bhcordova,

No. The minor orders were suppressed in 1972. That was 3 years after the "promulgation" of the OF.

...unless of course one reasonably holds the position that it was imprudent and destructive to have done so, and thus the minor orders should be restored.

And if we are going to hold the "hermeneutic of continuity" then we need to inform the new rite from the old, since they are—apparently—closely related.

Since the minor orders have been suppressed, even for the EF, I still say this is all a moot point.

I have always thought that choirmasters should be instituted. They were held in far greater regard and were far more liturgically important in certain historical periods. They were scholars and guardians of the Church's patrimony of music and were charged with providing the right music at the right time - without need for any consultation or approval from anyone. In many Anglican cathedrals choirmasters are given the dignity of 'canon for music' and are quite highly respected and valued.

Salieri's points are very well made.
I would suggest, though, that the current practice of bestowing 'institution' on acolytes and lectors speaks of the particular liturgical importance of their role at mass - and the training, and, presumably, the calling which qualifies them for it. They have, as it were, been given the place that formerly was given to minor clerical orders - but the bestowing of this formerly clerical role on 'lay persons' in no way reduces the importance of what they do. They should rightly have a certain dignity given to them reflective of the ritual importance of what they do, and of the preparation, study, and training which has prepared them for it.

...which might also give them a better position vs. the 'wishes' of the parish council...

With all this discussion about instituting various important roles in our parish communities, perhaps we should institutionalise the Parish council... end purple text...

Should remain in place, still there is the risk that instituting lectors and acolytes pushes the non-instituted aside - kind of re-clericalisation of these ministries through the backdoor.
I'd miss the spontaneous stumbling over the names of peoples in the reading on St. Stephen

The minor orders weren't totally suppressed, as they have continued to be conferred in the Catholic Eastern Churches. Also, the minor orders have been conferred again among the religious orders dedicated to the old rite. So it seems they've been restored somewhat to the life of the Latin Church.

As a result, the Church has men in minor orders, and will have both men and woman in lay ministries which involve some of the same functions.

There are, to my mind, both good and problematic aspects. Good to have people properly trained, may be a problem to have them permanently established. I think I am right in saying the CofE does very well in training their equivalent 'lay readers', and establishes them in office, but the bishop licences their operation, and can withdraw the licence for his diocese.
EMHoCs were trained in Southwark, but only authorised for a year at a time, requiring a formal act of renewal.

As a lector, I like the idea of being an instituted lector. I will have to ask my priest how to go about it.

Well, where I grew up, sitting in the back meant getting to Mass really early. Because in a Catholic church, everyone knew the the penalty boxes were the front rows. My family was quite contrary to the dominant pattern: we got there very early AND sat in the front row (communion went from back to front rows).

Since the minor orders have been suppressed, even for the EF

This will be news to the Fraternity of St Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, who still confer them on their seminarians.

Nathan,

Could you elaborate what you mean by

t these groups still do the rituals, but they doesn't have the same spiritual impact

Minor orders were sacramentals, not sacraments, as they were not of Divine or Apostolic creation. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10332b.htm

Thank you, Liam. What I had read was a while ago and I was remembering incorrectly. Now that I think about it, it may have been the subdiaconate ordination. Or it's possible that I am misremembering everything I had read, I'm not sure now.

The minor orders are "just" sacramentals, and frankly, if we would go back to the manualists, having unleashed enough disgust on to their theology for the past eighty years, we would find that they greatly respected this ecclesiastical institution, because of the clear tradition: men alone touched the sacred, men alone served the liturgy. Women purifying by right as an instituted acolyte is disturbing; men purifying as laymen was already something with which we should have been uneasy to be quite honest.

Further, the inability to identify the power unlocked by the character imprinted is not particularly problematic; we can't exactly do it for the diaconate either, and these orders, at the least, were simply separated from the diaconate over time. In any case, and again, at the very least, minor orders were seen as an extension of holy orders, which were the only sacraments conferred during Mass. All others are conferred before Mass, even baptisms and confirmations on the paschal vigil and that of Pentecost, instead of shoehorned inside of the Mass after the homily. Thus the minor orders were reserved to men, and I think that although Paul VI clearly wanted to expand them beyond seminaries, he was sufficiently cognizant of the tradition to limit the new ministries to men; they may be founded on baptism, but even so, that doesn't give all the faithful, let alone all of the men, a right to be instituted.

One can probably add to the minor orders, that is, Amalarius of Metz may or may not have identified the subdiaconate clearly as a major order, but that Thomas Aquinas did so is unsurprising and is entirely consistent with the subdiaconate's role. But to completely move away from them is disturbing.

Others have pointed out the female deaconesses revived in certain Orthodox jurisdictions, which proves nothing, because such are found in one document (admittedly widely copied) at the beginning of the Carolingian empire, having never showed up otherwise in the liturgy of Rome, and because they had a limited role. Further, just because two Orthodox churches are in communion doesn't mean anything; they're often in communion even when their practice is entirely contradictory and when they view the other as doing something sacrilegious, and this goes for bishops within the same church too.

Now, the good news is that Francis is clearly trying to throw a bone. This is not simply legalizing what's being done, as with female servers, because you couldn't hitherto institute women, but Francis is very much against the female diaconate, despite his revived study of the matter. However, he seems to have sharply divided baptismal and sacerdotal ministry, which is a problem, because Benedict XVI moved them closer together with Omnium in mentem, and Francis has now clearly contradicted the literal sense of that change to canon law. He also is mistaken if he thinks that the new acolytes won't do more, because they're already doing more, particularly in the Germanophone world, and his successor is going to have quite a lot of work to do.