Girm 2002

[bkovacs]

You “do not recognize” them? What do that mean, you treat them as lower-class people, as mangy dogs to be scorned?

I don’t think opening up ministry at the altar to girls was a prudent decision, but I accept that the Church has officially permitted it, and I don’t denigrate or look down upon girls who serve at the altar. And it is silliness to call an altar girl an “altar boy” (since “boy” and “boys” are not inclusive as “man” and “men” are) so it makes sense to call them “altar girls” or, collectively with the altar boys, “altar servers”.

The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite does not require what you call “pagan looking vestments”. I will not deny that you rarely find a boy serving the altar in the Ordinary Form wearing a cassock and surplice, but it is still done; stop making false dichotomies. And what exactly is pagan about the albs and cinctures worn by the others who serve the altar?

I would expect that happens in many parishes. I did it as a boy at the parish I grew up at, 20 years ago.

I heard it every week at my previous parish, and I heard it this past Sunday at (what might be) my new parish. I’m sorry you don’t hear them.

Quote " I will not deny that you rarely find a boy serving the altar in the Ordinary Form wearing a cassock and surplice, but it is still done; stop making false dichotomies. And what exactly is pagan about the albs and cinctures worn by the others who serve the altar?"

Agreed!. Why stop using the cassock and surplice?.

Quote: " I don’t denigrate or look down upon girls who serve at the altar."

I don’t look down on them at all. But they cannot be priests!. The Altar Boy’s function is to serve the priest and through him, God Himself. There is no function to which he might ever aspire, except the Priesthood itself, which will bring him to a more lofty service. Was this theology changed?.

 

[bkovacs]

You “do not recognize” them? What do that mean, you treat them as lower-class people, as mangy dogs to be scorned?

I don’t think opening up ministry at the altar to girls was a prudent decision, but I accept that the Church has officially permitted it, and I don’t denigrate or look down upon girls who serve at the altar. And it is silliness to call an altar girl an “altar boy” (since “boy” and “boys” are not inclusive as “man” and “men” are) so it makes sense to call them “altar girls” or, collectively with the altar boys, “altar servers”.

The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite does not require what you call “pagan looking vestments”. I will not deny that you rarely find a boy serving the altar in the Ordinary Form wearing a cassock and surplice, but it is still done; stop making false dichotomies. And what exactly is pagan about the albs and cinctures worn by the others who serve the altar?

I would expect that happens in many parishes. I did it as a boy at the parish I grew up at, 20 years ago.

I heard it every week at my previous parish, and I heard it this past Sunday at (what might be) my new parish. I’m sorry you don’t hear them.

Quote: “I did it as a boy at the parish I grew up at, 20 years ago”

Boy how things changed.

 

[Phemie]

Agreed, at least in the NO. There a several EF groups that still observe these Minor Orders:

• Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem
• Institute of St. Philipp Neri
• Fraternity of St. Peter
• Apostolic Administration of St Jean-Marie Vianney, Brazil
• Le Barroux
• Servants Minor of St Francis
• Clearcreek Monastery
• Religious Institute of the Holy Cross of Riaumont
• Canons Regular of the Mother of God French ]
• Canons Regular of the Mother of God [English]
• Abbaye Fontgombault
• Institute of Christ the King
• Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer
• Opus Mariae Mediatricis
• Oblates of Mary

But your point is taken.

True, but they’re unlikely to use them as EMHCs.

 

[FrDavid96]

Quote: An acolyte is preferred to any other extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

So why are no altar boys being designated as acolytes. When I was an altar boy, back in the early seventies. We lit the candles, filled the hosts, prepared the chalice. Basically got everything prepared for the Mass for the priest. I don’t see that happening any more, in the NO Mass. Why?

Altar boys are not Acolytes. They are laypersons who are temporarily fulfilling the functions of an Acolyte.

So, they are substitutes to begin with. That’s why they aren’t preferred to any other laypersons when it comes to other functions like assisting with Holy Communion.

 

[bkovacs]

Altar boys are not Acolytes. They are laypersons who are temporarily fulfilling the functions of an Acolyte.

So, they are substitutes to begin with. That’s why they aren’t preferred to any other laypersons when it comes to other functions like assisting with Holy Communion.

The Altar Boy’s function is to serve the priest and through him, God Himself. There is no function to which he might ever aspire, except the Priesthood itself, which will bring him to a more lofty service. The Altar Boy represents the multitude of the Faithful who assist at Holy Mass, responding for them, praying for them and, through his ringing of the bells, ensuring that all present are attentive at the most important moments. No layman, regardless of age, can be closer to God than within the Sanctuary during the Holy Sacrifice. He who serves the Mass also kneels, quite truly, beside Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint John, and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross.

