Instituted Acolyte - ...

[Brenda_V]

Thank you to both Ignatius and John! I don’t have time to read what you posted John but will read it tomorrow when I am not so tired and my eyes will focus better on the computer screen.

Ignatius - your post so far has been the most helpful and I am sure John’s will help even further.

Brenda V.

 

[Joannm]

Actually, there are 4 minor orders (in order of institution):

1. Porter (usher, according to modern usage)
2. Lector (self-explanatory)
3. Exorcist (again, you could guess the function here)
4. Acolyte (I’d consider the Acolyte just to be a “special” altar boy on the way to ordination)

The minor orders fell from usage after VII (I do not know if VII actually abolished them or if they just aren’t used anymore).

The Major orders (3, 4 if you count Bishop):

1. Subdeacon
2. Deacon
3. Priest
   (4. Bishop)

The division of major and minor orders, from what I can tell is that the major orders were “past the point of no return” so to speak. A young seminarian could change his mind about receiving Holy Orders up until he is to be ordained a Subdeacon. After that point, he could no longer licitly quit the seminary and, say, get married.

Hope that helps clear up some of your confusion on minor orders.

The order of subdeacon is not longer a step to ordination. I don’t know any priest or deacon who was ordained a sub deacon before diaconate ordination.

 

[bilop]

I agree wholeheartedly that the minor orders should be restored.

Porter to head the ushers. Lector for the readings. Acolyte to serve the Mass (especially TLM), distribute Communion (when needed) and purify vessels.

I can’t see the formation process requiring more than 6 months of 1-2 nights per week. We’re not talking about Deacons who need theology etc. for preaching, counselling etc.

This would rightly return solemnity to the sanctuary (everybody in cassock and surplice) and the Mass.

I also think it would encourage boys to altar service and Vocations if they saw so many men involved in service to the Church. Religion wouldn’t be perceived as a girl thing.

God Bless

 

[Brenda_V]

“C. THE DUTIES OF THE ACOLYTE
187. The duties that the acolyte may carry out are of various kinds and several may coincide. Hence, it is desirable that these duties be suitably distributed among several acolytes. If, however, only one acolyte is present, he should perform the more important duties while the rest are to be distributed among several ministers.
The Introductory Rites
188. In the procession to the altar, the acolyte may carry the cross, walking between two ministers with lighted candles. Upon reaching the altar, the acolyte places the cross upright near the altar so that it may serve as the altar cross; otherwise, he puts it in a worthy place. Then he takes his place in the sanctuary.
189. Through the entire celebration, the acolyte is to approach the priest or the deacon, whenever necessary, in order to present the book to them and to assist them in any other way required. Thus it is appropriate, insofar as possible, that the acolyte occupy a place from which he can conveniently carry out his ministry either at the chair or at the altar. The Liturgy of the Eucharist
190. If no deacon is present, after the Prayer of the Faithful is concluded and while the priest remains at the chair, the acolyte places the corporal, the purificator, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal on the altar. Then, if necessary, the acolyte assists the priest in receiving the gifts of the people and, if appropriate, brings the bread and wine to the altar and hands them to the priest. If incense is used, the acolyte presents the thurible to the priest and assists him while he incenses the gifts, the cross, and the altar. Then the acolyte incenses the priest and the people.
191. A duly instituted acolyte, as an extraordinary minister, may, if necessary, assist the priest in giving Communion to the people. 100 If Communion is given under both kinds, when no deacon is present, the acolyte administers the chalice to the communicants or holds the chalice if Communion is given by intinction.
192. Likewise, when the distribution of Communion is completed, a duly instituted acolyte helps the priest or deacon to purify and arrange the sacred vessels. When no deacon is present, a duly instituted acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the credence table and there purifies, wipes, and arranges them in the usual way.
193. After the celebration of Mass, the acolyte and other ministers return in procession to the sacristy, together with the deacon and the priest in the same way and order in which they entered.”

From the sounds of the duties of an instituted Acolyte we have Altar Servers doing everything an Acolyte does except being an EMHC and purifying the sacred vessels. At my Parish the Priest purifies the vessels before the Altar Server moves them to the credence table.

As a matter of fact I seem to remember these duties always being done by Altar Servers so perhaps the instituted Acolyte went by the wayside some 50 years ago (okay, I am only 49 so we will say 45 or so years ago because my memories of Mass really don’t start at birth)

Brenda V.

