Liturgy: I’ll Do It My Way


You can go all around the GIRM with “if A then B” situations. They all lead to the same conclusion.

The bottom line is that a deacon or a priest MUST proclaim the Gospel at Mass. Period.

Whatever the combination of deacons, priests, and bishops are at the Mass. The Gospel must be proclaimed by a cleric and never a lay person.


Exactly because the “presider” is the last choice to proclaim the Gospel. The other priests are not presiders, they are concelebrants.

If there is no deacon, but there is a concelebrant, then the concelebrant, not the presiding celebrant, proclaims the Gospel.

If he had written “priest” instead, that would have implied either priest.


There are terrible abuses out there, but I disagree that it is TYPICAL of the Novus Ordo. Certainly not in my archdiocese where the cathedral leads the way with chant and incense and Latin polyphony and kneeling to receive at the altar rail… (all within the context of a Novus Ordo Mass).


[quote=“Hereiam, post:4, topic:458322, full:true”] But do liturgical purists ever just enjoy the liturgy,

Magic 8 Ball says . . .No.

Where have you been for the past 50 years? (Or maybe since they learned how to use this new Interwebz thing.) The Church is in crisis!

I won’t even hazard a response.


Dear Diary,

I am going to Vigil Mass at my 10 short pew church tonight. It was built when people were Catholic, much as today. It has a communion rail , and x generation of birds nesting in the roof. It is next to the pub, in the olden day’s I am sure people had their beer and shandys after Mass. Now the clients at the pub compete for occupation of the streets acoustic space.

Now who will turn up to celebrate Mass tonight, any clergy from the Bishop, Bishop Emeritus, down to our mission Priest, we won’t know till they arrive. They all have things in common, they bring the newsletter, it has the readings on it and births and deaths. If there is a baby to be baptised it’s done in Mass, we love it. Whoever turns up be it Bishop or Mission Priest will Bless items by bootlight while waiting for the Church to be opened. The lady with the keys runs on milking time.

The clergy all wear the garments with the agricultural theme. Especially important at this time of year, hay is being cut so we don’t want rain, and hens are hatching their chicks ( i have two hens on one nest, they started hatching their communal nest yesterday. ). And yes male livestock are going wandering to visit their herds. One family had a fine bull turn up in its heifer paddock…that went unclaimed by its owner for some days. Probably because it was Angus and the heifers highland. The boar, being a very intelligent gent sneaks in and out of the girls pens. Time to turn up the electric fence.

So what’s the point of this post? Be grateful you have a Church and a Priest. My clergy will be travelling hundreds of km Sunday and Christmas Monday so we can all celebrate the Paschal Mystery.
They won’t get Christmas lunch. They will be journeying through the heat, to allow us to have Mass at tiny Churches like mine.


It’s okay for a Deacon to do a homily though right? Only asking because one of the churches I go to the Deacon seems to give the homily more than the priest.


I am a lector at my church. However I go to an EF Mass on Sunday afternoon as well.

My priest and some people who run the laity who help at mass wanted me to become a Eucharistic Minister but I refused because I won’t even take the Eucharist especially the host from anyone but a priest. I have literally walked past ministers to get it from a priest. And I always get on my knees . Reverance has been lost by most. I just can’t receive the host from someone who isn’t qualified but takes a one hour class. And many of them aren’t very reverent either with it.


Journey home, tell me, why should I accept your response over that of a Priest? What are your qualifications? I know what this particular Priest’s qualifications are.

I also know the other Priest knows his stuff, at the Pastoral level.

They both went to Priest School. They learn things relevant to their vocation.

Please don’t blow me off, answer with a legitimate answer.


Actually, I thought it was “snarky” when you tried to ‘correct’ him.

When you say presider, Father, you mean Priest?
Why not use priest instead of this word which confuses the role of the laity and priest?

When I read it, it seemed pretty clear that you were insinuating that he was causing confusion between the laity and the priest roles. That came across very clear indeed.


Yes. Preaching (including at Mass) is one of the primary roles of the deacon.

  1. If a Deacon is not present, the functions proper to him are to be carried out by some of the concelebrants.

The Presider does not take the deacon’s role(s) if there is one or more concelebrant.


False. Even in the EF the deacon is an ordinary minister or holy communion, and may give communion to the faithful.


Just because the “progressive liturgical establishment” uses the word “presider” in a misleading way (and I, for one, do not disagree that it sometimes happens) that does not mean that whenever the word is used, there is a nefarious meaning behind it.

Presider is the preferred term when we need to make a distinction between the members of the clergy that simply naming their orders does not achieve.

If there are multiple priests, then sometimes the word “priest” alone makes one wonder “which priest?” Using terms like “principle celebrant” or “presider” simply make the matter more clear.

This is similar to times when we say “bishop” or “presbyter” to be more precise because “sacerdos” is imprecise at that particular moment.


Actually, no.

The deacon is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the E.F.

The norms articulated in the 1962 Missal apply to the EF and they do say that the deacon is an extraordinary minister.


Please don’t leave the Church. Just leave that parish if you must. Not the Church.


You are trying to make something out of nothing.

I’m done playing that game.


If you were a trained and degree bearing liturgist, you would know that I would have had occasion – recently – to use the term co-presider. You would know the document from the Holy See which prescribed this term and why that term was chosen as well as the importance of it, liturgically and theologically.

The fact that those who cling to the Vetus Ordo do not favour the term “Presider” merely is another indictment – in a long list – against them, in my determination.


Yes. Saying that the deacon is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the E.F. is really (at this point) a distinction without a difference.

On the other hand, saying that no one but a priest (sacerdos) ever did touch, or ever could/should touch, the Most Blessed Sacrament, is simply to express ignorance of the actual history; and to uphold a false value, a misunderstanding, that somehow “un-anointed” hands will offend the Presence of Christ. That is bordering on superstition.


Isn’t celebrant essentially synonymous with presider in the context of the Mass?


I always found people who have an issue with non priests touching the Sacrament a weird thing.

So in their mind, only a Priest can touch the Eucharist…

Yet we can stick the Eucharist in our mouth, gnaw on it and mix it with saliva and have it enter our digestive tract?

Does not compute with me.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit