Instituted Acolyte - ...

[Brenda V.]

The subject of Instituted Acolytes came up in this thread http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=188610 with the subject of "Should we even have EMHC's"

I did not want to derail the above thread but did want to go into more detail on this subject if possible - moderators if this is not the proper forum please move it as someone suggested it could be discussed in "vocations" but since my understanding is this is one of the steps to Priesthood which is a Sacrament, Holy Orders, I thought this would be okay.

Now, I believe it was Scylla in the other thread who brought it up and if this is really a better solution to the necessity of more ministers of Holy Communion whether Ordinary (Deacon, Priest, Bishop or Pope) or Extraordinary (currently laymen and women) I am all for learning about it.

Brenda V.

[Sacristan]

I don't think instituting a bunch of acolytes is a preferable solution. In my diocese it takes about 4 years of formation to be ordained a deacon. It's not until their final year that aspirants are instituted as lectors and then acolytes. This seems common in other dioceses as well.

Should we should dumb-down the requirements to be instituted as acolytes to a year or two? I don't know of many who would go through over three years of formation and then abruptly stop before being ordained. More deacons may indeed be part of the answer, but dumbing-down the requirements to become an instituted acolyte seems counter productive.

[edward_george]

Originally Posted by Sacristan

I don't think instituting a bunch of acolytes is a preferable solution. In my diocese it takes about 4 years of formation to be ordained a deacon. It's not until their final year that aspirants are instituted as lectors and then acolytes. This seems common in other dioceses as well.

Should we should dumb-down the requirements to be instituted as acolytes to a year or two? I don't know of many who would go through over three years of formation and then abruptly stop before being ordained. More deacons may indeed be part of the answer, but dumbing-down the requirements to become an instituted acolyte seems counter productive.

It doesn't take that long to be formed as an acolyte. Diaconate formation takes a good long while, as you point out, but it is set up so that that acolyte institution takes place near the end of the formation. There are a few servers here at my college who will be instituted as acolytes before the semester is out; our training is due to start sometime soon.

Besides, the length of training is a moot point with regards to distributing communion and what a preferable solution is. So what if it takes a long time? Wouldn't you rather have people who are properly trained and duly instituted? This is not to say that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not properly trained, but the fact is that EMHCs are too widely used; it has become a ministry in some places. It was not intended to be so. The Liturgical norms of the Church make it clear that lay people are only to be used to distribute Communion in extraordinary circumstances--i.e. if you don't have a reasonable number of priests, deacons, or acolytes to distribute. Also, this point is made even clearer by the fact that Liturgical law provides that if there are acolytes present, they are to distribute Communion in preference to EMHCs.

So in short, instituting acolytes would be an excellent solution. The GIRM seems to think so. The other solution that comes to mind is not to allow Communion under both forms and just have the priest distribute the host; this would have both practical (i.e. lessened chance of profanation of the Sacrament, no need for EMHCs) and theological (i.e. people would recognize that the Body and Blood are both contained under each form, which is a distinction lost on a great many of the poorly-catechized nowadays) advantages.

-ACEGC

[Sacristan]

Originally Posted by edward_george

It doesn't take that long to be formed as an acolyte. Diaconate formation takes a good long while, as you point out, but it is set up so that that acolyte institution takes place near the end of the formation. There are a few servers here at my college who will be instituted as acolytes before the semester is out; our training is due to start sometime soon.

Besides, the length of training is a moot point with regards to distributing communion and what a preferable solution is. So what if it takes a long time? Wouldn't you rather have people who are properly trained and duly instituted? This is not to say that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not properly trained, but the fact is that EMHCs are too widely used; it has become a ministry in some places. It was not intended to be so. The Liturgical norms of the Church make it clear that lay people are only to be used to distribute Communion in extraordinary circumstances--i.e. if you don't have a reasonable number of priests, deacons, or acolytes to distribute. Also, this point is made even clearer by the fact that Liturgical law provides that if there are acolytes present, they are to distribute Communion in preference to EMHCs.

So in short, instituting acolytes would be an excellent solution. The GIRM seems to think so. The other solution that comes to mind is not to allow Communion under both forms and just have the priest distribute the host; this would have both practical (i.e. lessened chance of profanation of the Sacrament, no need for EMHCs) and theological (i.e. people would recognize that the Body and Blood are both contained under each form, which is a distinction lost on a great many of the poorly-catechized nowadays) advantages.