 

[drafdog]

As I posted on previous threads, the sacrament of holy orders is received only once, which means that no matter what order, minor or major, a person receives, that person has received the sacrament and all the powers that it confers. Training notwithstanding, the only difference between a porter and a bishop is the permission from the appropriate ecclesiastic authority to exercise any particular priestly faculty.
Do we really want that many people ordained? Maybe we do; I can’t say. At this point I think that the current use of extraordinary ministers of eucharist is the best compromise.

Matthew

 

[Brendan]

As I posted on previous threads, the sacrament of holy orders is received only once, which means that no matter what order, minor or major, a person receives, that person has received the sacrament and all the powers that it confers. Training notwithstanding, the only difference between a porter and a bishop is the permission from the appropriate ecclesiastic authority to exercise any particular priestly faculty.
Do we really want that many people ordained? Maybe we do; I can’t say. At this point I think that the current use of extraordinary ministers of eucharist is the best compromise.

Matthew

Minor Orders were entry into the clerical state, NOT a Sacramental ordination.

That only occured at the Diaconate, is there, and only there, that the Ontolgocial change of Ordination occurs.

The Sub-Deacon was major orders in that Sub-Deacons were considered eligiable for nomination to the Episcopate. One could be released from the Sub-Deaconate and all minor orders, at which point, one ceases to be a Sub-Deacon,etc…

From the Diaconate and ‘higher’, there is no release. You could be released from the obligations, but the ontological change remains, much like Confirmation.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Technically, they are auxiliary ministers. They are appropriately ministering in a service to which they have been called by Christ and the Church. They excercise what is ordinary to them, but (at Mass) only when the ordinary minister is unable. As such, they are at an intermediate step.

1. A duly instituted acolyte, as an extraordinary minister, may, if necessary, assist the priest in giving Communion to the people.

You may be right, even though I’ve never heard the terminology of auxiliary ministers, but I think the main point remains that acolytes should be distributing communion no more frequently than other laymen, that being next to never (i.e. only in extraordinary circumstances).

From the sounds of the duties of an instituted Acolyte we have Altar Servers doing everything an Acolyte does except being an EMHC and purifying the sacred vessels. At my Parish the Priest purifies the vessels before the Altar Server moves them to the credence table.

As a matter of fact I seem to remember these duties always being done by Altar Servers so perhaps the instituted Acolyte went by the wayside some 50 years ago (okay, I am only 49 so we will say 45 or so years ago because my memories of Mass really don’t start at birth)

Brenda V.

The duties sound so similar because altar servers are actually what we might call “extraordinary acolytes.”

 

[Corki]

The duties sound so similar because altar servers are actually what we might call “extraordinary acolytes.”

And to add to the confusion, some parishes call their altar servers acolytes since it sounds unisex (even though it is actually even more ordered to men).

 

[chicago]

This would rightly return solemnity to the sanctuary (everybody in cassock and surplice) and the Mass.

I do think that it would likely foster greater solemnity, but this might be absent “cassock and surplice”.

I also think it would encourage boys to altar service and Vocations if they saw so many men involved in service to the Church. Religion wouldn’t be perceived as a girl thing.

God Bless

I agree. It might even be argued that some of the best potential candidates for this sort of service would be young, unmarried men who have no divided sensibilities of staying in the pew with their girlfriend/wife and children.

 

[chicago]

1. A duly instituted acolyte, as an extraordinary minister, may, if necessary, assist the priest in giving Communion to the people.

You may be right, even though I’ve never heard the terminology of auxiliary ministers, but I think the main point remains that acolytes should be distributing communion no more frequently than other laymen, that being next to never (i.e. only in extraordinary circumstances).

I think that the concept is since an acolyte has a particular instituted ministry in service of the altar, he has a closer relationship to the clerics of the Church and is the first and foremostly appropriate minister held in regard for these duties. Given, he ought not be replacing a priest or deacon as minister of communion, but it might be more natural to have him involved (particularly if this is to occur, practically, on a regular basis) in such assitance as the preferred option before other laypersons. In this sense, I would argue that an acolyte actually should be distributing communion much more frequently than other laymen (who ought only be involved when no acolyte is available).

