AmericanPapist Comments
This is a disaster!
Want even fewer vocations?
Want families to continue abandoning the Faith?
Then continue on the march down towards equaltiy in the liturgy and the elimination of complimentarity.
The liturgy is where our vocations need to be nourished. It is the place where manliness and womanliness should be powerfully present in our sacramental gestures and signs.
Having women be lectors is a sop to androgeny feminism, it is a mistake.
Rather we should be asking the question:
How can the unique vocations of woman and man be amplified in their complimentarity in the liturgy in continuity with tradition?
If we continue to go the way of women in the sanctuary, we will have fewer priests there with them, and fewer men in the pews.
It is simply a reality, despite the best of our politically correct intentions.
This concerns me about some of the other decisions at this Synod.
On the other hand, CNS has been known as a mouthpiece for the "progressives" in their reporting in the past. This may be wishful thinking or a distortion. We'll see.
A BRIT
IN
BANGLADESH
And the Word was made Flesh,
But does that really mesh,
With authentic faith and dialogue today?
‘Cause at Eucharistic meal,
Which is no big, bloody, deal,
We smile and our mistakes are washed away.
We gather round the table,
To hear a gospel fable
From Father Bob, the celebrant, divine.
Never kneels, he always stands
But he runs to shake your hands,
Then he sits a lot, perhaps a weakened spine.
The ladies and the girls,
Their ministry unfurls,
A Eucharistic minister’s sensation.
With servers and the cantor,
They have a playful banter,
Then bread and wine, it’s time for celebration.
As the people, we all sing
But the bells, they never ring,
For they took away the Words that made His Flesh…
For a Corpus? That’s too rough,
There’s no need for violent stuff,
That’s as welcomed as a Brit in Bangladesh!
It's rather odd, given the current pontiff's desire to heal the liturgical breach which occured following the Council. But this is an ample reminder why "voting" may be inappropriate in these circumstances. What's next, a vote on whether the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ at Mass? Tom
I hate to present myself as ignorant, parochial, uninformed (or worse), but I was not aware that women were not allowed to be lectors.
Weren't there female lectors as some of the papal masses during Pope Benedict's visit in April?
This is a good move on the part of the Bishops. I was surprised to read it wasn't already the case.
Women have been a regular part of the lector schedule at my home parish for decades -- nothing "temporary" about it.
Also, I disagree with this notion that having women as lectors hurts vocations. Seems to me that true vocations couldn't be hindered by another member of the Church proclaiming the Word of God.
I was both EM and lector when I was a teenager and young adult. Some how during the training they forgot to teach me about True Presence, I left the Church around 24. We I came back to the Church I learned all the things that we not taught in the 70s & 80s. Now I would never consider approaching the alter, for all the reasons already mentioned. I know where God wants me now!
The mood in the church, on a worldwide basis, really is to the left right now.
I'm obviously missing the significance of this "change" . . .
Can someone explain the difference between an "installed" lector, and the "uninstalled" kind?
I've been doing readings in my parish for nearly a decade and I don't recall ever being "installed."
We've also had a mix of male and female lectors right along.
'Splain, please!
Brassband: quickly, an installed lector exercises 1/2 of the function of the EF subdeacon (reading the epistle at mass) on a permanent basis, according to Ministeria quaedam. Uninstalled lectors only do so on a temporary basis. The installed lectorate is open to men only.
As a prerequisite to the lawful reception of the diaconate, a man must receive and exercise the installed lectorate, along with the installed ministry of acolyte (the other half of the EF subdiaconate).
There is no need for lectors period, much less women lectors. I find it strange that folk who have no training and many of whom have reading disabilities are cajoled by Father into going up to read the readings at Mass. Why can't Father read them? He is the one who has the vocation to do so, not we laity.
Brassband,
There are two kinds of lectors recognized by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: instituted and commissioned. Most parish lectors, men and women, are commissioned by their pastor or simply asked to read. Seminarians are instituted as lectors (and acolytes) as steps along the way to priestly ordination. Laymen can also be instituted as lectors and acolytes by their bishops.
Instituted and commissioned lectors both have identical duties in the Mass. However, the commissioned lector is seen in the GIRM as a backup--someone who functions as a lector only in the absence of an instituted lector.
