The Lay Ministries

[diggerdomer]

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.

I apologize if I misunderstood you or anyone else.

As I understand it, the Church uses “extraordinary” in reference to liturgical ministries in very precise and limited applications.

I simply don’t see anywhere that lectors/readers or acolytes/servers are distinguished by the term “extraordinary” as ministers of communion are.

I have not intended to derail this thread. Sorry if my comments and questions came across that way. If anything I said or asked are off topic, I would be happy to start a new thread.

Sorry for any trouble.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Thank you. Where did Paul VI teach this? Appreciate the reference.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Maybe FSSP does retain them, I admit I don’t know. I was responding to the OP who is apparently Latin Rite.

Logic does not define Canon Law. Canon Law describes the roles of acolytes and lectors (instituted ministries) but does not label “readers” and “altar servers” as “extraordinary” ministers.

That’s my point. Do you disagree?

 

[Aramis]

Maybe FSSP does retain them, I admit I don’t know. I was responding to the OP who is apparently Latin Rite.

Logic does not define Canon Law. Canon Law describes the roles of acolytes and lectors (instituted ministries) but does not label “readers” and “altar servers” as “extraordinary” ministers.

That’s my point. Do you disagree?

The need for the “Extraordinary” in EMHC is because there is no english synonym to distinguish them from the ordinary ones.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/servers.shtml defines altar servers by what roles of the acolyte they may fulfill. Filling roles proper to an order that one is not part of (even if only an instituted order) makes one an extraordinary minister.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

… OP who is apparently Latin Rite.

I am Roman Rite, there is no such thing as the Latin rite. I am a member of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris.

 

[jpjd]

Perhaps instituting a person as Lector and Instituted Acolyte are not needed outside of seminary training because reader and altar server fulfill those roles adequately.

I have been a reader for years. My sons have been altar servers for years. Why the need to be instituted?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Perhaps instituting a person as Lector and Instituted Acolyte are not needed outside of seminary training because reader and altar server fulfill those roles adequately.

I have been a reader for years. My sons have been altar servers for years. Why the need to be instituted?

Where have I said that there is a need for instituted ordinary lay ministries? Nowhere!

My question was: does anyone know why the Church has not made use of what Pope Paul VI made provision for in his Apostolic Letter motu proprio “Ministeria Quaedam”?

That is completely different from what most posters have assumed is my position: most have assumed that I am saying let’s do away with all readers and altar servers and replace them with lectors and acolytes. Plus, I have never said that altar servers and readers do not fulfil their roles adequately. Out of interest jpjd, why have you been a reader “for years”?

No one has answered my original question. I think it therefore safe to presume that no one knows the answer. When I posted the question I did not know if anybody would know the answer. Obviously no one does so there is no further need for this thread.

(However, if you read the new/latest edition of the GIRM, the duties of acolyte and lector are described. It says in the absence of an acolyte a lay person may (my emphasis) be deputed to carry out the duties of an acolyte. It also says that laypersons may (my emphasis) be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers. It also says in the absence of an instituted lector other laypersons may (my emphasis) be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. It does not mention by name readers, altar servers, or extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion (#'s 98, 99, 100, 101, 187-198). It would seem that it is still the mind of the Church that these ordinary lay ministries should exist and that altar servers, readers, and extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion should be the exception rather than the rule.)

 

[CDNowak]

Maybe FSSP does retain them, I admit I don’t know. I was responding to the OP who is apparently Latin Rite.

Logic does not define Canon Law. Canon Law describes the roles of acolytes and lectors (instituted ministries) but does not label “readers” and “altar servers” as “extraordinary” ministers.

That’s my point. Do you disagree?

Yes. 1) FSSP is in the Roman Rite and you are the one who raised the question of whether there are minor orders in the Rite. 2) Canon Law does not describe the roles of Instituted ministers (that would be the Roman Missal, the GIRM, Ceremonial of Bishops, the Ritual, the Pontifical, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc.). 3) Readers and servers are not the ordinary ministers, that much I hope is clear: Can you tell me the difference between “substitutes” and “extraordinary ministers”?