 

[chicago]

As I posted on previous threads, the sacrament of holy orders is received only once, which means that no matter what order, minor or major, a person receives, that person has received the sacrament and all the powers that it confers. Training notwithstanding, the only difference between a porter and a bishop is the permission from the appropriate ecclesiastic authority to exercise any particular priestly faculty.
Do we really want that many people ordained? Maybe we do; I can’t say. At this point I think that the current use of extraordinary ministers of eucharist is the best compromise.

Matthew

The key difference between the “minor” orders and the “major” orders is the indellible mark and sacramental state. Deacon, Priest, and Bishop are the three degrees of this Sacrament. Everything else are essentially ministries (formerly considered minor orders because of their association with proceeding to the altar and ordination). So not all would be in “orders” today if a more dedicated use of them were employed. The Sacramental state and indellible “ordering” would remain reserved only to those who are at least deacons. (The three “major” orders now being “deacon, priest, bishop”)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think that the concept is since an acolyte has a particular instituted ministry in service of the altar, he has a closer relationship to the clerics of the Church and is the first and foremostly appropriate minister held in regard for these duties. Given, he ought not be replacing a priest or deacon as minister of communion, but it might be more natural to have him involved (particularly if this is to occur, practically, on a regular basis) in such assitance as the preferred option before other laypersons. In this sense, I would argue that an acolyte actually should be distributing communion much more frequently than other laymen (who ought only be involved when no acolyte is available).

Point taken, especially as the last statement is in our liturgical norms.

 

[Corki]

I think that the concept is since an acolyte has a particular instituted ministry in service of the altar, he has a closer relationship to the clerics of the Church and is the first and foremostly appropriate minister held in regard for these duties. Given, he ought not be replacing a priest or deacon as minister of communion, but it might be more natural to have him involved (particularly if this is to occur, practically, on a regular basis) in such assitance as the preferred option before other laypersons. In this sense, I would argue that an acolyte actually should be distributing communion much more frequently than other laymen (who ought only be involved when no acolyte is available).

I absolutely agree with you. However, I see a cloud on the horizon. In many parishes, at least in our area, deacons often remain in their seats while EMHCs distribute communion at Masses where the deacon is not serving (is that the right term for what a deacon does at Mass?) IF the order is followed: first priests and deacons, next acolytes and finally EMHCs if there is still a need, this would be fine. But if EMHCs have been accustomed to distributing Communion (because they are scheduled) even if there are ordinary ministers available, why would they be willing to let Acolytes distribute in their place? I can see a situation where the EMHCs distribute while the acolyte sits with the altar servers until the time for purification. That would be a waste. (IMHO)

 

[Cognito]

The order of subdeacon is not longer a step to ordination. I don’t know any priest or deacon who was ordained a sub deacon before diaconate ordination.

It certainly is, at least in some of the Eastern Catholic Rites/Traditions.

Our deacon was recently ordained to the sub-diaconate before being ordained as a deacon.

 

[Brendan]

It certainly is, at least in some of the Eastern Catholic Rites/Traditions.

Our deacon was recently ordained to the sub-diaconate before being ordained as a deacon.

I attended a SubDeaconal ordination last spring ( for a Byzantine Catholic man studying towards the Diaconate)

 

[chicago]

I absolutely agree with you. However, I see a cloud on the horizon. In many parishes, at least in our area, deacons often remain in their seats while EMHCs distribute communion at Masses where the deacon is not serving (is that the right term for what a deacon does at Mass?) IF the order is followed: first priests and deacons, next acolytes and finally EMHCs if there is still a need, this would be fine. But if EMHCs have been accustomed to distributing Communion (because they are scheduled) even if there are ordinary ministers available, why would they be willing to let Acolytes distribute in their place? I can see a situation where the EMHCs distribute while the acolyte sits with the altar servers until the time for purification. That would be a waste. (IMHO)

You’re right. There is a human problem at play. People get very tied to “my ministry” which they find personally enriching. To challenge this and tell them, even politely, “Sit down, you are not needed, today.”

But, more than this, the fact that only men can be formally installed as “acolytes” would rub a lot of people wrong in that it limits the involvement of women which we have “achieved” (in their perspective) and thus “turns things backward.”

