the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. There is no new sacrifice offered, the sacrificed has already been offered once and for all, and is just made present by the Anaphora.

 

[babochka]

Actually, in the roman rite, the emphasis is more on the priest offering sacrifice on behalf of the people.

What is the exact meaning of the term “assist at Holy Mass”? What is its origin and history? It is used interchangeably with “attend”, but there must be some distinction between the two.

It is my understanding that, even when a priest offers Mass alone, he is theologically offering it with all the angels and saints.

 

[superamazingman]

What is the exact meaning of the term “assist at Holy Mass”? What is its origin and history? It is used interchangeably with “attend”, but there must be some distinction between the two.

attend = butt in the pew
assist = praying the Mass

 

[babochka]

attend = butt in the pew
assist = praying the Mass

In what way do the prayers of those in attendance assist at the Mass?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I posit that the difficulty here is that the terms “presider” and “to preside at Mass” are used by individuals with certain inclinations toward a, let’s call it, 1970’s liturgical ethos. It is common in their writing and parlance to have a curious dislike of the phrases “celebrant” and “to celebrate Mass.”

It is a false difficulty, as there isn’t anything inherently bad about “presider,” but it can be seen as hostile or odd in many situations. I personally do not like the term as it reminds me too much of a president of a club to club members relationship rather than priest to people relationship, but it can work.

So it can correctly be seen as bad by correlation, I would say, but not inherently.

 

[babochka]

I posit that the difficulty here is that the terms “presider” and “to preside at Mass” are used by individuals with certain inclinations toward a, let’s call it, 1970’s liturgical ethos. It is common in their writing and parlance to have a curious dislike of the phrases “celebrant” and “to celebrate Mass.”

It is a false difficulty, as there isn’t anything inherently bad about “presider,” but it can be seen as hostile or odd in many situations. I personally do not like the term as it reminds me too much of a president of a club to club members relationship rather than priest to people relationship, but it can work.

So it can correctly be seen as bad by correlation, I would say, but not inherently.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[superamazingman]

I wholeheartedly agree.

as do I. Far too often, presider is used in situations like this:

youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5it20gKqw

 

[O_Moriah]

My quotes from the GIRM, Synod of Bishops, Curial Office, and the Pope’s own Master of Ceremonies indicate that for them ‘presider’ obviously does not have any negative connotations.

Maybe it’s time for a gut check to see if maybe divisive ideological positions are at play here in thinking that somehow ‘presider’ is a dirty word?

Are people forgetting that ‘presider’ is a term with regard to liturgical function and not sacramental theology? Saying someone ‘presides’ at Mass as a liturgical function in no way diminishes their role as ‘consecrator’.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My quotes from the GIRM, Synod of Bishops, Curial Office, and the Pope’s own Master of Ceremonies indicate that for them ‘presider’ obviously does not have any negative connotations.

Maybe it’s time for a gut check to see if maybe divisive ideological positions are at play here in thinking that somehow ‘presider’ is a dirty word?

Are people forgetting that ‘presider’ is a term with regard to liturgical function and not sacramental theology? Saying someone ‘presides’ at Mass as a liturgical function in no way diminishes their role as ‘consecrator’.

Well, they are also kind of the same thing. In the early Church only the bishop gets to preside.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My quotes from the GIRM, Synod of Bishops, Curial Office, and the Pope’s own Master of Ceremonies indicate that for them ‘presider’ obviously does not have any negative connotations.

Maybe it’s time for a gut check to see if maybe divisive ideological positions are at play here in thinking that somehow ‘presider’ is a dirty word?

Are people forgetting that ‘presider’ is a term with regard to liturgical function and not sacramental theology? Saying someone ‘presides’ at Mass as a liturgical function in no way diminishes their role as ‘consecrator’.

I am not sure that they get to determine the connotation of a word. The entirety of contemporary usage of a word determines connotation. Regardless of the reason, there does seem to be some level of negative connotation, but of course official Church institutions do not mean it that way. Us here saying it does not make us need a “gut check.”

 

[O_Moriah]

So… for those who have a negative connotation of ‘presider’… what’s the origin of the negative connotation?