Mattew Holford For a definitive answer you would have to ask the bishops. Some have alleged that gender inequality is the reason the bishops haven’t implemented them, it could also be a matter of not being willing to set up a formation program for whatever reason.

 

[jpjd]

Where have I said that there is a need for instituted ordinary lay ministries? Nowhere!

What I meant by my question, “Why the need to be instituted” was: Why do you see a need for instituted Lector and Acolyte outside of seminary training, i.e. I was not asking why the need for instituted ordinary lay ministries of reader and altar servers.

In other words, Lector and Acolyte are steps on the way to the priesthood. Although it may occur that others become Lector and Acolyte, for the most part, the office of Lector and Acolyte is reserved for those who have a calling to the priesthood. Those who serve in the functions of reader and server need not be carried out only by those who have a calling to the priesthood. The practical everyday, in-most-parishes way that these roles of Lector and Acolyte are carried out is via reader and altar server, with integrity.

Why have I been a reader for years? Because I was asked to be one, and we have a continuing need for readers almost bordering on a shortage. If my on-going participation was preventing others from participating, then I would step down in a heartbeat. However, as it stands now, if I were to step down, that would only increase the need for readers.

 

[Aramis]

1. Canon Law does not describe the roles of Instituted ministers (that would be the Roman Missal, the GIRM, Ceremonial of Bishops, the Ritual, the Pontifical, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc.).

Actually, it does, just not in much detail.

Can. 230
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
Emphasis mine. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM

 

[CDNowak]

Actually, it does, just not in much detail.

Can. 230
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
Emphasis mine. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM

I could split hairs on that (mentions them, in part; but does not describe them in any comprehensive sense). More to my point, Canon Law is not the catchall on liturgical issues that some posters think it is.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As I understand it, the Church uses “extraordinary” in reference to liturgical ministries in very precise and limited applications.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. “Extraordinary” means one who is not the ordinary minister. It does not mean as some people occasionally interpret it as special.

I simply don’t see anywhere that lectors/readers or acolytes/servers are distinguished by the term “extraordinary” as ministers of communion are.

Again, I agree with you. I cannot find any reference to where the Church describes altar servers or readers as extraordinary. Nevertheless, it seems from previous documents and even the new GIRM that the Church sees the acolyte and lector as the ordinary ministers of the functions they perform. So in a sense altar servers and readers are extraordinary not because they’ve ever been called that in any official Church document but simply because they are carrying out a ministry that should be carried out by another minister.

Now, I may be wrong here but I don’t think the Church talks about extraordinary ministers of baptism. But, if someone was dying and no bishop, priest or deacon could be had I could baptise that dying person. In doing so I would be an extraordinary minister. In other words I would be a minister of that sacrament but not the minister who should normally administer that sacrament.

I suppose what has happened is that because the Church does not tend to institute lectors and acolytes we don’t see readers and altar servers occasionally standing in for them. We’ve come to see altar servers and readers as part of our normal experience of Mass.

I am not attempting to say there’s anything wrong with altar servers or readers. Far from it. In fact I have been both myself. I only ever started this thread to see if anyone knew why the Church was limiting these ministries to seminarians. Maybe it’s historical in the sense that most parishes probably didn’t have anyone in minor orders before the reforms. I’m too young to know. Maybe they were always limited to seminarians and the average person in the pew never came across them.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Thank you. Where did Paul VI teach this? Appreciate the reference.

In an Apostolic Letter given motu proprio “Ministeria Quaedam” dated 15th August 1972 to come into effect from 1st January 1973. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19720815_ministeria-quaedam_lt.html. Now, I don’t claim to speak Latin. I got an English language translation from http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6minors.htm

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Mattew Holford For a definitive answer you would have to ask the bishops. Some have alleged that gender inequality is the reason the bishops haven’t implemented them, it could also be a matter of not being willing to set up a formation program for whatever reason.

I could try that route but I do not think I would receive an answer.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

What I meant by my question, “Why the need to be instituted” was: Why do you see a need for instituted Lector and Acolyte outside of seminary training, i.e. I was not asking why the need for instituted ordinary lay ministries of reader and altar servers.

