The Lay Ministries

[diggerdomer]

Y 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.).

See Canon Law e.g. 230. The ministries of acolyte and lector are referred to there.

 

[diggerdomer]

Y 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”?

No, I cannot tell you difference between “substitutes” and “extraordinary ministers” because I am not aware that the Catholic Church describes any such difference. Do you have a reference for such?

Do you have any reference for where the Catholic Church teaches that readers and servers are not ordinary ministers?

Thank you.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

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.

Why are you asking the same question over and over and over again? It has been answered for you more than once! Your first paragraph is wrong; you say: “… altar servers who are not acolytes are extraordinary ministers.” Acolytes are not altar servers; they are Acolytes.

… the duties of “altar server” can be performed equally by either instituted acolytes OR altar servers.

No, that is the wrong way round. Acolytes and altar servers are two different things. Altar servers can undertake some of the duties of an Acolyte, but not all of them. An Acolyte can purify the sacred vessels at the end of Mass; an altar server cannot. An Acolyte is ex officio an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion; an altar server is not.

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?

It teaches that Acolyte is an ordinary lay ministry. I do not think it teaches that altar servers are “extraordinary”; but, then again no one is making the claim that the Church does teach that they are extraordinary ministers.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

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.

Rite refers to the way in which the liturgy is celebrated. As you point out there are a number of different liturgical rites such as the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, another rite found in Portugal whose name escapes me right now. Some religious orders have their own rites too.

However, the word “rite” does not apply to the Church. There are 23 Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See. One is the Latin Catholic Church. The other 22 are Eastern Catholic churches. The Pope is the head of the Latin Catholic Church. Each of the 22 Eastern Catholic churches has as its head either a patriarch, major archbishop, or a metropolitan. The Pope is, of course, over all 23 Catholic churches. I am not a Latin expert and the phrase sui iuris like a lot of Latin phrases does not translate easily into English. Basically it means “self-governing”. So, Catholics who are generally referred to as Roman Catholics belong to the Latin Catholic Church. All Catholics belong to a Church not to a rite. There are a number of different rites in the Latin Catholic Church and they all use the Latin language. However, there in no Latin rite.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why are you asking the same question over and over and over again? It has been answered for you more than once! Your first paragraph is wrong; you say: “… altar servers who are not acolytes are extraordinary ministers.” Acolytes are not altar servers; they are Acolytes.

Sorry if I was confusing or inaccurate. My point is not to equate acolytes and altar servers, but merely to state the fact that at Masses where there are no instituted acolytes (the majority of parish Masses) that most of the functions performed by instituted Acolytes are performed by altar servers. Right? Sorry again for any misunderstanding.

It teaches that Acolyte is an ordinary lay ministry. I do not think it teaches that altar servers are “extraordinary”; but, then again no one is making the claim that the Church does teach that they are extraordinary ministers.

It seemed to me that some on this Thread were suggesting that ministries such as altar server should be classified as “extraordinary” which as you note the Church does not teach. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Rite refers to the way in which the liturgy is celebrated. As you point out there are a number of different liturgical rites such as the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, another rite found in Portugal whose name escapes me right now. Some religious orders have their own rites too.

However, the word “rite” does not apply to the Church. There are 23 Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See. One is the Latin Catholic Church. The other 22 are Eastern Catholic churches. The Pope is the head of the Latin Catholic Church. Each of the 22 Eastern Catholic churches has as its head either a patriarch, major archbishop, or a metropolitan. The Pope is, of course, over all 23 Catholic churches. I am not a Latin expert and the phrase sui iuris like a lot of Latin phrases does not translate easily into English. Basically it means “self-governing”. So, Catholics who are generally referred to as Roman Catholics belong to the Latin Catholic Church. All Catholics belong to a Church not to a rite. There are a number of different rites in the Latin Catholic Church and they all use the Latin language. However, there in no Latin rite.

23? I thought there were 22. Can you provide a list?

