Minor Orders

[Matthew_Holford]

After a major seminarian received First Tonsure in which order did he receive the Minor Orders, listed here (alphabetically): Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Porter? Were they all received separately or could a major seminarian be ordained to more than one of them at the same time?

 

[Damase]

After a major seminarian received First Tonsure in which order did he receive the Minor Orders, listed here (alphabetically): Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Porter? Were they all received separately or could a major seminarian be ordained to more than one of them at the same time?

In this order:

Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte.

Here’s a nice graphic representing the succession of minor orders to the priesthood:



I’m somewhat certain they would have all been received separately.

 

[laszlo]

After a major seminarian received First Tonsure in which order did he receive the Minor Orders, listed here (alphabetically): Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Porter? Were they all received separately or could a major seminarian be ordained to more than one of them at the same time?

Second year: Tonsure
Third year: Porter, Lector together
Fourth year: Exorcist, Acolyte together
Fifth year fall Subdeaconate, spring Deaconate, early summer Presbiterate

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Second year: Tonsure
Third year: Porter, Lector together
Fourth year: Exorcist, Acolyte together
Fifth year fall Subdeaconate, spring Deaconate, early summer Presbiterate

That’s interesting! I hadn’t released that they were ordained priest before graduating from the seminary.

 

[laszlo]

That’s interesting! I hadn’t released that they were ordained priest before graduating from the seminary.

On that good old times the Seminary was 5 years, except for the candidates for the doctorate. Those who finished the fifth year were ordained, and either get their disposition to a parish or sent back to school for an additional year to get their degrees. Behind this was the traditional setup, with a 8 years preparatory school as minor seminary for most of the candidates.

The curriculum recently is different. Most seminaries require bachelor degrees others extended the the curriculum for 6 to 7 years.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

On that good old times the Seminary was 5 years, except for the candidates for the doctorate. Those who finished the fifth year were ordained, and either get their disposition to a parish or sent back to school for an additional year to get their degrees. Behind this was the traditional setup, with a 8 years preparatory school as minor seminary for most of the candidates.

The curriculum recently is different. Most seminaries require bachelor degrees others extended the the curriculum for 6 to 7 years.

Ah right. I knew seminary was 6 years, at least it is here in England, and I’d just assumed it had always been 6 years. What I’m not sure about is why the need to extend to get a bachelor’s degree. I always thought major seminary couldn’t be started before 18. It was sort of the Church’s equivalent to higher education and it only takes 3 years full-time study to get a bachelor’s degree.

 

[Aramis]

Other minor orders also existed in some areas; the most common was Cantor; these other minor orders often did not get given to seminarians.

It is noted in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia thatope Siricius (Ad Himerium, nn. 9-10) and Pope Zosimus (Ad Hesychium, nn. 1 and 3) describe for us the ordinary career of Roman clerics: from boyhood or youth they are lectors; about the age of twenty, acolytes or subdeacons; those who enter the clergy when already grown up are first exorcists or lectors, after a certain time acolytes or subdeacons. Briefly, it appears that the obligation of receiving all the minor orders without exception is a law dating from the time when the minor orders ceased to be exercised in the original way.

It also notes:It is an almost universal custom now to confer the four minor orders at, one time, and the Council of Trent (loc. cit.) leaves the bishop quite free to dispense with the interstices (q.v.).

newadvent.org/cathen/10332b.htm

 

[laszlo]

Ah right. I knew seminary was 6 years, at least it is here in England, and I’d just assumed it had always been 6 years. What I’m not sure about is why the need to extend to get a bachelor’s degree. I always thought major seminary couldn’t be started before 18. It was sort of the Church’s equivalent to higher education and it only takes 3 years full-time study to get a bachelor’s degree.

I do not know how it was in England or in America. Hungary followed the German system.

There were Universities with Philosophical, Theological, Law, Medical faculties, and there were diocesan Seminaries.

In diocesan seminaries the curriculum was 5 years (after high school, which meant 12 years of previous education 4 years elementary and 8th years college preparatory school = gymnasium). These seminarians never received any degree. They got absolutorium and worked as priests.

Those who were sent to the Universities (also after 12 years previous education, so usualy at age 18) started with the Philosophical curriculum, and after 2 years received bacjelor degree for philosophy. After that in the third years they received bachelor degree from Biblical studies, on the fourth year bachelor degree from Law and Theologia Sacramentalis, and at the end of the fifth year they received licentiate, which allowed them to teach in the diocesan seminaries. The sixth year was to write an defend their dissertation from a particular topic for the doctoral degree.

To teach in regular basis in universities required an additional dissertation called rehabilitation.

 

[Hesychios]

It’s too bad the Minor Orders atrophied like that. They are just symbolically buried under the priesthood.

It would be wonderful to see these orders out in the parishes, actually functioning.

 

[laszlo]

It’s too bad the Minor Orders atrophied like that. They are just symbolically buried under the priesthood.

