The Lay Ministries

[Aramis]

I note that you are a Ruthenian Catholic. Could it be a difference in our Churches that makes the difference?

Dad’s Roman… one of two deacons at one of the largest parishes in Alaska… so no. I became a practicing Ruthenian only later. In point of fact, his ordination caused a lot of people to pressure me about the priesthood, and I quit the faith because of it; the Ruthenian Catholic Church brought me back.

 

[Orogeny]

The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston uses instituted acolytes. My parish has maybe 10-12 men who have been instituted. Here is a link to the Archdiocean website: archgh.org/Worship/Instituted-Acolyte/index.htm

Peace

Tim

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Are you really going to use the vessel purification argument?

I never even hinted at it. But just to clarify that is NOT the only function they can do that altar servers cannot. Instituted acolytes are ex officio extraordinary ministers of holy communion. They may also expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament; obviously they cannot give Benediction.

 

[Aramis]

Instituted Lectors are far more rare; mostly because their duties can all be done by laity.

Their extraordinary competencies can not be, but those are so seldom encountered that I’ve not seen consistent instructions upon them.

 

[pnewton]

They are the ordinary ministers, and are referred to in the liturgical documents without any qualifier. This, along with the fact that MQ clearly states that they are not meant to be reserved, suggests wider usage.

However you haven’t answered my question: why shouldn’t they be more common?

I sure do not know. Perhaps the current system is working. What you said is clearly stated is not what I would call clear. Perhaps the bishops also do not see it the way you do. What I asked for is whether there was any place that stated, not implied, the need to use these positions. If there is no better answer than the place you mentioned, I really do not see the necessity. Nor would I obejct if they were used.
Perhaps Luger has the best reason:

I would suggest one reason is that the formation to be permanently instituted as a acolyte or lector would (or at least should) be rather lengthy. Why not just become a deacon OR remain a commissioned reader or altar server? Are you really going to use the vessel purification argument?

If I was a bishop I wouldn’t permanently institute a man to be a lector or acolyte without 2-3 years of part time formation…

This would be a large commitment for a volunteer worker. Perhaps there is the understandable concern that there would not be interest.

 

[Luger]

…This would be a large commitment for a volunteer worker. Perhaps there is the understandable concern that there would not be interest.

Yes it would be. The LAST thing the Church needs is to dumb-down the requirements to be permanently instituted. It an even bigger commitment to be a deacon – most of which are also volunteers.

I think the formation for to be instituted as a lector or acolyte should be fairly close to what’s required of a deacon – so why not become a deacon? That’s one reason why we don’t see a ton of single, permanent deacons. While they are certainly different vocations, deacons are “almost priests” in terms of preparation investment. If it were not for the celibacy issue, quite a few would likely become priests even today. SO, IF they are single and if they are called to the permanent diaconate, I think a great many would feel pulled to the priesthood.

Before the minor orders were changed, that of “porter” was often abused. A parish’s biggest male benefactor for instance would be made a porter. I would fear this could become an issue with acolytes/lectors unless there were some real formal requirements in place…

 

[CDNowak]

I sure do not know. Perhaps the current system is working. What you said is clearly stated is not what I would call clear. Perhaps the bishops also do not see it the way you do. What I asked for is whether there was any place that stated, not implied, the need to use these positions. If there is no better answer than the place you mentioned, I really do not see the necessity. Nor would I obejct if they were used.

P.Paul VI called for the ministries “no longer to be considered as reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders.” (Canadian Bishops’ Conference is thus in the wrong).

The GIRM states: “116. If a deacon is present at any celebration of Mass, he should exercise his office. Furthermore, it is desirable that, as a rule, an acolyte, a lector, and a cantor should be there to assist the priest celebrant. In fact, the rite to be described below foresees a greater number of ministers.”

True, the duties of the ministries are licitly fulfilled, by necessity (Canon 230.3), by others among the laity. However the deliberate creation of a state of necessity is problematic, at the very least. It certainly blurs the line regarding Ministry vs the Apostolate (a major concern as evidenced by the interdicasteral instruction on the roll of the non-ordained in the ministry of the priest).

This would be a large commitment for a volunteer worker. Perhaps there is the understandable concern that there would not be interest.

Evidence from at least one diocese where it has been tried suggests otherwise:

The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston uses instituted acolytes. My parish has maybe 10-12 men who have been instituted. Here is a link to the Archdiocean website: archgh.org/Worship/Instituted-Acolyte/index.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

May I politely suggest that you read my last post again. I did not say that the Church teaches that altar servers were “extraordinary”. A previous poster asked if they were extraordinary. I suggested that we could possible consider them extraordinary if we used the analogy that they performed a role for which the ordinary minister was the acolyte. Your final statement is factually incorrect. They do not serve the liturgical role previously prescribed for acolytes. They serve some, but not all, of the liturgical role currently assigned to the ministry of acolyte. With your knowledge of Canon and liturgical law you should have known that.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought that because you began your post using the word “extraordinary” you thought those ministries were in fact extraordinary. I thought you said that lay readers are extraordinary ministers.