The “Latin Catholic Church” is not one, to my understanding, as you seem to claim. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the Latin Rites…but there are other Latin Rites that are not Roman (e.g. Ambrosian, Mozarabic). Can you clarify? Thanks.

Is there a “Latin Rite”? Again that depends on what one means. There is no specific liturgical rite that is Latin, yes. But…there are Rites of the Catholic Church that are grouped under the umbrella of the Latin Rite (the Roman Rite is one of them).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Sorry if I was confusing or inaccurate. My point is not to equate acolytes and altar servers, but merely to state the fact that at Masses where there are no instituted acolytes (the majority of parish Masses) that most of the functions performed by instituted Acolytes are performed by altar servers. Right? Sorry again for any misunderstanding.

I believe that would be the experience of most of us. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever assisted at a celebration of Holy Mass at which an Acolyte was present.

It seemed to me that some on this Thread were suggesting that ministries such as altar server should be classified as “extraordinary” which as you note the Church does not teach. Thanks.

Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Letter makes clear that acolytes and lectors are ordinary ministers. I do not think everything is always “black and white”. There are many shades of grey. There are documents that do not say acolytes and lectors are ordinary ministers but which imply that they are. As you will no doubt ask for examples I shall give you two. The Ceremonial of Bishops and the newest version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal both describe the functions of these two ministries but not those of altar server or reader.

I will clarify that I did not state the Church does not teach that altar servers and readers are extraordinary. I cannot recall any document that I have read doing this but of course I haven’t read every Church document.

I do not think anyone on this thread said that altar servers or readers were extraordinary. All that has been said is that as they carry out functions that the Church allocates to ordinary ministers. Therefore, they may be considered by implication to be extraordinary.

I do not think that their situation can be compared with that of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. I believe that the Church has emphasised the use of the word extraordinary for men and women commissioned to distribute Holy Communion because of other terms that have been used to describe them. They have been described as “Eucharistic Ministers” which can imply that they are the normal or ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They are not. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the sacred ministers: bishops, priests, and deacons. Another inappropriate term that was used for them, certainly here in the UK, I don’t know about elsewhere, was special minister of Holy Communion. This it seems was the result of a misinterpretation of the word “extraordinary”. This term means not the ordinary minister but some have chosen to misinterpret the term to mean ‘special’.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

23? I thought there were 22. Can you provide a list?

There are twenty-three Catholic churches sui iuris. I do not have a list to hand. You should be able to find a list using an Internet browser. I believe it a maxim of pedagogists that we remember things better if we find them out for ourselves.

The “Latin Catholic Church” is not one, to my understanding, as you seem to claim.

The Latin Catholic Church is one of the twenty-three Catholic churches.

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the Latin Rites…but there are other Latin Rites that are not Roman (e.g. Ambrosian, Mozarabic). Can you clarify? Thanks.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a rite. The Roman Catholic Church is a church. “Roman Catholic Church” is an alternative name for the Latin Catholic Church.

Is there a “Latin Rite”?

No.

Again that depends on what one means. There is no specific liturgical rite that is Latin, yes. But…there are Rites of the Catholic Church that are grouped under the umbrella of the Latin Rite (the Roman Rite is one of them).

The rite that is used by most Latin Catholics is the Roman Rite. It was originally the rite of the diocese of Rome. At one time many dioceses had their own rite. Over time many came to use the rite of the diocese of Rome. Following the Council of Trent Pope St Pius V in his bull Quo Primum decreed that the Roman Rite was to be used as the rite throughout the whole Latin Catholic Church. He quashed other rites unless they could demonstrate that they had been in continuous use for at least 200 years.

So, other rites survived such as the Mozarabic Rite based on the cathedral in Toledo, Spain. The Ambrosian Rite based on Milan in Italy survived. Some others survived but I cannot bring them to mind right now. A number of religious orders also had their own rites.

The language used in all these rites was Latin. Latin is still the official language for all rites in the Latin Catholic Church. Although since Vatican II translation into vernacular languages has been permitted and in fact has become the usual practice.