I think that the solution lies not in trying to quickly institute all kinds of acolytes, lectors, porters, or whatever (you’ll note that I’m not recommending we have a whole cadre of exorcists running around, but it could be interesting). Rather, perhaps what could happen is simply to invite certain men to these ministries on a more limited basis. Have them go through a discernment process and education over, say, a year. They, then, could serve in a distinct role seperated out from the rest by their state. If these were young men (who the community might support, thinking them good potential candidates for the priesthood, eventually, or just encouraging in the community) it might go over alright. This would necesarrily preclude other extraordinary minsiters still having a role (just on a somewhat lessened basis). But it would move us in a certain direction incrementally. It could also go over better if those in these minsitries were responsible for other things in the parish connected with the minsitry and more than just Mass duties. Over time, there might be more formally instituted ministers and less recruitment for extraordinary ones. Or, at least, where there would remain extraordinary ministers a more accurate understanding of their role could potentially come to exist. In this sense, it might be found more acceptable to communities.

 

[Brenda_V]

The duties sound so similar because altar servers are actually what we might call “extraordinary acolytes.”

OK, then an Acolyte by definition is an older teen, young man where-as an Altar Boy is just that, a younger person who is male and would then be an “extraordinary acolyte” which then begs the question of why girls are allowed to serve? (please note, I don’t have the same kind of issues with girls serving at the Altar and I do not wish this discussion to go that way!)

And to add to the confusion, some parishes call their altar servers acolytes since it sounds unisex (even though it is actually even more ordered to men).

Yes, I have heard this used at my Parish but only once and Monsignor explained what an Acolyte was, sort of, which is why I was so confused:whacky:.

Thank you to everyone who has participated so far in this discussion. I am enjoying every bit of it and am learning quite a bit too!

Now I have another question, when in the history of the Church did Instituted Acolytes stop being used regularly?

Brenda V.

 

[chicago]

OK, then an Acolyte by definition is an older teen, young man where-as an Altar Boy is just that, a younger person who is male and would then be an “extraordinary acolyte” which then begs the question of why girls are allowed to serve? (please note, I don’t have the same kind of issues with girls serving at the Altar and I do not wish this discussion to go that way!)

With the institution of the new Mass, the idea that every duty in the liturgy must be performed by the priest was downplayed in order to emphasize the distinctness of roles such a reader, in their own right. This opened up the possibility of lay persons taking on such duties. It came to be understood that either a male or female could legitimately fill such roles. In this sense, since an “altar girl” is essentially doing just such a thing, that it would be allowable for a female to do so in that area, also.

Now I have another question, when in the history of the Church did Instituted Acolytes stop being used regularly?

Brenda V.

I can’t site a date on it. But the problem was that “acolyte” was seen as a step towards the priesthood, for men in seminary… one of the minor orders. As such, there just were not enough of them to serve at every parish Mass. So “altar boys” were employed in their stead.

 

[Brenda_V]

With the institution of the new Mass, the idea that every duty in the liturgy must be performed by the priest was downplayed in order to emphasize the distinctness of roles such a reader, in their own right. This opened up the possibility of lay persons taking on such duties. It came to be understood that either a male or female could legitimately fill such roles. In this sense, since an “altar girl” is essentially doing just such a thing, that it would be allowable for a female to do so in that area, also.

That makes sense. I don’t remember exactly when lay people started reading as I was probably over seas when this all started to happen (I am an Air Force brat and had the distinct honor of being Confirmed by the Bishop of the Armed Forces while we were stationed in Germany). I do remember sometime then that we stopped kneeling at a Communion Rail and started receiving standing, still on the tongue and then when I was in High School, when in Canada you could receive in the hand and shortly after that we got to in the US.

I can’t site a date on it. But the problem was that “acolyte” was seen as a step towards the priesthood, for men in seminary… one of the minor orders. As such, there just were not enough of them to serve at every parish Mass. So “altar boys” were employed in their stead.

So basically, Acolytes would only be available at or near Seminaries so the average Parish needed to employ the boys? No time frame really for this, just the way it was done. Gets one to thinking doesn’t it. Are Instituted Acolytes necessary for Mass? Seems they are not as we had plenty of Masses without them for a long time.

Brenda V.

 

[scylla]

It really just looks like they are not used as people are scared of offending the women who feel very strongly about having women be able to serve in those positions.
If you start instituting acolytes as this time you would have some people accuse you of attacking womens roles in the Church and there would be a lot of friction. Instead of doing this they ignore the implementation and do not talk about it, it is the easier way to go. They don’t want to start a war in other words, and have been cowed by the fear of it.

It is a good solution we just don’t have the bravery to do it.

In Christ,
Scylla