P
Phemie
Guest
I’ll admit that this is a document I hadn’t seen before. Note that it refers to both the instituted person and the person to be blessed as “reader”, the term that was originally used in the English translation.
- Status
J
jpjd
Guest
Matthew, I think you have answered your own question with these comments below:
I would point out that the other things an acolyte can do (EMHC and purify vessels) can easily be done by others (respectively, other EMHCs, and a priest or deacon.) So in that sense, altar server adequately fulfills acolyte.
So, given that there is little to no difference between lector/reader and acolyte/altar server, and you yourself admit you see no need for acolytes and lectors outside the seminary, doesn’t that answer your question as to why the Church has not made wide use of acolytes and lectors? I think the Church came to the same answer.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I disagree otherwise I would not have posted the question. I don’t think anyone has answered the question. I accept that people may not know the answer. However, the usual has happened to this thread as I beginning to learn happens to a lot of the threads on this forum: people trying to derail them or take them off at a tangent.
That is of course your interpretation. I do not concur with your conclusion.
I don’t recall saying that I admit to seeing no need for acolytes and lectors outside the seminary. Perhaps, I did and have forgotten. Would you please remind me by telling me in which post I said that. I don’t know if the Church came to the same answer. I do not presume to know the mind of the Church.
All I know is what Pope Paul VI called for and what contemporary Church documents state on the use of these two ministries.
P
Phemie
Guest
Isn’t it interesting to note that Lincoln, a diocese that does institute men to those stable ministries, has a greater number of ordinations than most while dioceses like mine, where practically nothing is done that would be deemed to exclude women, has had only 2 ordinations in the past 13 years?
J
jpjd
Guest
Matthew, see post #75, the very first sentence (which I quoted in post #102).
I laid it all out for you in post #102. You have indeed answered your own question, and yet you do not see it. I can help you no further.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
OK, I see where you’re coming from. I didn’t actually instigate the statement but was simply agreeing with your premise.
However, I don’t believe my OP has been answered. And, as I have repeatedly said I accept that no one who has posted to the thread may know the answer. I don’t think any of us on here have the right to presume the mind of the Church. Perhaps as many have proposed the Church has seen no need for them outside the seminary. The Canadian bishops have definitively said they will not admit men to these ministries other than seminarians. We have also learnt that at least one diocese, Lincoln, has made use of these ministries. There may be other issues that have influenced individual bishops’ conferences to decide not to use them.
If we are going to infer the mind of the Church I think it is interesting to note that the Church still describes in her liturgical books the role of acolyte and lector but adds that laymen may depute for them. The Ceremonial of Bishops sees them as the norm and adds that they are to be preferred to altar servers and readers at a liturgy celebrated by a bishop. Even the latest edition of the GIRM talks of acolytes and lectors in a manner that assumes they are to be the norm.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Is that Lincoln, Nebraska, USA? I googled ‘diocese lincoln’ and it mainly brought up a lot of hits for the Anglican diocese of Lincoln here in UK. I did find several hits for a Lincoln Diocese, Nebraska. But, had wondered as your in Canada if you’d meant a Lincoln Diocese in Canada.
P
Phemie
Guest
Yes, Lincoln, Nebraska. 40 seminarians, 3 permanent & 4 transitional deacons. By comparison, our diocese at about 1/4 the population has 1 seminarian and no deacons at all.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I’m not concerned as much about what is (as you call it) “generally accepted.” I’m much more concerned about what the Catholic Church teaches.
Where, again, does the Church teach what ministers are “extraordinary.”? Do you have any reference except for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?
I’m sorry if I missed your post you reference regarding Baptism. Please let me know which post it is and I will review it. Thanks!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Wow. Hey. Let’s relax here. I’m curious what you mean by “people like you” given that obviously you don’t know me or anyone else on this Thread (I assume correctly?) and vice versa. Let’s not get personally combative here, ok?
You suggested in your post 24 that certain ministries may be considered “extraordinary” by the Church. I disagree. So how do you (and your subsequent post 83) respond to that question?
What’s your real (non-personal) concern here? Thanks.