Isn’t that what you said? Did I misunderstand you?

Thanks for responding.

 

[diggerdomer]

Given that the documents call for them (not just Ministeria Quaedam, but the GIRM and other liturgical documents as well): Is there a reason why they should not be extended?

As to practical benefit, while secondary, I do think there may be several: 1) a better line drawn between the priesthood and the laity, 2) a better understanding of actual participation in the liturgy 3)( For those who think unity comes from uniformity,) having instituted ministers allows for a centralized formation program, that will be able to aid the priest in meeting standards for the Liturgy, and 4) masculizing the sanctuary as an aid to encouraging vocations.

What, exactly, do you mean by “minor orders” in today’s Church? Thanks.

 

[CDNowak]

What, exactly, do you mean by “minor orders” in today’s Church? Thanks.

umm, wrong quote? Although they do still exist (FSSP, et al.)

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought that because you began your post using the word “extraordinary” you thought those ministries were in fact extraordinary. I thought you said that lay readers are extraordinary ministers.

Isn’t that what you said? Did I misunderstand you?

Thanks for responding.

I think a lot of this comes down to terminology. In the moto proprio referred to Paul VI abolished all the minor orders: porter, exorcist, lector and acolyte. He also abolished the major order of subdeacon. This left the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris without any minor orders. It meant that the distinction between minor and major orders de facto disappeared because we were left with three major orders which are now just called orders: deacons, priests and bishops.

He also abolished First Tonsure. It was First Tonsure that made a man a cleric. Now a man does not enter the clerical state until he’s ordained as a deacon.

The route now taken to the priesthood followed by seminarians is: Admission to Candidacy for the Diaconate and Priesthood* (a liturgical rite but not a sacrament - still a layman after this rite); then after a period of time Institution as a Lector (a liturgical rite but not a sacrament - still a layman after this rite); then after a period of time Institution as an Acolyte (a liturgical rite but not a sacrament - still a layman after this rite); then Ordination as a Deacon (this is a sacrament - the Sacrament of Holy Orders, now a cleric); then of course Ordination as a Priest. Permanent deacons follow this route as far as being ordained a deacon.

*Monks in perpetual vows preparing for the priesthood do not undergo this rite.

Lector and Acolyte mentioned above are ministries. They are lay ministries because men instituted into these ministries remain laymen. They do not confer the sacrament of Holy Orders and they do not admit a man to the clerical state.

Pope Paul VI did not restrict these ministries to those preparing for the priesthood or permanent diaconate. He said they were open to all lay men. (He also said individual conferences of bishops could call acolytes subdeacons if they wanted to. Might be useful for those who celebrate EF High Mass. He also said the bishops’ conferences could introduce other ministries according to their needs.)

Nowadays we have in our churches laypersons who read the pre-Gospel readings at Mass, lead us in the responsorial psalm, and lead us in the Prayer of the Faithful. We call these people Readers.

There are laypersons at Mass who carry the processional cross, the thurible, help prepare the Altar at the Offertory, help the priest receive the gifts of the people at the Offertory, etc. We call them Altar Servers.

I never meant to imply that readers and altar servers are called extraordinary in the same way that EMsHC are. We call EMsHC extraordinary because the ordinary ministers for giving Holy Communion are bishops, priests, and deacons.

I was only trying to create an analogy. I was suggesting that in one sense we might see Readers as extraordinary when they read the pre-Gospel readings because the ordinary minister for that role is an instituted Lector. Readers may also lead the Prayer of the Faithful; however, the proper minister of that is the deacon and if there is no deacon then an instituted lector; and then only a reader if neither a deacon nor lector is available. Likewise the tasks carried out by altar servers ordinarily belong to instituted Acolytes.

So although I know the Church does not describe readers and altar servers as extraordinary they carry out roles for which there are ordinary ministers.

 

[Aramis]

The ordinary minister who carries the cross is the Acolyte. An alter server does this as an extraordinary minister, albeit one who is more common than the ordinary one.
The ordinary minister who prepares, carries, and proffers the thurible to the priest or deacon is the acolyte, as well. An altar server doing this is in fact an extraordinary minister.
The ordinary minister who brings the chalice and patton, and their associated linens, and the cruets and lavabo set to the deacon (or priest) is the acolyte. An alterserver does this as an extraordinary minister.
The ordinary minister who holds the sacramentary for the celebrant is the Acolyte. an altar server again does this as an extraordinary minister.

There is nothing in the canon-law term extraordinary requiring it to be uncommon; it simply means one who is not the ordinary minister of that task. And the ordinary minister is the one annointed and/or appointed specifically for doing some specific task.

The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are priests, deacons, and bishops. The preferred extraordinary minister of holy communion is the Acolyte. But other laypersons may be permitted to serve as EMHC by canon law.