I suppose therefore that because of the use of Latin, or to be very precise ecclesiastical Latin, as the language of all the Latin Catholic Church’s rites the term “Latin Rite” has sprung up. However, there is no Latin Rite per se. Rather, there are a number of rites in the Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Phemie]

I do not think that their situation can be compared with that of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. I believe that the Church has emphasised the use of the word extraordinary for men and women commissioned to distribute Holy Communion because of other terms that have been used to describe them. They have been described as “Eucharistic Ministers” which can imply that they are the normal or ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They are not. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the sacred ministers: bishops, priests, and deacons. Another inappropriate term that was used for them, certainly here in the UK, I don’t know about elsewhere, was special minister of Holy Communion. This it seems was the result of a misinterpretation of the word “extraordinary”. This term means not the ordinary minister but some have chosen to misinterpret the term to mean ‘special’.

The original translation of Immensae Caritatis called them “Special Ministers of the Eucharist” and the original translation of Ministeriam Quaedam also used the term “special minister” so people cannot be faulted for using the term that we were given when this ministry came into being. It was only later that the name was clarified and depending on where you search you will find both translations. The EWTN library has the unrevised translation of these documents.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The original translation of Immensae Caritatis called them “Special Ministers of the Eucharist” and the original translation of Ministeriam Quaedam also used the term “special minister” so people cannot be faulted for using the term that we were given when this ministry came into being. It was only later that the name was clarified and depending on where you search you will find both translations. The EWTN library has the unrevised translation of these documents.

Unfortunately, I do not know Latin. Consequently, I am always reliant on an English translation; I can never go to the original document.

I can see how confusions arise. In my English translation of Ministeriam Quaedam (from EWTN) the term “reader” is used when it is quite clear from the context that lector is meant. I do not know whether this has arisen from a mistranslation or if Pope Paul VI used the Latin for reader. Of course, that just adds to the confusion people have over the difference between the ordinary lay ministry of Lector and the lay ministry of Reader.

 

[Phemie]

Unfortunately, I do not know Latin. Consequently, I am always reliant on an English translation; I can never go to the original document.

I can see how confusions arise. In my English translation of Ministeriam Quaedam (from EWTN) the term “reader” is used when it is quite clear from the context that lector is meant. I do not know whether this has arisen from a mistranslation or if Pope Paul VI used the Latin for reader. Of course, that just adds to the confusion people have over the difference between the ordinary lay ministry of Lector and the lay ministry of Reader.

As far as I know, English is the only language in which a distinction is made between ‘Lector’ and ‘Reader’. Latin makes no such distinction and the term was originally translated as ‘reader’.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As far as I know, English is the only language in which a distinction is made between ‘Lector’ and ‘Reader’. Latin makes no such distinction and the term was originally translated as ‘reader’.

I had my suspicions about that. Lector ‘sounds’ Latin. I used to speak French and of course the French for reader is lecteur (presumably derived from Latin).

 

[Phemie]

I had my suspicions about that. Lector ‘sounds’ Latin. I used to speak French and of course the French for reader is lecteur (presumably derived from Latin).

The Latin term is ‘Lectore’ and I wonder if, other than English, any language has a choice of words for ‘someone who reads’. I know of no other word in French but ‘lecteur’ (fem. lectrice). OK, there is ‘liseur’ but that refers specifically to someone who loves to read rather than someone who simply reads.

No official Church document that I’ve read actually uses lector or reader to refer to a non-instituted person. The documents always refer to the instituted minister and add that a lay person may be deputed to perform the function if no instituted minister is available.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…No official Church document that I’ve read actually uses lector or reader to refer to a non-instituted person. The documents always refer to the instituted minister and add that a lay person may be deputed to perform the function if no instituted minister is available.