A
Aramis
Guest
Not quite… the Dalmatian Rite uses Church Slavonic, traditionally written with glagolithic characters (unilike the Byzantine Slavs who use Cyrillic for Church Slavonic), but use the Roman Liturgy in Slavonic, and has for at least 200 years pre-Trent. Since V II, it has not had much mention. It was and is part of the Roman Church, and was used in Dalmatia and a neighboring province.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
It is my understanding that since the end of the 19h century Latin became the language used in the Dalmatian Rite.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I think it is important to remember that while lay persons can serve the Church in various liturgical roles in the sanctuary…the main vocation of the Lay Person is in the world.
Some I think have an idea that if they do not have some role such as these…that they are not active as Christians…but really such is not the vocation of they Laity …most such roles are “extraordinary” helps …
The role of the laity is in the world…the home the office the streets…politics, business, family, proclaiming Christ and ordering the world to God.
Our vocation has a “secular character”…
Compendium of the Catechism:
940
The lay faithful have as their own vocation to seek the Kingdom of God by illuminating and ordering temporal affairs according to the plan of God. They carry out in this way their call to holiness and to the apostolate, a call given to all the baptized.
They participate in it especially in the Eucharist by offering as a spiritual sacrifice “acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5) their own lives with all of their works, their prayers, their apostolic undertakings, their family life, their daily work and hardships borne with patience and even their consolations of spirit and body. In this way, even the laity, dedicated to Christ and consecrated by the Holy Spirit, offer to God the world itself.
942
They participate in it by welcoming evermore in faith the Word of Christ and proclaiming it to the world by the witness of their lives, their words, their evangelizing action, and by catechesis. This evangelizing action acquires a particular efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.
943
The laity participate in the kingly function of Christ because they have received from him the power to overcome sin in themselves and in the world by self-denial and the holiness of their lives. They exercise various ministries at the service of the community and they imbue temporal activities and the institutions of society with moral values.
and the great doc: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html
Some I think have an idea that if they do not have some role such as these…that they are not active as Christians…but really such is not the vocation of they Laity …most such roles are “extraordinary” helps …
The role of the laity is in the world…the home the office the streets…politics, business, family, proclaiming Christ and ordering the world to God.
Our vocation has a “secular character”…
Compendium of the Catechism:
- What is the vocation of the lay faithful?
940
The lay faithful have as their own vocation to seek the Kingdom of God by illuminating and ordering temporal affairs according to the plan of God. They carry out in this way their call to holiness and to the apostolate, a call given to all the baptized.
- How do the lay faithful participate in the priestly office of Christ?
They participate in it especially in the Eucharist by offering as a spiritual sacrifice “acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5) their own lives with all of their works, their prayers, their apostolic undertakings, their family life, their daily work and hardships borne with patience and even their consolations of spirit and body. In this way, even the laity, dedicated to Christ and consecrated by the Holy Spirit, offer to God the world itself.
- How does the laity participate in the prophetic office?
942
They participate in it by welcoming evermore in faith the Word of Christ and proclaiming it to the world by the witness of their lives, their words, their evangelizing action, and by catechesis. This evangelizing action acquires a particular efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.
- How do they participate in the kingly office?
943
The laity participate in the kingly function of Christ because they have received from him the power to overcome sin in themselves and in the world by self-denial and the holiness of their lives. They exercise various ministries at the service of the community and they imbue temporal activities and the institutions of society with moral values.
and the great doc: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html
A
Aramis
Guest
At the turn of the 20th, they still used Slavonic. (see Glagolitic, 1913 or so…)
I’ve met former Croatians who were used to the Dalmatian missal and were born in the 1940’s… but it was in latin characters, rather than glagolitic ones, tho still Church Slavonic.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
OK, I based what I said on an article I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06575b.htm).
As were you!
[edited]
A
Aramis
Guest
A lot of people mistake glagolitic for the language, not the character set, and the article doesn’t make a clear distinction. Further, other sources speak of replacing Glagolitic/Glagolithic with Latin; they should speak of replacing Glagolitic/Glagolithic characters with Latin characters.OK, I based what I said on an article I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06575b.htm).
As were you!
[edited]
It’s my understanding that most of those dioceses are still using slavonic, with the OF missal. It made approval easier and quicker, and it’s still intelligible to the majority of the locals. Roughly equivalent to 1500’s English in terms of intelligibility…
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It might help if you would refer to the current Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) and not the one from almost a century ago.OK, I based what I said on an article I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06575b.htm).
As were you!
[edited]
A
Aramis
Guest
It would be done a lot more if a more recent edition were (a) out of copyright and/or (b) legally on the net free of charge.
- Status