Ship of Fools: A question of ecclesiological terminology

Thread: A question of ecclesiological terminology Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025797

Posted by antient (# 17625) on :

Please forgive me if this question has already been asked and answered many times, but I'm looking for the specific word used to describe the ritual passing by the priest of a chalice (and purificator) to a properly authorised "Extraordinary Minister" prior to the Communion of the People. I can't remember what it is, or even if it is Latin or Greek in origin, but I believe the same word is used to describe the handing of a Chalice and Paten to a priest at his Ordination. I stumbled across it using google a while ago, but for the life of me can't remember it or find it now. Any liturgically minded geeks out there?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There is no reason for this to happen. It is far more reverent, and practical, for the minister to pick the chalice up from the altar. Unless s/he ministers immediately after receiving from it him/herself.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Popectio instrumentorum?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

The word used at ordination is porrection , but that term would NEVER be used in conjunction with handing a chalice to an EM! [Eek!]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Exactly. There is a fairly big difference between conferring the ability and authority to offer the Mass and making a temporary commission to administer the chalice.

Posted by antient (# 17625) on :

Thank you for aiding my failing memory. I had come across the word "porrection" in Fr Hunwicke's blog back in 2010, but the passage of time etc etc [Biased]

I do understand that the act has a particular meaning when used in the rite of Ordination, but it has an existence outside that rite, coming from the 3rd declension Latin noun porrectio meaning a straight line, an extension, or the act of extending, as in the unusual but semantically valid phrase "the porrection of the hand of friendship". To my mind its application to EM's at the Eucharist would signify that they are acting on each occasion with the permission of the priest, rather than autonomously.

[ 02. April 2013, 05:03: Message edited by: antient ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In the RC church these extraordinary ministers of the eucharist are acting in theory with the permission and mandate from the bishop.They are however usually commissioned by the parish priest in the name of the bishop,but there is no noeed for them to be commissioned each time that they carry out the commission.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Welcome, antient ... ask more challenging questions and feel free to scuttle far and wide around this glorious and diverse e-community

vis a vis that question it's never occurred to me to bestow a name on the action ... I always hand the chalice and purificator to the liturgical Eucharistic minister after communicating him/her (and usually the other one too) but have never formulated a verb ...

Zappa
Ecclesiantical hosty person

Posted by antient (# 17625) on :

Thank you all for your kindness and consideration. I do understand that repeated "commissioning" of lay ministers is not necessary, but I feel it is important to understand that their permission, although granted by a Bishop, can be withdrawn at any time, and totally arbitrarily. Yes, the Parish Priest has also commissioned them, but perhaps there are people who are in the congregation for the first time who don't fully appreciate the subordinate nature of lay administrators. It will be instructive and symbolic that the priest hands them the chalice, and they then distribute with his "blessing". Perhaps I'm old and traditional, but the simple gesture of handing a chalice and purificator to a lay assistant can communicate a great deal of the deep meaning of ministry, lay and ordained.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the RC church these extraordinary ministers of the eucharist....

No, Forthview, they aren't. Their proper title is Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. There's a difference and its all in the terminology. They are commissioned only (at least only licitly) to assist with the distribution of Holy Communion at Mass, to the absent sick and on other specified occasions.

The ministry, Antient, is properly "extraordinary" in the sense that they should only be used if there are insufficient "ordinary" ministers (bishops, priests, deacons) present and the liturgical rules make it clear that their commissioning should take place in such a way as to avoid any suggestion of parallels with ordination - no laying on of hands, no porectio instrumentorum. Unfortunately, these prescriptions are often ignored and it is not uncommon to encounter thoroughly clericalised and possessive EMoHCs.

Posted by antient (# 17625) on :

Perhaps I should have clarified one point. I'm coming from a standpoint of Anglican Catholic (High Church) usage, where authorised lay assistants are the norm.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
the liturgical rules make it clear that their commissioning should take place in such a way as to avoid any suggestion of parallels with ordination - no laying on of hands, no porectio instrumentorum.