So, yes, it’s VERY correct to look at altar servers in the same light as EMHC’s. They are common, and it’s very fine to have them, but it still would be more correct to have more acolytes to do the job instead.

The Lector wasn’t even the ordinary minister of the lection… that was the subdeacon… until the Pauline missal. An instituted lector is the ordinary minister for the lections, in the same way that the deacon is the ordinary minister for the Gospel. (A priest serving as gospeller does so as an extraordinary minister… because as priest, he no longer is the ordinary minister of the Gospel, but is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist and of the Homily…)

 

[diggerdomer]

umm, wrong quote? Although they do still exist (FSSP, et al.)

Again, any clarification of where “minor orders” exist in today’s Catholic Church would be appreciated. References to the Cateshism? Canon Law? Liturgical Rites?

 

[diggerdomer]

I
So although I know the Church does not describe readers and altar servers as extraordinary they carry out roles for which there are ordinary ministers.

So you agree, these ministries are not considered by the Church as “extraordinary”?

 

[diggerdomer]

The ordinary minister who carries the cross is the Acolyte. An alter server does this as an extraordinary minister, albeit one who is more common than the ordinary one.
The ordinary minister who prepares, carries, and proffers the thurible to the priest or deacon is the acolyte, as well. An altar server doing this is in fact an extraordinary minister.
The ordinary minister who brings the chalice and patton, and their associated linens, and the cruets and lavabo set to the deacon (or priest) is the acolyte. An alterserver does this as an extraordinary minister.
The ordinary minister who holds the sacramentary for the celebrant is the Acolyte. an altar server again does this as an extraordinary minister.

There is nothing in the canon-law term extraordinary requiring it to be uncommon; it simply means one who is not the ordinary minister of that task. And the ordinary minister is the one annointed and/or appointed specifically for doing some specific task.

The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are priests, deacons, and bishops. The preferred extraordinary minister of holy communion is the Acolyte. But other laypersons may be permitted to serve as EMHC by canon law.

So, yes, it’s VERY correct to look at altar servers in the same light as EMHC’s. They are common, and it’s very fine to have them, but it still would be more correct to have more acolytes to do the job instead.

The Lector wasn’t even the ordinary minister of the lection… that was the subdeacon… until the Pauline missal. An instituted lector is the ordinary minister for the lections, in the same way that the deacon is the ordinary minister for the Gospel. (A priest serving as gospeller does so as an extraordinary minister… because as priest, he no longer is the ordinary minister of the Gospel, but is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist and of the Homily…)

I’m referring to the Roman Rite, as I thought the OP was. Where in the Roman Rite are the ministries you described considered “extraordinary”?

 

[Aramis]

Again, any clarification of where “minor orders” exist in today’s Catholic Church would be appreciated. References to the Cateshism? Canon Law? Liturgical Rites?

CCEO, the canon law for the Eastern Churches, maintains them for the churches in union with Rome.

 

[diggerdomer]

CCEO, the canon law for the Eastern Churches, maintains them for the churches in union with Rome.

Thanks Aramis. As always, appreciate your insights as I need to learn more about Eastern Catholic Churches.

For others, my question remains, as the OP is Latin Rite, what is the relevance of sub-deacons to this topic?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

So you agree, these ministries are not considered by the Church as “extraordinary”?

No! At no point did I say that I agreed with you. I have attempted to explain the point to you twice and I believe that one other poster, at least, has attempted the same. Unfortunately, you have not understood it.

I am not going to constantly respond to your repetitive “so they’re not really extraordinary”.

You have repeatedly tried to derail this thread. It is obvious that you haven’t understood the original post.

At no point have I tried to say what is the Church’s official position - I would never presume to know the mind of the Church.

Perhaps as you are so keen to know the actual status of readers and altar servers you should find out which of the Holy See’s dicasteries is responsible for them and pose your question to them directly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

For others, my question remains, as the OP is Latin Rite, what is the relevance of sub-deacons to this topic?

Pope Paul VI said individual bishops’ conferences may choose to re-name acolytes subdeacons. Subdeacons are, I presume, still required by the EF Form of the Roman Rite. As they are laymen perhaps they couldn’t be used. I have never been to an EF Mass and don’t know who they use to fulfil the role of Subdeacon in High Mass.

 

[CDNowak]

Again, any clarification of where “minor orders” exist in today’s Catholic Church would be appreciated. References to the Cateshism? Canon Law? Liturgical Rites?

Again, you still haven’t provided the quote you are arguing against.

As I said FSSP retain them. As to Papa Stronsay, ICKSP and similar groups, I presume they have the same permission. (and as noted, in the Eastern Church).

Since there are ordinary ministers (the Instituted ministers), anyone else fulfilling those is logically extraordinary (both in the sense of ‘out of’ and ‘in addition to’ the ordinary). It might help you to note we are not ants*. As to the relevance of subdeacons, please read Ministeria Quaedam

---

Above the entrance to the ant tunnels in T.H.White’s “Once and Future King” there were signs proclaiming: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory”.