Why do certain liturgical rubrics exist?

[ElToro]

I am saying there is value in appointing someone to a particular position, even if they are not the most skilled person for the position. Having a role only they do is valuable. People can see how they are different to an altar server and Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

How ARE instituted acolytes different from a combined server/EMHC? I suggest their difference is in the length and depth of their formations and the primacy of their service – an acolyte will distribute communion if available before an EMHC. Their difference is NOT about the number of tasks each ministry are allowed to do.

I struggle a great deal with (for example) a deacon who can barely be understood while he proclaims the Gospel while a perfectly capable priest (or other deacon) listens.

What is your position? There is no value in instituted acolytes? Instead of having a deacon appointed who reads the Gospel there should be an ongoing evaluation process, to select the best person?

My question is why is purifying the sacred vessels limited to ordained and instituted males? My answer to you is that the main value of acolytes is that they are men that have the advantage of having undergone a very long and deep formation.

I read where someone suggested the Church institute more acolytes and lectors. OK, I support that. There are men in this would that don’t want to be deacons for a number of reasons but undergoing the formation (or at least the majority of it) would no doubt give them a foundation to help better themselves and the Church.

What I read instead were ideas about how formations could last for hours and not years. Pardon me? If you are going to pare-down a would-be acolyte’s or lector’s formation to that of an EMHC then no, I don’t see the benefit of permanently instituting anyone to those two offices.

 

[ElToro]

That’s what I addressed in the post before that. To put it in shorter words: in the earlier centuries, it was the lector’s (itself a lower rank of the clergy) job to read all the readings, but a tendency to assign these tasks to higher clergy changed things: since the late 4th century, the Gospel has begun to be read by the deacon. In my personal opinion, the reason why the deacon (and later, the priest) still reads the Gospel both in the East and the West it is partly due to feelings of conservatism and a reluctance to radically change things as they were. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Well said. I believe you are correct. Your comments make a GREAT DEAL more sense than anything else I have read here.

What I would love to see is a formal exception to the insistance that only the ordained proclaim the Gospel when adhering to it will necessarily have a deliterious effect on the proclamation. That said I know that such an exception would get the hell abused out of it so maybe limit it to the priest proclaiming the Gospel in cases where the deacon would negatively impact the proclamation.

I do understand the inherent dangers of monkeying around with the Gospel proclamation. A couple of years ago a man was in formation here locally to become a deacon. When his wife finally realized that she too was not going to be ordained (yes, seriously) he left the formation six months before ordaination (she literally felt she could talk the bishop into it which she could not of course.) In time the man returned to the formation and was eventually ordained. He was assigned to this parish with an abusive “non-moveable” pastor.

He AND his wife proclaim the Gospel on Sundays with the pastor’s blessing. They use special allowances afforded the reading of the Lord’s Passion as a ludicrous argument to excuse the horrible abuse. When they are not proclaiming the Gospel together, the “Deacon Couple” (as they are called in the bulletin and website) sit in the front row of the church cuddling.

In the year that this has been going on more than 1/3 of their parish membership has evaporated. Knowing the pastor’s retirement resignation will be accepted in less than two years the bishop is simply waiting to canonically shut-down the parish and make it a mission (once again) of a larger parish. Still I have lost some respect for my bishop not dealing with this no matter how messy it could get with the oulaw pastor.

 

[ElToro]

Dawg, we’re Catholics. There’s no room for the “Bible” around here!

/sarcasm.

Seriously though, there’s two sides to this discussion. On one hand, people are discounting Toro’s point that there’s some people who you simply can’t understand when they’re reading the Gospel. Some of the answers thus far include:

• “Suck it up princess”.
• “At the EF…”
• “COPY/PASTE”.

Out of the ones provided, patrick457’s last post breaks things down nicely in layman’s* terms.

*Pun intended!

 

[PbloPicasso]

Originally Posted by Melchior_ forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Dawg, we’re Catholics. There’s no room for the “Bible” around here!

/sarcasm.

Seriously though, there’s two sides to this discussion. On one hand, people are discounting Toro’s point that there’s some people who you simply can’t understand when they’re reading the Gospel. Some of the answers thus far include:

• “Suck it up princess”.
• “At the EF…”
• “COPY/PASTE”.

Out of the ones provided, patrick457’s last post breaks things down nicely in layman’s* terms.
*

• Pun intended!

Personally, I like the “Suck it up, Princess”. Works for me.

ElToro,
I’m just joking around…trying to make light of things helps ease the difficult communication disagreements. People need to learn to laugh at themselves and allow others to sometimes laugh with them doing it.
*

 

[John_Lilburne]

How ARE instituted acolytes different from a combined server/EMHC? I suggest their difference is in the length and depth of their formations
… the main value of acolytes is that they are men that have the advantage of having undergone a very long and deep formation.
…
What I read instead were ideas about how formations could last for hours and not years. Pardon me? If you are going to pare-down a would-be acolyte’s or lector’s formation to that of an EMHC then no, I don’t see the benefit of permanently instituting anyone to those two offices.