Though in the institution of acolytes, who are also extraordinary ministers of holy communion, there is a handing over of a vessel containing either bread or wine (as I recall).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I don't think that I suggested that there was any sort of 'porrectio instrumentorum'.There is however a commission from the bishop.
In church the ministers would help when needed in the distribution of Communion but when visiting the sick most ministers would have some sort of other prayers and bible readings - for example the Gospel of the Day and some of the prayers of the day.
Similarly it is not uncommon now in parishes where the priest is unable to celebrate Mass every day for a minister to be responsible for a service of the Word and communion,though there is no suggestion that they are ersatz priests - they are what they are.
In ordinary parlance the word 'extraordinary' is rarely used as the ministers ,both male and female,tend to be ordinary people,serving their fellow parishioners.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by antient:
Perhaps I should have clarified one point. I'm coming from a standpoint of Anglican Catholic (High Church) usage, where authorised lay assistants are the norm.

Actually, in The Episcopal Church, a priest presiding at the Eucharist may designate any baptized person of competent age to assist, pro tem, at the distribution of the communion elements. As a regular duty for that work, the bishop's license should be sought. However, most people in the pew have no knowledge of such arrangements or requirements, nor do they care.

*

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by antient:

Please forgive me if this question has already been asked and answered many times, but I'm looking for the specific word used to describe the ritual passing by the priest of a chalice (and purificator) to a properly authorised "Extraordinary Minister" prior to the Communion of the People. I can't remember what it is, or even if it is Latin or Greek in origin, but I believe the same word is used to describe the handing of a Chalice and Paten to a priest at his Ordination. I stumbled across it using google a while ago, but for the life of me can't remember it or find it now. Any liturgically minded geeks out there?

It doesn't have a name.

*

Posted by antient (# 17625) on :

Pro tem authorisation by the priest is permitted in the Church of England too. I do understand that "commissioning" an EM (or any other similar term for an authorised lay person) is not necessary on every occasion, but there is a useful symbolic lesson if it is done, and with a "pseudo-porrection", as it were. The Bishop's permission has indeed been given to the lay minister, and that is sufficient to regularise their "activity". Here in England, at least, it needs to be renewed on an annual basic, or it lapses on Advent Sunday. Also, the incumbent can withdraw his permission from any such a lay person, for cause, or indeed arbitrarily. The symbolic lesson is that such ministers act within narrow confines, and can only continue to act if the priest permits it. They have no such authority in another parish, let alone another diocese. A priest does. A visible "sending out" each time illustrates the subordinate nature and impermanence of their authority, in contrast to the relative permanence and autonomy of an ordained priest. Disclaimer. I suppose I'm really in favour of the practice because it does no harm, and emphasises "catholicity". IMHO.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

People still read Hunwicke's blog? I stopped bothering after he started enforcing heavy-duty censorship to protect his new chums.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Though in the institution of acolytes, who are also extraordinary ministers of holy communion, there is a handing over of a vessel containing either bread or wine (as I recall).

...and we know why that is, don't we?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Though in the institution of acolytes, who are also extraordinary ministers of holy communion, there is a handing over of a vessel containing either bread or wine (as I recall).
...and we know why that is, don't we?

Do we? Please enlighten.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Though in the institution of acolytes, who are also extraordinary ministers of holy communion, there is a handing over of a vessel containing either bread or wine (as I recall).
...and we know why that is, don't we?
Do we? Please enlighten.

Because the rite replaces, utilises and combines what was, until 1973, two ordination ceremonies: that to the minor order of acolyte and the order of the subdiaconate. The specific part of the rite which FCB highlights was, up until then, within the ordination to the subdiaconate.

The chalice was empty as was the paten.

The rite wasn't then, nor is it now, about commissioning Extraordinary Ministers: it was then about ordaining and now about instituting someone then to an order now to an office that is stable and has ordinary responsibilities.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Since neither acolytes nor subdeacons were/are sacramental ordained ministries (unlike the diaconate and the presbyterate), why does it matter?

[ 07. April 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

It matters because the current rite derives its meaning, in part, from the previous one.

Ordination to the subdiaconate was considered to be ordination to a major order. It was stable (that is not normally lost or lapsing, unlike the commissioning of EMOCs) and its duties were symbolised by the handing over of the chalice and paten, that is to the subdeacon not as one of those who would give communion (they were not Ministers of Communion, not even extraordinary ones) but of those to whom the preparation of the gifts and custody of he sacred vessels was committed. That is what the sign signified.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0