Not just a lay person as you have alluded to.

 

[FrDavid96]

It means “in case of necessity” regardless of the day itself

So why the word “Single Occasion”. I would take that as a day when no altar boys can be present for some unknown reason, weather, sickness, etc.

The words “single occasion” mean what I explained in the earlier post–that a priest can appoint someone “here and now” but not for anything more than that. It doesn’t mean that there are no altar boys present, it means that there are no duly instituted Acolytes present.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the term Acolyte with altar boys. Yes, in a generic use of the word “acolyte” that would mean altar boys. But in the GIRM the word “Acolyte” means a duly-instituted Acolyte. To help understand this, try substituting the phrase “ordained Acolyte” when it appears in the GIRM. It’s not the correct use of the word, however if you imagine that word being there it helps to understand what’s being said. Until circa 1972, Acolytes were ordained in the Latin Church. The ordination to the minor orders was replaced with an “installation” done by the bishop or a designated priest. So the phrase “duly instituted Acolyte” means one who has been installed by the bishop in a specific ritual.

 

[bkovacs]

Altar boys are not Acolytes. They are laypersons who are temporarily fulfilling the functions of an Acolyte.

So, they are substitutes to begin with. That’s why they aren’t preferred to any other laypersons when it comes to other functions like assisting with Holy Communion.

Then you wonder why there is a lack of priests in your Church. You have reduced the Altar Boy to a lay person playing a role. Rather than someone important and has a purpose, who may someday strive to the priesthood. I understand that your traditional Catholic seminaries tend to have more seminarians versus your NO only seminaries.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Altar Boy’s function is to serve the priest and through him, God Himself. There is no function to which he might ever aspire, except the Priesthood itself, which will bring him to a more lofty service. The Altar Boy represents the multitude of the Faithful who assist at Holy Mass, responding for them, praying for them and, through his ringing of the bells, ensuring that all present are attentive at the most important moments. No layman, regardless of age, can be closer to God than within the Sanctuary during the Holy Sacrifice. He who serves the Mass also kneels, quite truly, beside Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint John, and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross.

Not just a lay person as you have alluded to.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, because altar boys are laypersons. I’m confused as to what you’re trying to say.

I am not trying to discount the service of altar boys. I am trying to explain the difference between an altar boy and a duly instituted Acolyte.

Perhaps, being Orthodox, you might understand this better if I were to use more Orthodox sounding vocabulary.

Think of a “duly instituted Acolyte” as a subdeacon. (After all, in the West, that’s what happened to subdeacons–the order of subdeacon was supressed and replaced with the ministry of duly instituted Acolyte)

The subdeacon’s role is to serve at the Divine Liturgy. Likewise, the altar boy’s role is to serve at Divine Liturgy. But we can’t say that the altar boys are subdeacons. There are certain functions reserved to the subdeacon, to the exclusion of altar boys. What the current Latin GIRM is saying is that these functions, otherwise reserved to subdeacons, can be performed by other laypersons if the priest saying the Mass appoints them to be “substitute subdeacons”

I truly do hope that helps.

 

[FrDavid96]

Then you wonder why there is a lack of priests in your Church. You have reduced the Altar Boy to a lay person playing a role. Rather than someone important and has a purpose, who may someday strive to the priesthood. I understand that your traditional Catholic seminaries tend to have more seminarians versus your NO only seminaries.

I’m not reducing them to anything. I’m simply saying that because they aren’t ordained, they are by definition laypersons.

In fact, I quite agree with you that we need to recognize the important role which altar boys do perform, and indeed the best source for future priest is current altar boys.

 

[Phemie]

Quote: An acolyte is preferred to any other extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
So why are no altar boys being designated as acolytes?

Fr. David explained that the ministry of Instituted Acolyte is reserved to men and he did mean ‘men’. In the US, a man must be 21 to become an Instituted Acolyte (or Lector). I don’t think too many dioceses have permanent Instituted Acolytes and Lectors (Diocese of Lincoln is the only on that comes to mind) most Acolytes you would find are men preparing to be ordained Deacon (either Permanent or Transitional).

 

[bkovacs]

I’m not reducing them to anything. I’m simply saying that because they aren’t ordained, they are by definition laypersons.

In fact, I quite agree with you that we need to recognize the important role which altar boys do perform, and indeed the best source for future priest is current altar boys.

