Salieri,


Acolytes are part of holy orders (Pope Paul VI not withstanding), so preparation for the minor orders would need to be done through some kind of seminary training.... at a seminary.

We have numbers of instituted acolytes at Walsingham - ditto throughout the Ordinariate. Last year they came from all over the ordinariate to Walsingham and were instituted in a special mass by Bishop Lopes. We also have instituted lectors.

You might contact Fr Hough for details as to how to proceed.

Depends on the diocese, I imagine, since bishops may choose to limit instituted lectors and acolytes to seminarians en route to Holy Orders (diaconate or priesthood).

EWTN offers a nice summary:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur570a.htm

Here is an article from Lincoln NE about their program:
http://www.lincolndiocese.org/news/diocesan-news/758-men-prepare-for-installation-as-acolytes-lectors

CGZ, well they are no longer minor orders, as the EWTN link, above, says

The lay ministries (they are no longer called minor orders) of lector and acolyte were established by Pope Paul VI in 1973 with the apostolic letter “Ministeria Quaedam.” They are to be given to all candidates for orders. These ministries are also open to male laity not aspiring to sacred orders, but in reality few dioceses have made effective use of this possibility.

Maybe, but there isn't an official translation, and EWTN has summarised. What we have is two separate paragraphs :

III. Ministeria christifidelibus laicis commetti possunt, ita ut candidates ad sacramentum Ordinis reservata non habeantur.
VII. Institutio Lectoris et Acolythi, iuxta venerabilem traditionem Ecclesiae, viris reservatur.

Oh, yes, please get installed to lector first. It irritates me that this is done out of order. It can even be done on the same day, although the traditional minor orders are much more smoothly conferred, even with major orders.

How the formation is given is not specified, true.

Acolyte and lector might not be called minor orders, but they are. The church can never suppress them entirely, per the Council of Trent, since we must accept their existence as a doctrine..although this point is also made by the fact that tonsure never ceased to be given due to the SSPX and other groups, even though the church-legitimately but stupidly in my view-attempted to reform them.

It is true that minor orders are holy orders. How is up for debate. I will put it in this convoluted way. There is more evidence that episcopacy is a part of holy orders (even though I insist on calling it consecration, because it also is jurisdictional, among other reasons) than there is for minor orders not being holy orders in the fullest sense. But they are holy orders nevertheless.

Many avoid the institution of acolytes, because this office is reserved to males, and they do not want to be part of what they take to be discrimination. There are bishops who have taken the same position about ordaining deacons.

In the Ordinariate we haven't got and won't have that gender problem in regard to instituted acolytes, lectors, and such. These roles are strictly male throughout the Ordinariate. This is not a problem for our women, who wouldn't have it any other way. It's only a problem where those in authority are intimidated by obstreperous feminist types (both male and female!) and those others who get bent out of shape if their daughters can't be servers at mass. It is curious the things that clergy have no trouble or qualms about saying no to or forbidding (such as certain music ordered by an oecumenical council to be preserved and cultivated) but they are frightened to death to say no to feminists.

Right, acolytes are always EMHCS and are the first pick if the number of priests & deacons are insufficient. But they can purify, which is why they should act as a subdeacon properly speaking in the TLM, even though tonsuring and having a straw SD who waits for some time to be ordained SD (yes even a layman, potentially even a married one-SDs promised celibacy, but if deacons can live with their wives...) is infinitely preferable in the long run.

From the Wikipedia:

The ordination of a new bishop is also called a consecration. While the term "episcopal ordination" is now more common,[1] "consecration" was the preferred term from the Middle Ages through the period including the Second Vatican Council (11 October 1962 – 8 December 1965).[2]

The Vatican II document Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy n. 76 states,


Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised. The address given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the mother tongue.


When a bishop is consecrated, the laying of hands may be done by all the bishops present.

The English text of Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, 1997, under the heading "Episcopal ordination—fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders", uses "episcopal consecration" as a synonymous term, using "episcopal ordination" and "episcopal consecration" interchangeably. (CCC nn. 1556–1558)

The Code of Canon Law Latin-English Edition, (1983), under "Title VI—Orders" uses the term sacrae ordinationis minister "minister of sacred ordination" and the term consecratione episcopali "episcopal consecration". (CCL cc. 1012, 1014)

The change in terminology probably was undertaken with the good intention of clarifying that the same sacrament is conferred upon bishops, priests, and deacons, although in differing degrees; and it is not conferred upon subdeacons, readers, and acolytes.

Basically, my point is that Vatican II and MQ raise more questions than they provide answers.

I completely agree. Quite frankly, even though Paul VI said that the subdeacon no longer exists in the Latin Church and the term acolyte is used, when one considers how it is conferred, it uses the instrument of the order of Subdeacon rather than that of the Acolyte. In practice, it was the order of Acolyte that went away, not the Subdiaconate.

The change in terminology probably was undertaken with the good intention of clarifying that the same sacrament is conferred upon bishops, priests, and deacons, although in differing degrees; and it is not conferred upon subdeacons, readers, and acolytes.

What Chonak said.

1) The act of receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders is called "getting ordained" (just like the act of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is called "getting baptized").
2) Men become bishops via reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
3) Ergo, a man becomes a bishop by "getting ordained."

Many in the Middle Ages did not accept premise #2, thinking that the sacrament of Holy Orders as ordered to the priesthood, and therefore a bishop was (sacramentally speaking) simply a priest with additional powers (e.g. ordaining and confirming). The Church has now clarified that this is not the case (see Lumen Gentium 21 § 2). The practice of speaking of "consecrating" bishops, rather than "ordaining," is at least in part a holdover from the earlier, erroneous (albeit widely held) view.