I am not aware of any official documentation that requires instituted acolytes to have any particular formation. Nor that the formation be of greater “length and depth” than that of an altar sever who is an EMHC.

The Code of Canon Law has: "Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.”

The USCCB, for example, has: “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 230§1, hereby decrees that a layman who is to be installed in the ministries of lector or acolyte on a stable basis must have completed his twenty-first (21) year of age. The candidate must also possess the skills necessary for an effective proclamation of the Word or service at the altar, be a fully initiated member of the Catholic Church, be free of any canonical penalty, and live a life which befits the ministry to be undertaken.” (From usccb.org/norms/230-1.htm ).

I highlight that it is not an official requirement to spend, say, two years as a seminarian to become an instituted acolyte. From the 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam (at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6minors.htm ): “3. Ministries may be assigned to lay Christians; hence they are no longer to be considered as reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders”.

So a man can be instituted as a acolyte with a certain level of skills, that someone has assessed. But there is no requirement to sit in a classroom for a certain number of years.

Someone may have been an EMHC and altar sever for 40 years. He has dealt with numerous situations and done considerable study, to become highly skilled in the role. Another person, with less (but adequate) skills and less study can become an instituted acolyte at the age of 21. The instituted acolyte outranks the EMHC. I agree that the acolyte will distribute communion if available before the EMHC.

But who has better skills and longer and deeper formation? In this situation the EMHC, not the instituted acolyte.

 

[ElToro]

I am not aware of any official documentation that requires instituted acolytes to have any particular formation. Nor that the formation be of greater “length and depth” than that of an altar sever who is an EMHC.

Nor am I. I do know that men who are on their way to ordaination as priests or permanent deacons undergo a great deal of formation (years) before THEY are instituted to the offices of acolyte and lector.

The Code of Canon Law has: "Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.”

OK

The USCCB, for example, has: “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 230§1, hereby decrees that a layman who is to be installed in the ministries of lector or acolyte on a stable basis must have completed his twenty-first (21) year of age. The candidate must also possess the skills necessary for an effective proclamation of the Word or service at the altar, be a fully initiated member of the Catholic Church, be free of any canonical penalty, and live a life which befits the ministry to be undertaken.” (From usccb.org/norms/230-1.htm ).

If the formation for “permanent” acolytes and lectors was not very substantial (years) I would see absolutely no reason to permanently institute anyone to the two offices. Quite the contrary. Without a very formal formation, the last thing I would do as a bishop is permanently institute them to the office. It would make far more sense to simply commission them as readers, and EMHCs.

I highlight that it is not an official requirement to spend, say, two years as a seminarian to become an instituted acolyte. From the 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam (at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6minors.htm ): “3. Ministries may be assigned to lay Christians; hence they are no longer to be considered as reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders”.

OK. And?

So a man can be instituted as a acolyte with a certain level of skills, that someone has assessed. But there is no requirement to sit in a classroom for a certain number of years.

Alrighty. See my comments above.

Someone may have been an EMHC and altar sever for 40 years. He has dealt with numerous situations and done considerable study, to become highly skilled in the role. Another person, with less (but adequate) skills and less study can become an instituted acolyte at the age of 21. The instituted acolyte outranks the EMHC. I agree that the acolyte will distribute communion if available before the EMHC.

So?

But who has better skills and longer and deeper formation? In this situation the EMHC, not the instituted acolyte.

I have no idea.

Let me direct – and you can certainly tell me if I am wrong, John. You sound like someone who really wants to be an instituted acolyte and lector. There is nothing wrong with that. I suspect you are already (or have been) a server, reader and/or EMHC. Something has kept you from being ordained. Perhaps you are married, perhaps you have plans to get married or perhaps you simply don’t have the time to endure the formation necessary to become ordained? Maybe age is playing a part – perhaps you are too young or old to be ordained?

So you are seeking a practical distinction between the institutions of acolyte and lector versus the commissions of EMHC and reader. In liturgically visible terms there isn’t any other than that purification of sacred vessels matter in the case of the acolyte and simply put, it’s not enough of a reason to institute men for LIFE to the office of acolyte – at least not to 99.9% of all bishops.

NOW, if a bishop formulated and implemented a rigorous formation for would-be acolytes and lectors it might very well make sense to institute such men to the offices of acolyte and lector. That is the advantage – the length and depth of the formation. Without that why institute a man for life? To help with the purification of the vessels? No, I don’t believe that makes sense.