So why altar girls if they cannot be priests?. You don’t need them!. They cannot strive to the priesthood, so whats the purpose, except to be politically correct. As for Acolytes, I understand that they are different than Altar Boys, but why all the EMHC, when you don’t need them!. Just use the Altar Boys, who can be designated as acolytes and help distribute communion. Or are you afraid or repercussions from the laity, who would rather physically participate rather than spiritually participate as part of their “active” participation. Active doesn’t just mean physical participation.

 

[Tedster]

So why altar girls if they cannot be priests?. You don’t need them!. They cannot strive to the priesthood, so whats the purpose, except to be politically correct. As for Acolytes, I understand that they are different than Altar Boys, but why all the EMHC, when you don’t need them!. Just use the Altar Boys, who can be designated as acolytes and help distribute communion. Or are you afraid or repercussions from the laity, who would rather physically participate rather than spiritually participate as part of their “active” participation. Active doesn’t just mean physical participation.

Are you directing your comments to FrDavid specifically, because I don’t think it is HE who made the decision to allow altar girls and it is certainly not ME that made that decision. If you need your question answered, ask the USCCB. Otherwise, it appears that you are attacking all of us who are in the Latin church. BTW, many of us agree that the use of altar girls and EMHC’s is unfortunate, but we did not make that decision.

 

[FrDavid96]

So why altar girls if they cannot be priests?. You don’t need them!. They cannot strive to the priesthood, so whats the purpose, except to be politically correct. As for Acolytes, I understand that they are different than Altar Boys, but why all the EMHC, when you don’t need them!. Just use the Altar Boys, who can be designated as acolytes and help distribute communion. Or are you afraid or repercussions from the laity, who would rather physically participate rather than spiritually participate as part of their “active” participation. Active doesn’t just mean physical participation.

You might not realize this, but I agree with every sentiment you’ve expressed.

My purpose here is merely to answer the questions that you have posed.

I haven’t advocated altar girls. I haven’t advocated EMHCs (I’ve only said that they are permitted).

The reason why altar boys generally aren’t appointed as EMHCs is twofold. First EMHCs have to be adults. I start the altar boys at age 7. Much too young to distribute Holy Communion. The second reason is that the altar boys already have a function at Communion time–that of holding the paten. So, for purely practical reasons, altar boys don’t make for good candidates to be EMHCs at the same Mass.

 

[John_Lilburne]

What it actually means is that priests cannot appoint extraordinary ministers for anything more than a single occasion. A priest can appoint someone for “right here and right now” but cannot appoint someone for “the next 12 months” or “forever” or anytime in the future, or to function at a Mass celebrated by a different priest.
…

Just to clarify on what FrDavid96 wrote in #6 …

There is a ceremony “Order for the Commissioning of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. In the Book of Blessings it has, after talking about instituted acolytes: “1871. … The local Ordinary may give other extraordinary ministers the faculty to give communion whenever it seems necessary for the pastoral benefit of the faithful and a priest, deacon, or acolyte is not available.”

“1873 The pastor is the usual minister of this rite. However, he may delegate another priest to celebrate it, or a deacon when it is celebrated outside Mass.”
(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page 709.)

Part of the ceremony is asking: “Are you resolved to undertake the office of giving the body and blood of the Lord to your brothers and sisters, and so serve to build up the Church?” (page 710).

So I think even a deacon can preside at the ceremony when someone is made an extraordinary minister for ““the next 12 months” or “forever””.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum tended to down-grade the ceremony:
“[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law [footnote 256: Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 230 § 3.], for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist. [footnote 257:
Cf. S. Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Immensae Caritatis, prooemium: AAS 65 (1973) p. 264;
Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio), *Ministeria Quaedam, 15 August 1972: AAS 64 (1972) p. 532;
Missale Romanum, Appendix III: Ritus ad deputandum ministrum sacrae Communionis ad actum distribuendae, p. 1253;
Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 1: AAS 89 (1997) p. 871.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Just to clarify on what FrDavid96 wrote in #6 …

There is a ceremony “Order for the Commissioning of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. In the Book of Blessings it has, after talking about instituted acolytes: “1871. … The local Ordinary may give other extraordinary ministers the faculty to give communion whenever it seems necessary for the pastoral benefit of the faithful and a priest, deacon, or acolyte is not available.”

“1873 The pastor is the usual minister of this rite. However, he may delegate another priest to celebrate it, or a deacon when it is celebrated outside Mass.”
(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page 709.)

Part of the ceremony is asking: “Are you resolved to undertake the office of giving the body and blood of the Lord to your brothers and sisters, and so serve to build up the Church?” (page 710).