I do not see any need for instituted acolytes and lectors outside the seminary. To be honest I cannot find any difference between what a lector can do and what a reader can do. There are some things that an acolyte can do which an altar server cannot do.

I have never once in this thread said that we should be using acolytes and lectors in place of altar servers and readers. What I asked in my OP was if anybody knew why the Church has not made wide use of acolytes and lectors as Pope Paul VI had intended. I was only a young child when all the post Vatican II reforms were taking place. I thought that someone may have known why Pope Paul VI’s intentions had never come to fruition.

I am not calling for altar servers and readers to be instituted. I have tried to use terminology correctly to avoid confusion. Acolyte and Lector are ministries not orders. Acolytes and Lectors are lay men not clerics. The process of becoming an acolyte or lector is called institution. If I am not mistaken one becomes an altar server or reader by a process called commissioning.

In other words, Lector and Acolyte are steps on the way to the priesthood.

Yes, all seminarians have to have been instituted into these lay ministries.

… the office of Lector and Acolyte is reserved for those who have a calling to the priesthood.

No, they are open to laymen not just men preparing for the priesthood.

Those who serve in the functions of reader and server need not be carried out only by those who have a calling to the priesthood.

I agree.

The practical everyday, in-most-parishes way that these roles of Lector and Acolyte are carried out is via reader and altar server, with integrity.

Yes, they are and as you say with integrity. I have absolutely no problem with altar servers and readers. I have served in both ministries.

Why have I been a reader for years? Because I was asked to be one, and we have a continuing need for readers almost bordering on a shortage. If my on-going participation was preventing others from participating, then I would step down in a heartbeat. However, as it stands now, if I were to step down, that would only increase the need for readers.

You clearly understood my reason for asking. In some parishes the same people perform the same ministries year after year with other parishioners never being given the opportunity to serve.

 

[Phemie]

You clearly understood my reason for asking. In some parishes the same people perform the same ministries year after year with other parishioners never being given the opportunity to serve.

Boy, I wish I belonged to one of those parishes. I’ve never been in one where there were so many volunteers that some didn’t get to serve. I’d give anything if I could read once every 6-8 weeks instead of once every two weeks (when it’s not every week for a month).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Boy, I wish I belonged to one of those parishes. I’ve never been in one where there were so many volunteers that some didn’t get to serve. I’d give anything if I could read once every 6-8 weeks instead of once every two weeks (when it’s not every week for a month).

Yes, our parish is blessed in terms of numbers. I am aware that many parishes are not so fortunate.

We offer Rosaries for priestly vocations. I think we need to offer Rosaries to get people to return to their Faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

The need for the “Extraordinary” in EMHC is because there is no english synonym to distinguish them from the ordinary ones.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/servers.shtml defines altar servers by what roles of the acolyte they may fulfill. Filling roles proper to an order that one is not part of (even if only an instituted order) makes one an extraordinary minister.

I think I understand your point, but as I understand it (and please anyone correct me if I’m wrong) nowhere does the Roman Catholic Church say altar servers who are not acolytes are extraordinary ministers.

In other words, I disagree (I think) with your premise that language is the root of the issue. The fact is, according to Catholic teaching, ordinary ministers of holy communion are ordained. Similarly, the fact is, according to Roman Catholic teaching, the duties of “altar server” can be performed equally by either instituted acolytes OR altar servers. From what I kinow…and again, anyone, please correct any misunderstanding…the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that acolytes are “ordinary” and altar servers are “extraordinary.”

Yes? No?

 

[diggerdomer]

I am Roman Rite, there is no such thing as the Latin rite. I am a member of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris.

Actually, there is such a thing as Latin Rite. The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church includes the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc.

I am unfamiliar with the term “Latin Catholic Church sui iuris.”: I have never heard it before. Can you explain what that means? Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps instituting a person as Lector and Instituted Acolyte are not needed outside of seminary training because reader and altar server fulfill those roles adequately.

I have been a reader for years. My sons have been altar servers for years. Why the need to be instituted?

It’s not so much a need for liturgy, but those preparing for ordination (whether to the priesthood or diaconate) do need to be instituted, formally, into these ministries (which are restricted to males).