 

[ElToro]

I am not aware of any official documentation that requires instituted acolytes to have any particular formation. Nor that the formation be of greater “length and depth” than that of an altar sever who is an EMHC.

Nor am I. I do know that men who are on their way to ordaination as priests or permanent deacons undergo a great deal of formation (years) before THEY are instituted to the offices of acolyte and lector.

The Code of Canon Law has: "Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.”

OK

The USCCB, for example, has: “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 230§1, hereby decrees that a layman who is to be installed in the ministries of lector or acolyte on a stable basis must have completed his twenty-first (21) year of age. The candidate must also possess the skills necessary for an effective proclamation of the Word or service at the altar, be a fully initiated member of the Catholic Church, be free of any canonical penalty, and live a life which befits the ministry to be undertaken.” (From usccb.org/norms/230-1.htm ).

If the formation for “permanent” acolytes and lectors was not very substantial (years) I would see absolutely no reason to permanently institute anyone to the two offices. Quite the contrary. Without a very formal formation, the last thing I would do as a bishop is permanently institute them to the office. It would make far more sense to simply commission them as readers, and EMHCs.

I highlight that it is not an official requirement to spend, say, two years as a seminarian to become an instituted acolyte. From the 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam (at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6minors.htm ): “3. Ministries may be assigned to lay Christians; hence they are no longer to be considered as reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders”.

OK. And?

So a man can be instituted as a acolyte with a certain level of skills, that someone has assessed. But there is no requirement to sit in a classroom for a certain number of years.

Alrighty. See my comments above.

Someone may have been an EMHC and altar sever for 40 years. He has dealt with numerous situations and done considerable study, to become highly skilled in the role. Another person, with less (but adequate) skills and less study can become an instituted acolyte at the age of 21. The instituted acolyte outranks the EMHC. I agree that the acolyte will distribute communion if available before the EMHC.

So?

But who has better skills and longer and deeper formation? In this situation the EMHC, not the instituted acolyte.

I have no idea.

Let me direct – and you can certainly tell me if I am wrong, John. You sound like someone who really wants to be an instituted acolyte and lector. There is nothing wrong with that. I suspect you are already (or have been) a server, reader and/or EMHC. Something has kept you from being ordained. Perhaps you are married, perhaps you have plans to get married or perhaps you simply don’t have the time to endure the formation necessary to become ordained? Maybe age is playing a part – perhaps you are too young or old to be ordained?

So you are seeking a practical distinction between the institutions of acolyte and lector versus the commissions of EMHC and reader. In liturgically visible terms there isn’t any other than that purification of sacred vessels matter in the case of the acolyte and simply put, it’s not enough of a reason to institute men for LIFE to the office of acolyte – at least not to 99.9% of all bishops.

NOW, if a bishop formulated and implemented a rigorous formation for would-be acolytes and lectors it might very well make sense to institute such men to the offices of acolyte and lector. That is the advantage – the length and depth of the formation. Without that why institute a man for life? To help with the purification of the vessels? No, I don’t believe that makes sense.

 

[ElToro]

I asked my pastor today and he said even if a deacon was present they would not necessarily proclaim the Gospel if their lack of ability (for whatever reason) unduely impacted the proclamation.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I asked my pastor today and he said even if a deacon was present they would not necessarily proclaim the Gospel if their lack of ability (for whatever reason) unduely impacted the proclamation.

There are priests who are not allowed to administer some of the sacraments.

 

[archangel04]

Could you not read the readings before mass? I am just saying because regardless wether I attend EF or OF I find it easier to read the readings before. Also, many parishes provide missals to follow along. This seem easier to do then for the Church to all of a suddent decide to let lay people to preach the gospel.

 

[ElToro]

Could you not read the readings before mass? I am just saying because regardless wether I attend EF or OF I find it easier to read the readings before. Also, many parishes provide missals to follow along. This seem easier to do then for the Church to all of a suddent decide to let lay people to preach the gospel.

The Gospel should never be butchered if an approved/competent proclaimer is available.

That’s really what drove me to begin this thread.

PS: I ALWAYS read the readings before Mass. That fact changes nothing in this context.

 

[ElToro]

There are priests who are not allowed to administer some of the sacraments.

I know there is/was priests simplex who could not preach nor hear confessions.

 

[ProVobis]

I know there is/was priests simplex who could not preach nor hear confessions.

The ability/authority/power to hear confessions comes from the bishop. He also determines how excommunications and certain sins are handled, either through him or through his priests or the Vatican.

 

[stephraim]

The Lessons, in my opinion, should always be chanted. So many times have I heard those with extraordinarily difficult accents become more readily understood when they have chanted/sung the texts. (Our pastor is a great example.) The brain…go figure.