A lot of posts on various threads were about the use of EMHC’s. If enough acolytes were instituted to eliminate other laypersons from being EMHC’s (for instance, to allow purification by the acolytes, to stop having women EMHC’s, etc.), then all the altar boys would probably have to go. For instance, if there are 5 EMHC’s at a Mass and all are instituted acolytes, there would be no use for the boys as servers.
One premise in liturgy is that a proper minister does not take the role of lesser ministers if those lesser ministers are present.
Since the role of acolyte is now an instituted lay role rather than a minor order, I think the litugical “rule” of each lay minister only doing one job would apply too. So the acolytes would still serve as MC and help with the distribution of Communion while the altar boys would still serve a they do now.
There are no patens held by altar boys at most Novus Ordo Masses.
But there should be. There is nothing about the NO Mass that calls for the elimination of the patens. They have just kind of gone out of “style”.
Well, you probably do have acolytes, as that is part of the process of someone studying for the priesthood. It used to be a minor order, but minor orders were done away with and instituted lectors and instituted acolytes are what remain.Since the role of acolyte is now an instituted lay role rather than a minor order, I think the litugical “rule” of each lay minister only doing one job would apply too. So the acolytes would still serve as MC and help with the distribution of Communion while the altar boys would still serve a they do now.
We have no alcolytes (yet) in our diocese so this is just my guess.
That’s what I always thought. Institute a few acolytes to do their duties while simply not instituting enough acolytes to fill all your server slots. It’s a bit legally evasive, I think, but since the Church can’t seem to make up its mind on what to do with acolytes and is still encouraging boy servers, this seems like the best practice.
I’m not sure if I buy the lesser ministers comparison in this case simply because I don’t think altar servers are a lesser ministry - when they serve they do so basically as deputed acolytes, so they are fulfilling the same ministry, just on a temporary basis. The lesser ministers are in fact not present, so I think we need to look somewhere else for our clarification. Your observation does point to what I think is an ambiguity or perhaps tension between our liturgical law and practice, because we have on the one hand law that says a minister who is present must fulfill his ministry and on the other hand practice that says a non-instituted deputy takes preference over someone who actually holds the ministry (along with one or more higher ministries). Perhaps it has something to do with the modern prohibition against clerics vesting and acting as a lower grade (specifically priests as deacons and subdeacons), but it seems pretty odd to me that at a Mass with a dozen insituted lectors (the priests in your example) we would have to depute an extraordinary minister to proclaim the readings.
NB - Not may be instituted, but must be.
I know of only two dioceses world wide that are instituting acolytes other than men on track for ordination. I am not sure that qualifies as the Church not making up its mind; although because they are no longer minor orders they are open to non-ordination track individuals, it would seem that it is more the exception to have them. The Church in general does not move fast in making changes, and since these are still intimately related to ordination, it may be a long while before we see any significant movement. But legally evasive doesn’t seem to be a legitimate charge. It is technically available to non-ordinands, but that appears almost an afterthought than any evasiveness to a law. The rule making it available is not a mandatory one.
John Lilburn, on I believe another post, gave a link to a case he had filed that would relate to this. The case was filed in a Tribunal in Australia, if I remember correctly, and although I do not believe that in Canon Law, one tribunal’s holding binds others, the findings and decision seem to indicate that the mere presence of a minister does not manadate in any way the necessity of using him. As I read the decision, only if the bishop specifically assigned him to a parish would his presence at a Mass indicate a mandatory use, if even that.
That is my understanding, that whether you have an instituted lector, or only a non-instituted lector, concelebrating priests do not read the OT and NT readings; only the Gospel. The other two are read by lectors, instituted or otherwise.
I was writing on the fly when it occured to me that they went through the institutions prior to ordination also. So much for being in a hurry.
If that is the case, why aren’t the men who are already EMHC’s and readers flocking to the seminary to become deacons? Why would being altar servers cause more men to become deacons if being EMHC’s and readers has not done so?
I don’t believe there has been any study done as to the sourcing of vocations to the deaconite. So, pray tell, why do you presume that it (EMHC and reader position) is not the source of the 4000+ deacons we have nationwide?
It might be the source of some of these vocations, but what about all the other men who do not choose the diaconate? For instance, there are probably about 20 men in my parish who are EMHC’s or readers, but nobody from my parish is in the seminary studying to be a deacon. On the other hand, one of our former altar boys is in a religious order studying to be a priest.
By men, I am presuming you mean over the age of 21. Given that the crisis we have had has not been the whole story, but only the part of the story having to do with adult priests and teen age boys, and adult priests and pre-teen boys, and adult to adult activity has by and large not made the news (unless one wants to count Goodby Good Men), your note is certainly debatable.
Largely a non-issue as it is volunteer work that is intermittent. Given that the average in the 1990’s was that people moved on average once every 7 years (and appeared to be descending), and an altar boy is generally good from 3 years (6th grade through 8th) to seven years (6 through high school), there is not a significant change.
Not if you read these fora; everyone here complaining of abuses complains that they are incapable of getting the good Father to stop the abuses. Making them an acolyte gives them no greater powers of persuasion.
another non-issue; men come in all sizes, jsut as boys do, and any parish that has a range of altar boys to be traded out for a range of altar adults will already have a range of sizes of either albs or cassocks, etc.
That depends both on the training of the men and the altar boys. I have seen good and bad in both adults and boys.
So may being readers or EMHCs.
Not if they are already married; you are presuming a large number of unmarried adult men are going to be flocking to this job. Given that the large majority of yound adult single men are not going to church on a regular basis, your point is not sustained. Getting more boys to be altar boys and carry that on through high school might get more sinlge adult males into Mass on a regular basis, but that is the antithesis of your position. Your points are interesting, but I think not persuasive.
Being a Diaconate student myself, I can tell that myself and a good porton of my classmates did not view the EMHC or reader role as having an impact on our calling.
The legally evasive part, in my mind, was instituting acolytes while deliberately and unnecessarily stopping short of filling all the positions so as to leave room for altar boys. However, I would contend that our overall use of extraordinary ministers in parish life does stand in tension with the bundle of laws we have regarding ministries.