So I think even a deacon can preside at the ceremony when someone is made an extraordinary minister for ““the next 12 months” or “forever””.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum tended to down-grade the ceremony:
"[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law [footnote 256: Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 230 § 3.], for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist. [footnote 257:
Cf. S. Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Immensae Caritatis, prooemium: AAS 65 (1973) p. 264;
Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio), *Ministeria Quaedam

, 15 August 1972: AAS 64 (1972) p. 532;
Missale Romanum, Appendix III: Ritus ad deputandum ministrum sacrae Communionis ad actum distribuendae, p. 1253;
Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 1: AAS 89 (1997) p. 871."

What I wrote in #6 still applies. I wrote about the possibility of a priest appointing someone to be an EMHC–and that can only happen for a single occasion, and not for more than a single occasion.

The part from the Book of Blessings that you did not quote says in #1872 that this ceremony is only to be used when the local ordinary has appointed someone to be an EMHC. So if the bishop has made the appointment, a deacon can preside at the ceremony.

Deacons cannot appoint EMHCs, they can only give a blessing to someone who has already been appointed by the bishop.

 

[FAB]

Reading over the post it seems there is a confusionof terms and duties.
An altar server, male or female is still layity and an altar server, even though as FrDavid indicated they perform the duties as an Acolyte and from time to time I have heard them called such. As with EMHC, they perform the duties in the abstance of an Acolyte.
Even with Acolytes there are differences. Because of the issue of who can purify the vessle, many diocese have called upon men to do this duty as well as others associates with an Acolyte, but because they are not in the process of becoming ordained as a deacon or priest, they hold an extraodinary form of the possition.
An Institued Acolyte is an ordinary minister who performs the duties as previously prescribed.
I think the orignal poster was trying to use an aurgument against girls being altar server, if so that’s bee on many other threads.
Peace,
FAB

 

[bkovacs]

So tell me why didn’t you have EMHC before Vatican 2, or feel the need for them. Same goes for “altar girls”. How is the Roman rite going to be returned to a continuity as the Pope has wished. A blending of both the Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary, with now the aid of the Anglican Use. Hence why I believe there is no TLM Rite or Anglican Rite. If the priests who offer the Ordinary Form still insist in using “altar girls” and EMHC, of which is disallowed in the Extra-Ordinary form, and to my knowledge the Anglican Use. Do you really need a 45 minute Mass, or is 1 hour and 45 minutes to long as it was in the past, and currently in the Extra-Ordinary Form as well as the Eastern Liturgies. Seems like a huge mis-continuity to me.

 

[bkovacs]

Are you directing your comments to FrDavid specifically, because I don’t think it is HE who made the decision to allow altar girls and it is certainly not ME that made that decision. If you need your question answered, ask the USCCB. Otherwise, it appears that you are attacking all of us who are in the Latin church. BTW, many of us agree that the use of altar girls and EMHC’s is unfortunate, but we did not make that decision.

Quote: Are you directing your comments to FrDavid specifically, because I don’t think it is HE who made the decision to allow altar girls and it is certainly not ME that made that decision. If you need your question answered, ask the USCCB. Otherwise, it appears that you are attacking all of us who are in the Latin church. BTW, many of us agree that the use of altar girls and EMHC’s is unfortunate, but we did not make that decision.

I have made several correspondences about this very thing and other items to the USCCB, of which I never received a reply. Hence why I now go to an Orthodox Church as well as many others who also shared my views, while in the Roman Church!.

 

[japhy]

So tell me why didn’t you have EMHC before Vatican 2, or feel the need for them.

I can give you a documentation trail on EMHCs if you’re really interested, but not right now. I should be doing work…

If the priests who offer the Ordinary Form still insist in using “altar girls” and EMHC, of which is disallowed in the Extra-Ordinary form, and to my knowledge the Anglican Use.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this sentence… are you missing a clause somewhere?

Do you really need a 45 minute Mass, or is 1 hour and 45 minutes to long…

If the distribution of Communion alone by just ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is the reason a Mass takes 1hr 45min, then that seems like a just cause for employing a few extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. But EMHCs are not (and were not) meant to be used habitually.

 

[bkovacs]

I can give you a documentation trail on EMHCs if you’re really interested, but not right now. I should be doing work…

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this sentence… are you missing a clause somewhere?

If the distribution of Communion alone by just ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is the reason a Mass takes 1hr 45min, then that seems like a just cause for employing a few extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. But EMHCs are not (and were not) meant to be used habitually.

Quote: " But EMHCs are not (and were not) meant to be used habitually."

But they ARE used habitually. They are not needed.
Go to a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy, where it takes about 4 hours!. 1 Hour and 45 Minutes is nothing.