Celebrant vs Presider
  • aquinasadmirer
    Posts: 102
    I know there's a specific difference, and I know that celebrant more properly describes what the priest's role is at mass. Could someone help me undrstand why presider is not quite right? I'm convinced that celebrant is the term to use,but I don't have the ability to explain why.
    Thanks in advance.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    There is a consequent term that follows from the de-emphasis upon the distinction of the ordained from the congregation: “the president of the liturgical assembly” or more commonly “presider,” as oppoed to “celebrant.” A president is a member of a group, elected by the group as one of them to preside for a time. The notion of a minister, elected by the congregation out of the congregation is characteristically Protestant, and stands in striking contrast to the Catholic notion of priesthood, whose vocation is principally from God, and whose appointment is from the hierarchy of the church. Some will say to single out the priest as celebrant is to deny the fact that the congregation celebrates the Mass, too. That objection can be answered by using the term “priest” itself, though “celebrant” is the traditional term. Either is preferable to “presider,” which has the connotation of being temporary and provisional and not particularly sacramental.


    From "Liturgy and the Words We Use," by CMAA President William Mahrt.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    The difficulty is that concelebrated Masses have more than one celebrant, but, unless thinks have really gotten bollixed up, they'll still have only one presider. So the terms aren't simply fungible.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    For concelebrations, the term "principal celebrant" is conventional.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    Unless you're Justin Martyr, desperately trying to explain Catholicism to the Emperor and Senate, and desperately avoiding any sort of implication that Catholic priests slaughter babies on the altar, you should avoid the word "president" (which he used for that purpose) or "presider".

    If you have to defend the Faith against allegations of cannibalism, and use imagery that implies we're holding a sort of religious banqueting and burial club like all our neighbors do (though of course explaining what we actually do and believe), that's when you use the "presider" word. :)
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Maureen is right. "Presider" comes from the cult of false archeology that permeated the thinking after Vatican II. The Spirit has guided the Church's ceremonies and Liturgy. To dismiss it all and go back to the practices of the first Christians or even the Last Supper, pace CharlesW, is dismissing the work of the Spirit IMO. That said, men do add things on their own volition and the Spirit helps use to clear away distractions (See the Council of Trent). Even Vatican II only did this, but some went beyond the mandates as we all know. The Spirit is correcting this now through Christ's Vicar.
  • Annasher
    Posts: 2
    The term presider is not part of my liturgical vocabulary for reasons eloquently stated above. However, I also find "celebrant" and "celebration" give me pause as well. In example: " Bishop so-and-so celebrated my son's confirmation." To me the term celebrant connotes singular joviality and negates the seriousness of the Sacrifice which is the ultimate reason for our Priest, for our participation and primary work of the Church in the world. Not that there isnt place for celebration within the Mass - Gloria, Prayer of Thanksgiving - but I find I shudder at the sound of referencing Mass in its entirety as celebration and her Minister/ Priest as celebrant. I wonder why we don't reclaim the title Minister for the Priest, which would also delineate that the laity are not ministers proper? Would anyone be willing to provide feedback?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    We probably need a list to terms that deserve to be permanently trashed and replaced by their authentic counterparts.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    The GIRM always calls the celebrant the celebrant. 115 times, to be exact. That alone is good enough for me.

    But also on a purely technical level, the presider is a specific term in the OF. It refers to a bishop who presides over the Liturgy of the Word and the final blessing wearing a cope, without actually celebrating the Mass. See GIRM no. 92.

    While I've never seen it done, and I'm not even sure how it would work, from a purely technical level, using presider to refer to the priest celebrant of the Mass is simply incorrect.
  • Paul_D
    Posts: 133
    The GIRM provides the standard terms, and in discussions of the liturgy, this is the vocabulary that should be known and used in every parish, in every sacristy, in every memo etc. Otherwise we end up with "enlightented" parish communities who know better than you.

    The GIRM generally uses the title Priest Celebrant, so why not use the title in full as the norm? When it uses the term "principal celebrant", it is only in the context of concelebration, and is not a title, but used for clarification of the rubrics. The missal rubrics simply say Priest, and only rarely Priest Celebrant.
    Thanked by 1canadash
Add a Comment