-ACEGC

I think if you dumb-down the requirements to be instituted as an acolyte to something that can be fit into a semester's length of time, then the result with really be nothing more than all-male EMsHC who have been "instituted" in name only.

Make it that easy and quick to be instituted as an acolyte, without the benefit of a thorough formation and in time you'll have nothing more than a new breed of EMsHC with the same problems we have today. The only differences is that they will all be males and they will hold the cheapened title of "instituted acolyte."

Now I agree that a worthwhile formation of 2-3 years could likely be provided to institute both acolytes and lectors, but my hunch is that most men who are willing to make that commitment would continue on and be ordained as deacons. Certainly not all, but many.

Finally, both lectors and acolytes are laymen...

[scylla]

Then don't dumb down the requirements, make people have to go through a bit for the responsibility.

Shouldn't we give the best for God, aren't Instituted Acolytes recommended above EMHC's? There is absolutely no reason to disagree unless you want to promote EMHC's as the solution above Instituted Acolytes. Yet since it is limited to laymen those who have an agenda to promote women priests will object, stall and seek ways to impede the institution of Acolytes.

There is no reason not to have them, just like we should have more priests and more deacons.

Seek what is more obedient and what is recommended, not the exceptions and the allowances.

In Christ
Scylla

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Sacristan

Make it that easy and quick to be instituted as an acolyte, without the benefit of a thorough formation and in time you'll have nothing more than a new breed of EMsHC with the same problems we have today. The only differences is that they will all be males and they will hold the cheapened title of "instituted acolyte."

Perhaps the solution lies in an expansion of the minor orders. A lector could, then, be much more than just a reader at Mass. He could be the person in charge of religious education or RCIA. He might lead catechetical classes at the parish. An acolytle could be an altar server who also attends to the sacrament. Perhaps he ought to share sacristan duties. Offer a more extended formation program (which doesn't have to be three years, but could perhaps take place in the context of prayer, education, and discernment over several months). In other words, play up what these ministries are and make something of them rather than watering them down. Shoot, in this context, even the ministry of porter could be more highly valued. He may be the person who not only attends to opening the doors, but the front man who makes a personal connection with people and gets to know them on a level that the priest isn't able to. But he can then direct both priest and parishioners to one another, knowing and understanding the persons and concerns at play.

[Joannm]

Originally Posted by chicago

Perhaps the solution lies in an expansion of the minor orders. A lector could, then, be much more than just a reader at Mass. He could be the person in charge of religious education or RCIA. He might lead catechetical classes at the parish. An acolytle could be an altar server who also attends to the sacrament. Perhaps he ought to share sacristan duties. Offer a more extended formation program (which doesn't have to be three years, but could perhaps take place in the context of prayer, education, and discernment over several months). In other words, play up what these ministries are and make something of them rather than watering them down. Shoot, in this context, even the ministry of porter could be more highly valued. He may be the person who not only attends to opening the doors, but the front man who makes a personal connection with people and gets to know them on a level that the priest isn't able to. But he can then direct both priest and parishioners to one another, knowing and understanding the persons and concerns at play.

In our diocese it is high recommended that the person in charge of Redligious education in a parish have an MA in theology or Religious Education or are at least working towards it. I do not think an instituted acolyte who has a short period of formation woud qualify. Besides, that is not the function of an acolyte. My husband was in two years of diaconate formation following two previous years of lay ministiry training before he was instituted as an acolyte. That is four years of training. Even with that he is not qualified inour diocese to be a DRE becasue he does not have a masters degree in the requried area, even though he is ordained.

[Sacristan]

Originally Posted by chicago

Perhaps the solution lies in an expansion of the minor orders. A lector could, then, be much more than just a reader at Mass. He could be the person in charge of religious education or RCIA. He might lead catechetical classes at the parish. An acolytle could be an altar server who also attends to the sacrament. Perhaps he ought to share sacristan duties. Offer a more extended formation program (which doesn't have to be three years, but could perhaps take place in the context of prayer, education, and discernment over several months).

I think it would be a wonderful idea to formally define and perhaps extend the duties of both lectors and acolytes as you suggest. Along with that it would be good to have a formal definition of the formation for both. A formal formation that I could in no way see lasting less than 2+ years.

Institute men after a quick and dirty formation of "several months" and you'll likely do nothing but create more problems and at the very least, fail to solve the existing ones.

[Sacristan]

Originally Posted by scylla

Then don't dumb down the requirements, make people have to go through a bit for the responsibility.