Of course, it's also not wrong to speak of "consecrating" a bishop--as long as this does not constitute a denial that the bishop is being ordained. Indeed, in the very sentence where Lumen Gentium clarifies that bishops receive Holy Orders (indeed, that they possess the fullness of Orders), it speaks of "episcopal consecration." So if people want to use the term I see no need to correct them, unless, of course, they proceed to say, "You know, bishops are consecrated, not ordained."

Incidentally the mention in MQ of exorcist as a possible instituted lay office conflicts, or at least does not relate well to Canon Law:

Can. 1172 §1. No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary.
§2. The local ordinary is to give this permission only to a presbyter who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life.

I presume it could relate to the exorcisms of catechumens occuring in the RCIA.

It might be helpful for participants in this thread to read the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, which in 1947 clarified what are the form and matter of the Sacrament in each case: bishop, priest, and deacon.

It is surprising, I think, that the Church's teaching on this sacrament has been under development in this way so recently!

For anyone tempted to quibble about the words, this document uses "ordination" and "consecration" side by side for the case of a bishop.

This, and these nuances are informative to me. As an Anglican (and, apparently, for many Catholics) one was taught more or less what Deacon Fritz offers as the mediaeval understanding of bishops as being priests 'with additional powers' or authority; that nothing sacramentally was conferred in episcopal consecration that had not already been conferred in priestly ordination. It occurs to me that, since it is now taught that bishops are ordained, what of popes? When one becomes pope is he ordained pope or consecrated pope? What, sacramentally, is added to him that wasn't received when he was ordained a priest, and then a bishop? Does the authority inherent in papacy constitute a sacramental category for which one is ordained, or is it only an increase of authority granted to a priest-bishop.

Regarding Ministeria Quaedam's statement that "in addition to the offices universal in the Latin Church, the conferences of bishops may request others of the Apostolic See, if they judge the establishment of such offices in their region to be necessary or very useful because of special reasons," the conference of bishops in the USA discussed the establishment of two additional instituted ministries (director of music and catechist, neither ministry being reserved only to men) in the late-80's or early-90's. The motion was not approved. My recollection is that the motion was not sufficiently specific with regard to who would be the targeted candidates for such ministries. The intention of the drafters of the motion was that not every church musician or every catechist - not even the great majority of them - would be candidates for such instituted ministries, but only those in a high leadership positions. But that was not clearly spelled out to the satisfaction of the NCCB membership.

By the way, the exorcisms in the RCIA (these being solemn prayers that the elect be strengthened against the temptation of sin and, at times, be freed from their former attachment to a false religion) have nothing to do with demoniacal possession.

When I received the former minor order of exorcist (a few years before Ministeria Quaedam), it allowed me to bless rosaries and holy cards. Even in those days, only priests specially designated as exorcists by their bishop (usually only one in the diocese) could perform a solemn exorcism. Regarding the involvement of the young priest in The Exorcist, that would never have happened.

It would be interesting if a bishops' conference were to have an instituted order of "catechist" that would include permission to perform the exorcisms/scrutinies of the RCIA as well as the anointing with the oil of catechumens (both of which, as I recall, are reserved to priests and deacons). This could be very useful in situations where a priest or deacon is only rarely present, or has not other involvement in the RCIA. I know that catechumens find it very meaningful when I anoint them as part of our RCIA, since I'm with them every week and have some knowledge of the sorts of spiritual battles they are fighting. In many places it is a catechist who has that sort of relationship with them.

The anointing of catechumens is not a sacrament, so, no, I am not dispensing sacramental grace in the strict sense. The anointing of catechumens is a sacramental, meaning that grace is made present by the opera operantis ("the work of the doer"), so subjective elements like "meaningfulness" certainly have a role to play.

Also, lay people can, under certain circumstances, dispense sacramental grace, as when they baptize in an emergency or contract marriage (in the Latin Rite).

Thanks for the citation. So I guess the minor exorcisms can already be deputed to a lay catechist. I think there could be great benefit to allow the scrutinies to be similarly deputed in those communities where a priest or deacon cannot be present on the 3rd-5th Sundays of Lent.

Hey, not just lay persons but even infidels can validly baptize.....

Chris,

1) True
2) True: unbaptized people cannot receive sacraments. But the anointing done during the RCIA are not sacraments. They are like the anointing of infants prior to their baptism in the Rite of Infant Baptism.
3) True, in the sense that non-Catholic coming into full communion often join in the catechetical sessions of the RCIA. In some cases, however, this might not be appropriate and in some places it's actively discouraged. In no case should baptized non-Christians be anointed with the oil of catechumens, receive minor exorcisms, or go through the scrutinies, since all of these rites presume that the person undergoing them is unbaptized. Places that do this should knock it off right now!
4) False: Only the unbaptized should ever be anointed with the Oil of Catechumens (see above).
5) I haven't heard them, so I can't say, but I do like his adaptation for the new translation of the New Mass for Congregations Gloria.

Number 2: just as infants are anointed prior to their baptism, so are adults. But in the case of adults this can be done numerous times over the course of their catechesis. It's not a sacraments (as you rightly say, unbaptized people cannot receive sacraments) but rather a part of the rites of baptism, which for an adult is spread over the period of the Catechumenate. Does that make sense?