Why the U.S. Bishops should vote "No" to the changes in "This Holy and Living Sacrifice" in Atlanta, June 14-16.

If all extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion can do purifications, there will be no distinguishing function for an instituted acolyte. Disobedience of liturgical laws should not be rewarded.

According to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, (1975 edition, n 147; 2000 edition, n 192): "In the absence of a deacon, the acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the side table and purifies, wipes and arranges them in the customary manner."

The NCCB Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter, January - February 2001, page 56, discusses "Proposed Revision of This Holy and Living Sacrifice". Under the heading "Derogations from the Missale Romanum" they write:

While the preponderance of these norms are derived from the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia, they depart from the practice of the Roman Missal in a limited number of instances in regard to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Such ministers are permitted, when pastoral need dictates, to assist with the distribution of the consecrated species to ancillary vessels, to consume what remains of the Precious Blood after the distribution of Holy Communion and to purify sacred vessels. In the view of the Committee on the Liturgy, this is in keeping with pastoral need and practice of the dioceses of the United States of America.

Upon approval of these norms by two-thirds of the Latin members of the NCCB they would be submitted to the Holy See for confirmation. The Committee on the Liturgy proposes them for consideration by the NCCB as particular law for the dioceses of the United States of America.

This approach reflects what Rev. Peter Stravinskas wrote:

But another disturbing pattern has emerged in this regard over the past thirty years, that this is what I have dubbed "rewarding disobedience". Three examples stand out: Communion-in-the-hand, Communion from the chalice on Sundays, and altar girls. Now, regardless of what you think of any or all of these developments, one must admit that all three were strictly forbidden and only by gross disobedience were they perpetrated; but the worst part of it all was that eventually authorities caved into the pressure and "legalized" the practices. No matter how you slice the cake, this is the recipe for liturgical chaos. [Understanding the Sacraments, Liturgical Press, 1997, page 112].

The law is that only instituted acolytes assist in the purifications and other extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion do not (GIRM 147, 238; IG 192, 279]. Only ordained ministers consume the remaining consecrated wine at the altar. [GIRM 138, IG 183]. The law is disobeyed, the committee says the law must change to be "in keeping with pastoral need and practice". Disobedience is rewarded. The role of instituted ministers is degraded, making a further step towards institution being a meaningless ceremony. Its time the bishops took a stand against this. The laws are complicated enough without major differences in each country.

I do not have a copy of the proposed "Holy and Living Sacrifice". However there seems to be draft on www.webelieve.cc. Here is a concern about what this document has:

37. During the preparation of the Gifts at Mass, the chalice, paten, and other sacred vessels are received from the faithful and placed upon the altar by the priest.

Why by the priest? How does he juggle all these things? Does this instruction make a procession compulsory? According to Institutio Generalis n 139 "An acolyte, or other lay minister arranges the corporal, purificator, the chalice, the pall and the missal upon the altar." This is similar to what GIRM 100 had. Is a change intended? This example highlights the complexity of associated with changing the General Instruction to the Roman Missal.

David Power, OMI, begins his book:

It was told to me of a bishop in the United States that he refused to introduce the offices of acolyte and reader into his diocese, told the pastors to deal with the question of special ministers as they thought best, and then went the rounds of his diocese, merrily blessing and installing catechists, marriage counselors, music directors, youth ministers, members of parish councils, and sundry others. [Gifts That Differ: Lay Ministries Established and Unestablished, Pueblo, New York, 1980, page vii].

Such an approach damages the Church's credibility. It impacts most directly on vocations to the priesthood, since seminarians are trained in liturgy, must be instituted as lectors and acolytes, and take the Oath of Fidelity before ordination. At least a third of the U.S. Bishops should reject the proposed changes and instead promote the ministry of instituted acolyte.

Links to other websites on the meeting and issue:

Adoremus report

BCL Newsletter June-July 2001 - Describes another meeting on 12-13 June and gives details of the vote. There is more information on what is proposed "granting to diocesan Bishops in the dioceses of the United States of America the faculty of permitting extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion ...".

Bishops Approve Revised Guidelines in Atlanta, 15 June 2001, NCCBUSCC

BCL Newsletter, January-February 2001

Media Release of 29 May 2001 on Meeting in Atlanta from NCCBUSCC

Media Advisory of 11 June 2001 on Meeting in Atlanta from NCCBUSCC

Draft Revision of "This Holy and Living Sacrifice" on www.webelieve.cc

Adoremus report on proposed liturgy changes at Atlanta meeting

National Catholic Reporter editorial of 25 May 2001