Shouldn't we give the best for God, aren't Instituted Acolytes recommended above EMHC's? There is absolutely no reason to disagree unless you want to promote EMHC's as the solution above Instituted Acolytes. Yet since it is limited to laymen those who have an agenda to promote women priests will object, stall and seek ways to impede the institution of Acolytes.

There is no reason not to have them, just like we should have more priests and more deacons.

Seek what is more obedient and what is recommended, not the exceptions and the allowances.

In Christ
Scylla

I agree that the formation should not be dumbed-down. That would strongly suggest it would take 2-3 years of formation which is well and good. My point however is that most men willing to go through that formal of a formation would likely continue on to ordination as deacons.

I think it would be a poor move to institute men after a semester's worth of formation. To me that sounds like the right amount of time to train a EMHC before commissioning them.

Some men like me would likely be attracted to this ministry -- I feel called to be a deacon, but I am scheduled to get married fairly soon and I cannot enter the diaconate formation until we have been married for at least 5 years. For me this ministry might be of great interest -- particularly if I could possibly one day apply the time to the formation required of a deacon, but my case is not all that common.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Joannm

In our diocese it is high recommended that the person in charge of Redligious education in a parish have an MA in theology or Religious Education or are at least working towards it. I do not think an instituted acolyte who has a short period of formation woud qualify.

Well, I was recommending that particalar sort of service be tied to lector, actually. (As I am placing my intervention within the larger context of a potential expansion and enrichment of meaning of the minor orders, as opposed to simply "watering them down" for common use to formally annoint that service which can essentially be accomplished on an "extraodinary" level in a more limited way.)

But, aside from the question as to whether this person really needs an MA in such in all parishes (shoot, they could be a priest with that level of education), it might simply be suggested that this person ought to be made a lector.

I think what I had in mind was more of the nature of those who are lectors or acolytes (for example) having something which more clearly defined them other than just reading of offering communion at Mass. It would be a larger ministry of service, in and of itself. It doesn't necessarily have to be tied to the person who heads up a program (let's say the principal of the parish school, for example) which requires all kinds of associated accreditadation of its own. Rather, it is more like the other way around where someone who is instituted into these orders ought to have some identifiable ministry in the life of the Church which is more expansive, such as being a catechist or the person in charge of a program (many of which are presently held by lay people who don't have advanced degrees, anyway.)

Besides, that is not the function of an acolyte. My husband was in two years of diaconate formation following two previous years of lay ministiry training before he was instituted as an acolyte. That is four years of training. Even with that he is not qualified inour diocese to be a DRE becasue he does not have a masters degree in the requried area, even though he is ordained.

I find it odd that despite his pastoral training, he can not head up such a program. A priest/pastor, afterall, is ultimately responsible for such matters in his parish (even if not directly in day to day oversight) and he might not hold a masters degree in the required area, either.

[Andreas Hofer]

I just have two points I'd like to add.

1) More acolytes isn't a fix for the problem of distribution because even they are only extraordinary ministers. I would perhaps add some greater structure and formation to what currently happens, but the fact remains that even acolytes are only supposed to distributing communion in extraordinary circumstances.

2) I don't think requiring less time to become an acolyte than what deacon candidates currently put in before reaching that goal is at all a danger of dumbing down the formation because I suspect much of what deacons are learning during that time period is not required for the ministry of an acolyte. An acolyte is instituted to ministry at the altar. He has no pastoral duties like teaching the faith or counseling parishioners. As long as he has a good liturgical formation, then, he's good to go.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Sacristan

I agree that the formation should not be dumbed-down. That would strongly suggest it would take 2-3 years of formation which is well and good. My point however is that most men willing to go through that formal of a formation would likely continue on to ordination as deacons.

I think it would be a poor move to institute men after a semester's worth of formation. To me that sounds like the right amount of time to train a EMHC before commissioning them.

Some men like me would likely be attracted to this ministry -- I feel called to be a deacon, but I am scheduled to get married fairly soon and I cannot enter the diaconate formation until we have been married for at least 5 years. For me this ministry might be of great interest -- particularly if I could possibly one day apply the time to the formation required of a deacon, but my case is not all that common.