It would be wonderful to see these orders out in the parishes, actually functioning.

Interestingly with the exception of the exorcists the functions are there

the ushers are the porters, the lectors the lectors, and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers the acolythes

 

[Shin]

In this order:

Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte.

Here’s a nice graphic representing the succession of minor orders to the priesthood:

http://i52.tinypic.com/72ao0m.jpg

I’m somewhat certain they would have all been received separately.

Splendid image, thanks be to God!

It’s too bad the Minor Orders atrophied like that. They are just symbolically buried under the priesthood.

It would be wonderful to see these orders out in the parishes, actually functioning.

I agree!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Interestingly with the exception of the exorcists the functions are there

the ushers are the porters, the lectors the lectors, and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers the acolythes

Did exorcists actually carry out exorcisms? I suppose to answer my own question I assume that at some point in the past they did. Presumably before post-Vatican II abolition of the minor orders it was mainly a minor order held by a major seminarian with no real function. Exorcisms can still be carried out can’t they? By priests appointed for this role?

 

[Hesychios]

Interestingly with the exception of the exorcists the functions are there

the ushers are the porters, the lectors the lectors, and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers the acolythes

Oh yes, the roles are very functional, which is why they existed before, suppressing them did not obviate the need. Now we have the Orders only given to seminarians, who don’t serve those functons at all. Even the priesthood derived in this way, a function calved off from bishops who could not be everywhere.

However, I don’t know if one can equate an acolyte with an extraordinary minister of the eucharist (I think probably not) because I don’t know the history but I suspect they did not routinely hand off the Eucharist by themselves within the temple.

 

[laszlo]

However, I don’t know if one can equate an acolyte with an extraordinary minister of the eucharist (I think probably not) because I don’t know the history but I suspect they did not routinely hand off the Eucharist by themselves within the temple.

St Tarzicius martyr was acolyte, he died while carrying the Eucharist as viaticum. Also in the good old times seminarians ordained as acolytes were allowed to distribute the Eucharist.

The minor orders are only sacramentals, not sacraments. The ordination does not leaves permanent mark on the soul. In itself they not even make one cleric, it was the tonsure, which meant to be received as cleric with privileges.

I believe if they would be revived for the laity, it would enhance that functions, and would require some knowledge from the part of the blessed, and would give centralized control to the ordinary over the functions and individuals filling the functions.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

… and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers the acolythes

However, I don’t know if one can equate an acolyte with an extraordinary minister of the eucharist (I think probably not) …

The current discipline in the Latin Church is that acolytes are ex officio extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. But, an acolyte has a few wider functions that an extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

I believe if they would be revived for the laity …

Lay men can be instituted to the ministries of Lector and Acolyte, but in practice the Church seems to reserve these ministries to seminarians.

 

[PacoG]

Do men on the way to the Permanent Diaconate also go through the minor orders? Do they get instituted as lectors and acolytes before they become deacons?

 

[Hesychios]

St Tarzicius martyr was acolyte, he died while carrying the Eucharist as viaticum.

I understand the viaticum, but in the presence of a priest in the temple I think it would not be normal.

Also in the good old times seminarians ordained as acolytes were allowed to distribute the Eucharist.

Do you happen to have a reference for that? I would be interested to learn more.

The minor orders are only sacramentals, not sacraments. The ordination does not leaves permanent mark on the soul.

Well there is part of the problem for me. For Orthodox it would be a sacrament and that is how I have been looking at it. It is probably on this basis that the church decided over time to walk away from the tradition.

From my own experience I have seen that the Minor Orders are helpful in fostering vocations to the Major Orders, which is one reason why I think that they should be revived. I feel it is unfortunate that the church did not take this approach when it decided to introduce EMC’s, but that is all water under the bridge now.

 

[malphono]

Well there is part of the problem for me. For Orthodox it would be a sacrament and that is how I have been looking at it. It is probably on this basis that the church decided over time to walk away from the tradition.

You’re saying that Minor Orders are considered Sacraments?

 

[Hesychios]

You’re saying that Minor Orders are considered Sacraments?

Every blessing is a sacrament.

 

[Aramis]

St Tarzicius martyr was acolyte, he died while carrying the Eucharist as viaticum. Also in the good old times seminarians ordained as acolytes were allowed to distribute the Eucharist.

The minor orders are only sacramentals, not sacraments. The ordination does not leaves permanent mark on the soul. In itself they not even make one cleric, it was the tonsure, which meant to be received as cleric with privileges.

I believe if they would be revived for the laity, it would enhance that functions, and would require some knowledge from the part of the blessed, and would give centralized control to the ordinary over the functions and individuals filling the functions.

You’re confounding the older canon law with the current.

Until 1963, first tonsure made one a cleric.
After 1963, only in the east are there minor orders at all, and they are clerics.