Wedding Program- Deacon

[renbar86]

I am preparing the program for my wedding mass, and I don’t know what to refer to the Deacon as. The priest will be “Celebrant” or “Officiant”, but what should I put for the Deacon in the program?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Deacon or deacon of the Mass are both fine. Celebrant is better than officiant for the priest, I think.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Surely calling the Priest as ‘Priest’ and the Deacon as ‘Deacon’ should suffice? I never knew that they would be labelled otherwise. The only reason I have seen the use of ‘Celebrant’ is if it was a concelebrated mass.

 

[Zekariya]

Surely calling the Priest as ‘Priest’ and the Deacon as ‘Deacon’ should suffice? I never knew that they would be labelled otherwise. The only reason I have seen the use of ‘Celebrant’ is if it was a concelebrated mass.

That is how I have always seen it done in Eastern Liturgy books. “Celebrant” is what they use in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Chatter163]

The liturgical books and guides have traditionally used celebrant and deacon whenever a Mass has any more than simply a priest celebrating. Officiant is never used for Catholic clergy.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The liturgical books and guides have traditionally used celebrant and deacon whenever a Mass has any more than simply a priest celebrating. Officiant is never used for Catholic clergy.

That one I’m well aware of. The liturgical documents use ‘Celebrant’ because it could refer to a priest or a bishop. The reason why I said that I only saw ‘Priest’ and ‘Deacon’ used was because I only thinking specifically of wedding booklets. Those are created for a single-time use only and are always celebrated by a priest, sometimes with a deacon serving, so it’s quite safe to simply label them as ‘Priest’ rather than the more ambiguous ‘Celebrant’.

That being said, it is curious to note that the missals use ‘Priest’ although the same rubrics are also used by the bishop.

That is how I have always seen it done in Eastern Liturgy books. “Celebrant” is what they use in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Do you mean the use of ‘Celebrant’ or of ‘Priest’? Our missals (or the CTS missals, at least) specify ‘Priest’ too. However, as mentioned before, other liturgical documents speak generally of a ‘Celebrant’. I guess that’s to avoid confusion by the laity who do not realise that bishop uses the same rubrics.

 

[Chatter163]

That one I’m well aware of. The liturgical documents use ‘Celebrant’ because it could refer to a priest or a bishop. The reason why I said that I only saw ‘Priest’ and ‘Deacon’ used was because I only thinking specifically of wedding booklets. Those are created for a single-time use only and are always celebrated by a priest, sometimes with a deacon serving, so it’s quite safe to simply label them as ‘Priest’ rather than the more ambiguous ‘Celebrant’.

That being said, it is curious to note that the missals use ‘Priest’ although the same rubrics are also used by the bishop.

The pre-Vatican II missal, still used in the EF, uses* celebrant*,* deacon* and subdeacon for the sacred ministers at Solemn Mass, as do Fortescue, O’Connell, Zualdi, Jungmannn, etc.

 

[Chatter163]

That one I’m well aware of. The liturgical documents use ‘Celebrant’ because it could refer to a priest or a bishop. The reason why I said that I only saw ‘Priest’ and ‘Deacon’ used was because I only thinking specifically of wedding booklets. Those are created for a single-time use only and are always celebrated by a priest, sometimes with a deacon serving, so it’s quite safe to simply label them as ‘Priest’ rather than the more ambiguous ‘Celebrant’.

That being said, it is curious to note that the missals use ‘Priest’ although the same rubrics are also used by the bishop.

The pre-Vatican II missal, still used in the EF, uses* celebrant*,* deacon* and subdeacon for the sacred ministers at Solemn Mass, as do Fortescue, O’Connell, Zualdi, Jungmannn, etc. Solemn Mass was always used as the template to understand all other forms of the Order of Mass.

 

[Zekariya]

That one I’m well aware of. The liturgical documents use ‘Celebrant’ because it could refer to a priest or a bishop. The reason why I said that I only saw ‘Priest’ and ‘Deacon’ used was because I only thinking specifically of wedding booklets. Those are created for a single-time use only and are always celebrated by a priest, sometimes with a deacon serving, so it’s quite safe to simply label them as ‘Priest’ rather than the more ambiguous ‘Celebrant’.

That being said, it is curious to note that the missals use ‘Priest’ although the same rubrics are also used by the bishop.

Do you mean the use of ‘Celebrant’ or of ‘Priest’? Our missals (or the CTS missals, at least) specify ‘Priest’ too. However, as mentioned before, other liturgical documents speak generally of a ‘Celebrant’. I guess that’s to avoid confusion by the laity who do not realise that bishop uses the same rubrics.

I see priest and deacon in my Eastern missals.

 

[Martin15]

I agree with what most have said - go with ‘Priest’ and ‘Deacon’.

I’ve also seen clergy referred to by their title and name in one-off booklets, e.g. Fr. Michael: The Lord be with you. I can’t see a problem with this in what will be a booklet produced for a single occasion.

All the best

Martin

P.S. On the topic of missals saying ‘priest’ when referring to a priest or bishop, we shouldn’t forget that bishops are priests too.

 

[Filii_Dei]

P.S. On the topic of missals saying ‘priest’ when referring to a priest or bishop, we shouldn’t forget that bishops are priests too.

Yup, I wanted to mention the fullness of orders and all that making it permissible, but I thought it would make my already-long winded post just go on and on and on.