What about if we invited men to assist in some expanded form of the ministry "extraordinarily"? First ask them to serve at Mass. Then, if they are so inclined, they could be asked to help bring the Eucharist to those who are sick. They might eventually distribute communion at Mass when called for. Over time, and education, and with spiritual discernent they could come to be formally installed in the ministry of "acolyte" as a confirmation of and dedication to this particular way of service in the life of the Church. The timeframe on something like this could vary from place to place, but the general process would ideally ensure that it is being taken seriously and be something special of genuine call.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Andreas Hofer

I just have two points I'd like to add.

1) More acolytes isn't a fix for the problem of distribution because even they are only extraordinary ministers. I would perhaps add some greater structure and formation to what currently happens, but the fact remains that even acolytes are only supposed to distributing communion in extraordinary circumstances.

Technically, they are auxiliary ministers. They are appropriately ministering in a service to which they have been called by Christ and the Church. They excercise what is ordinary to them, but (at Mass) only when the ordinary minister is unable. As such, they are at an intermediate step. That said, this is probably why they ought not be appointed willy-nilly, just to kind of formalize what really are extraordinary ministers into a quasi-clerical role.

2) I don't think requiring less time to become an acolyte than what deacon candidates currently put in before reaching that goal is at all a danger of dumbing down the formation because I suspect much of what deacons are learning during that time period is not required for the ministry of an acolyte. An acolyte is instituted to ministry at the altar. He has no pastoral duties like teaching the faith or counseling parishioners. As long as he has a good liturgical formation, then, he's good to go.

Agreed. Deaconal candidates could probably be instituted at a much earlier stage, in fact, and perhaps ought to be, ideally.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by Joannm

In our diocese it is high recommended that the person in charge of Redligious education in a parish have an MA in theology or Religious Education or are at least working towards it. I do not think an instituted acolyte who has a short period of formation woud qualify. Besides, that is not the function of an acolyte. My husband was in two years of diaconate formation following two previous years of lay ministiry training before he was instituted as an acolyte. That is four years of training. Even with that he is not qualified inour diocese to be a DRE becasue he does not have a masters degree in the requried area, even though he is ordained.

I think he was talking about the Lector working in Religious Ed, not the acolyte. Our diocese has the same recommendation. I know lots of DREs and only one of them has an MA. Most of them are still in the process of completing the diocisan CCE leadership certification and most, if not all have extensive cathechitical training. It is recommended but not required.

The diaconate formation is long because it involves extensive discernment something that isn't as important (not unimportant, just less important) for acolytes since it isn't Holy Orders. Deacons also have to study in many areas that an acolyte would not need such as theology, moral teachings, counseling, ministry. The acolytes training should be specifically on the Mass itself.

Originally Posted by Sacristan

I agree that the formation should not be dumbed-down. That would strongly suggest it would take 2-3 years of formation which is well and good. My point however is that most men willing to go through that formal of a formation would likely continue on to ordination as deacons.


I think it would be a poor move to institute men after a semester's worth of formation. To me that sounds like the right amount of time to train a EMHC before commissioning them.

I don't think priests even spend 2-3 years learning about the mechanics of Mass! What would you expect them to be studying during all that time?

Originally Posted by Andreas Hofer

I just have two points I'd like to add.

1) More acolytes isn't a fix for the problem of distribution because even they are only extraordinary ministers. I would perhaps add some greater structure and formation to what currently happens, but the fact remains that even acolytes are only supposed to distributing communion in extraordinary circumstances.

2) I don't think requiring less time to become an acolyte than what deacon candidates currently put in before reaching that goal is at all a danger of dumbing down the formation because I suspect much of what deacons are learning during that time period is not required for the ministry of an acolyte. An acolyte is instituted to ministry at the altar. He has no pastoral duties like teaching the faith or counseling parishioners. As long as he has a good liturgical formation, then, he's good to go.

In our diocese, the Archbishop brought up the idea of formally training and instituting acolytes when the directive was clarified about purification of the vessels. I don't think it would have much effect on the EMHC issue. The idea was that this would enable large parishes to continue to offer Communion under both species even when the number of chalices needed was very large.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by edward_george

It doesn't take that long to be formed as an acolyte. Diaconate formation takes a good long while, as you point out, but it is set up so that that acolyte institution takes place near the end of the formation.

The training is that long because they are being trained to be DEACONS, to give homilies and spiritually direct.

I'm in formation myself, here in Detroit a man in Instiuted as a Reader after their first year. They are institued as Acolytes just prior to their final year so they can assist their Mentor Deacon at his Masses.

If they were installed earlier, they would be obligated to EMHC at Mass, and the additional obligation would interfere with their other service ministries.