From the Book of Blessings, an official liturgical book, approved for the USA:
“CHAPTER 61
ORDER FOR THE BLESSING OF READERS USA
INTRODUCTION
1827 The word of God, as proclaimed in the sacred Scripture, lies at the heart of our Christian life and is integral to all our liturgical celebrations.
1828 This order is not intended for the institution of readers by the bishop, who uses the rite contained in the Roman Pontifical. Rather, this blessing is for parish readers who have the responsibility of proclaiming the Scriptures at Mass and other liturgical services. Care should be taken that readers are properly prepared for the exercise of their ministry before receiving this blessing. The functions of the reader are given in no. 66 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.”

Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page 691.

 

[diggerdomer]

I
I will clarify that I did not state the Church does not teach that altar servers and readers are extraordinary. I cannot recall any document that I have read doing this but of course I haven’t read every Church document.

I do not think anyone on this thread said that altar servers or readers were extraordinary. All that has been said is that as they carry out functions that the Church allocates to ordinary ministers. Therefore, they may be considered by implication to be extraordinary.

That’s my point. Some people. like you, may consider these ministers as “extraordinary”:…but the Church does not.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, that is the wrong way round. Acolytes and altar servers are two different things.

Yes of course. I simply said that the duties of an altar server can be performed equally by an altar server or an Acolyte.

You denied this truth. Why?

What is your problem with that?

 

[diggerdomer]

Rite refers to the way in which the liturgy is celebrated. As you point out there are a number of different liturgical rites such as the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, another rite found in Portugal whose name escapes me right now. Some religious orders have their own rites too.

However, the word “rite” does not apply to the Church. There are 23 Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See. One is the Latin Catholic Church. The other 22 are Eastern Catholic churches. The Pope is the head of the Latin Catholic Church. Each of the 22 Eastern Catholic churches has as its head either a patriarch, major archbishop, or a metropolitan. The Pope is, of course, over all 23 Catholic churches. I am not a Latin expert and the phrase sui iuris like a lot of Latin phrases does not translate easily into English. Basically it means “self-governing”. So, Catholics who are generally referred to as Roman Catholics belong to the Latin Catholic Church. All Catholics belong to a Church not to a rite. There are a number of different rites in the Latin Catholic Church and they all use the Latin language. However, there in no Latin rite.

Fundamentally incorrect.

The Pope is the head of ALL Catholic Churches.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

That’s my point. Some people. like you, may consider these ministers as “extraordinary”:…but the Church does not.

That is not a valid point. All you want to do is have pointless arguments. In all your responses to my posts, to the posts of others on this thread, and posts of yours I have seen on other threads you simply disagree with what people say.

Find some evidence to back up your claims. It is generally accepted that when a function is carried out by a person other than the normal minister they carry out the ministry in an extraordinary function.

I find it very convenient on your part how to selectively respond to answers. I note with interest that you never responded to my post about the administration of the sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Yes of course. I simply said that the duties of an altar server can be performed equally by an altar server or an Acolyte.

You denied this truth. Why?

What is your problem with that?

A favourite trick of people like you. Take a phrase and quote it out of context. You then hope that others won’t go and check the original. Well, I’ll help others along and refer to the post from which you have chosen to misquote me, it’s Post #83. I won’t insult their intelligence: they will be able to see quite clearly what I said, how what I said is quite correct, and how you have misquoted and twisted what I have said for some bizarre reason known only to yourself.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think that it is about time that you learnt some Christian charity. I have patiently done my best to answer your posts which are nothing but argumentative. You frequently post questions and then disagree with the answer. If you know the answer then why pose the question? If you don’t know the answer why argue with answers given?

Fundamentally incorrect.

Thank you very much for that profound statement. Please cite official Church sources, actual sources from official Church documents, not your own opinions. Please reference them correctly. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of the veracity of your statement.

The Pope is the head of ALL Catholic Churches.

At last! Something that we agree on. Please point out to me where I have ever stated the contrary.

By the way did you bother to find a list of ALL the Catholic churches?

Please be aware that unless you post back to any of my posts with positive statements, backed up with indisputable proofs, then I shall not be responding to any further posts that you make on this thread.