Minor Orders/Instituted Ministries

[Andreas_Hofer]

Has anyone out there ever met (seen, even) an instituted lector or acolyte?

I for one have not. It makes no sense to me, however, to have these ministries in theory only. Either use them or abolish them, though I favor the former.

Why do we have these ministries? Restricting liturgical action to those who have been trained and set aside for the task preserves the sacredness of the acts performed and the materials handled. Reserving the touching of the sacred vessels to acolytes and ordained ministers, for example, maintained respect for the holiness of their contents and use. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say, so creating such reverence for something sacred is a good way to preserve belief in that very sacredness.

Why don’t we use these ministries? My guess is that the use of these orders is not “inclusive” enough. Especially because it would automatically disqualify women from such service. The opinion of many in the Church right now seems to be that using our current system of what I would term “permanent temporary deputation” fosters greater “active participation” and respect for the dignity of the lay state. I, however, contend that this system not only renders the liturgical norms of the Church (which provide for the institution lof ectors and acolytes) meaningless but it also fosters an incorrect sense of liturgical participation. Any takers?

 

[chicago]

You make a very good point. In part, it seems like they are just something that the Church hasn’t know exactly what to do with and so we have ended up with not much of anything but extraordinary everything.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Andreas Hofer:

Has anyone out there ever met (seen, even) an instituted lector or acolyte?

I for one have not. It makes no sense to me, however, to have these ministries in theory only. Either use them or abolish them, though I favor the former.

Why do we have these ministries? Restricting liturgical action to those who have been trained and set aside for the task preserves the sacredness of the acts performed and the materials handled. Reserving the touching of the sacred vessels to acolytes and ordained ministers, for example, maintained respect for the holiness of their contents and use. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say, so creating such reverence for something sacred is a good way to preserve belief in that very sacredness.

Why don’t we use these ministries? My guess is that the use of these orders is not “inclusive” enough. Especially because it would automatically disqualify women from such service. The opinion of many in the Church right now seems to be that using our current system of what I would term “permanent temporary deputation” fosters greater “active participation” and respect for the dignity of the lay state. I, however, contend that this system not only renders the liturgical norms of the Church (which provide for the institution lof ectors and acolytes) meaningless but it also fosters an incorrect sense of liturgical participation. Any takers?

Men on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate are instituted first as lectors and later as acolytes on their journies. So yes they are needed.

Unfortunately many love to refer to readers as “lectors” and they like to equate altar servers to “acolytes.” Neither is correct.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Pariah Pirana:

Men on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate are instituted first as lectors and later as acolytes on their journies. So yes they are needed.

Unfortunately many love to refer to readers as “lectors” and they like to equate altar servers to “acolytes.” Neither is correct.

But the whole point is that if everyone may perform these functions regardless of the order, they are not really needed. Those in formation could still perform the duties without being instituted into the ministries because the privileges/duties of the orders have been obliterated by the conflation of readers with lectors and altar servers with acolytes. If the minor orders were truly “necessary,” Paul VI would not have been able to abolish the orders of porter and exorcist.

 

[SaintJVMan]

Andreas Hofer:

Has anyone out there ever met (seen, even) an instituted lector or acolyte?

I for one have not. It makes no sense to me, however, to have these ministries in theory only. Either use them or abolish them, though I favor the former.

Why do we have these ministries? Restricting liturgical action to those who have been trained and set aside for the task preserves the sacredness of the acts performed and the materials handled. Reserving the touching of the sacred vessels to acolytes and ordained ministers, for example, maintained respect for the holiness of their contents and use. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say, so creating such reverence for something sacred is a good way to preserve belief in that very sacredness.

Why don’t we use these ministries? My guess is that the use of these orders is not “inclusive” enough. Especially because it would automatically disqualify women from such service. The opinion of many in the Church right now seems to be that using our current system of what I would term “permanent temporary deputation” fosters greater “active participation” and respect for the dignity of the lay state. I, however, contend that this system not only renders the liturgical norms of the Church (which provide for the institution lof ectors and acolytes) meaningless but it also fosters an incorrect sense of liturgical participation. Any takers?

I know several acolytes, as well as several lectors and I have seen them instituted and God willing in a short time I will be as well.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

SaintJVMan:

I know several acolytes, as well as several lectors and I have seen them instituted and God willing in a short time I will be as well.

I know Cleveland Ohio and Lincoln Nebraska both have instituted lectors and acolytes who are not on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m glad to see the orders actually are in use.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

But the whole point is that if everyone may perform these functions regardless of the order, they are not really needed. Those in formation could still perform the duties without being instituted into the ministries because the privileges/duties of the orders have been obliterated by the conflation of readers with lectors and altar servers with acolytes. If the minor orders were truly “necessary,” Paul VI would not have been able to abolish the orders of porter and exorcist.

andreas,

i think this is a good question, but the answer has a few dimensions to consider.

first, the second vatican council didn’t “abolish” the minor orders, they were suppressed, that is, set into disuse. the minor orders had to keep existing, at least for the reason that there were men at the time in these orders. you can’t just invalidate the rank of a person with the stoke of a pen without causing serious problems.

the minor orders were instituted in such a variety over time for various reasons. it was not just about duty and progress toward the priesthood. their development also had a lot to do with the charism of the person. some attained a certain order and stayed there. the various distinctions eventually became tied up with administration and the journey to the priesthood. the second vatican council recognized that those distinctions had, over time, limited the non-priestly ministries to those who would be priests. over time, it created an unfortunate, de facto class system. the council fathers corrected that by suppressing the minor orders, and returned many duties to the people of God.

however, they (and the Holy See in the progress after the council) didn’t fail to recognize the charisms of those who have lived out those ministries in particular. thus there is still the ability to create the instituted acolyte and lector. if the bishop wishes to recognize that charism in an individual man, he can institute him into the office. the office can be temporary or permanent. institution also more clearly defines the person’s duties, especially for the instituted acolyte. since these offices have historically been part of the hierarchy of the Church, those instituted are only men. such institution is relatively rare in our social environment, which IMO is wise. it would cause more trouble than it is worth. there are too many men and women who do not recognize or understand the Church’s esteem of women.

i think that it is interesting to note that all of the duties of those in the various orders were not suppressed. everything has just been renamed and redistributed. archdeacons are essentially the same as our auxiliary bishops; any priest can be an exorcist, but has to have specific orders from the bishop; etc. clearly, the historical Church was not just catering to its own whims. we show the same needs to have people perform these duties. we’re just being careful not to give the appearance of a priestly class, a problem of less importance in previous times. IMO, the whole episode shows more clearly the value of male priests, professed men and women, and the male and female laity. i don’t like to refer to it as “equal, but different”. instead, i think of it as each person being ‘particularly valued’.

 

[SaintJVMan]

Pariah Pirana:

I know Cleveland Ohio and Lincoln Nebraska both have instituted lectors and acolytes who are not on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate…

So does Sioux Falls.