According to hearsay, many bishops do not allow institution of lectors and acolytes, and at least part of the reason is that women are excluded from these institutions. So I think that the most significant result of instituting women lectors would be an increase in the institution of lectors--which means an increase in the training and spiritual commitment required to be a lector.
Paul, you have to understand that the vocation has two ends. On one end stands the One calling and that to which he calls. On the other end is the one called and his free choice in the matter.
Having female lectors will not inhibit the call, with respect to God calling men to the priesthood. But it can (and does) have a very detrimental effect on whether the men respond to that call. If the liturgical functions are seen as the way women participate in the Mass, then men and boys won't want to do it. If the priest's most visible job is to preside over a parade of old ladies and young girls, a young man won't want to do that, either.
Do a web search for "The war against boys" and "the war against fathers" and see what turns up.
I'm very surprised that this was one of the Synod's recommendations.
If you're an instituted lector, you are officially clergy, my pumpkins, just like being an instituted acolyte, porter, or exorcist. In the old days, all these instituted offices were tonsured when being instituted, as well as being handed various symbols of their clerical powers: cruets, chalices.
Also, if you perform any part of an instituted order's office with a mortal sin on your soul, you sin mortally again. So it's not just taking communion you'd have to go to Confession before -- it's doing the readings.
(This seems a serious disadvantage to laypersons, especially if you're the type to suffer from committing mortal sins while in traffic with the family.)
So none of this is a small deal. It's a very serious attempt to make women into Catholic clergy; and they're not starting with instituting women as the lowest grade, acolyte. No, no ground floor stuff for these bishops.
LvB wrote: "There is no need for lectors."
I strongly disagree with this. I think it is very beneficial that we have lay Faithful participate as lectors during the Litury of the Word. Lay members of the Body of Christ have an important role to play in sharing the Holy Scriptures (during Mass and outside of Mass).
Lectors should be well-trained and have a strong understanding of the Scriptures they are proclaiming. Of course, this is sometimes not the case. But, we should not dismiss the need for all lectors because of some who are not fully prepared.
As Ephrem stated, this move by the Bishops may help to "increase in the training and spiritual commitment."
I have no objection to women serving as non-instituted lectors, either ad hoc or commissioned. I have so served; and do so serve, when I act as psalmist when I cantor.
But I don't want to be clergy. I want to be a laywoman, and I don't want my contributions, and two thousand years of God's church, both dismissed and degraded by all this woman "instituted lector" clerical crud. It's stupid, it's pointless, it's a-historical, it's annoying, and it's way, way too clerico-centric.
As if only clergy count, and women must be nothing but dirt, unless and until they're clergy. What's the lay state to these bishops? Chopped liver?
Maureen,
Are you unaware that since 1973 these formerly clerical orders have been been "ministries" (a lesser category)? The change was made by Pope Paul VI in his decree Ministeria Quaedam.
Seminarians must be instituted as lectors and acolytes before their diaconal ordinations. But they do not enter into the clerical state until they are ordained deacons.
Maureen: since 1972, reception of the ministry of instituted lector does not make one a cleric in the Latin church. Only reception of the diaconate does. Paul VI, motu proprio Ministeria quaedam no. 1. The norm of Ministeria quaedam that diaconate makes one a cleric was retained was codified in 1983. CIC can. 266 § 1.
Doc Angelus: You're talking to Mr. Snatchko, right?
Sorry, typo, Doc Angelicus
Thanks to all who explained the difference between "instituted" and non-instituted.
I wonder how many "instituted" lectors there are around?
In most parishes to which I have belonged there seem to be the non-instituted variety of lector.
How big a difference is this likely to make as a practical matter?
Yes, Mr. Madrid. Sorry, didn't see another Paul or I'd have been clearer.
Brassband: the "lay ministries" are at a weird intersection of lay and clerical. They are open to the laity and reception of them does not make a person a cleric, but they are open to only men despite the code's emphasis of the equality of the laity and are a required step for lawful reception of orders.
The difference that admitting women to the lectorate will make is really a question of whether the functions of the subdeacon (reading and serving) will be seen as fundamentally lay functions or fundamentally clerical functions. If a move is made toward instituting women as lectors, then the point will be made that reading (and quite possibly serving) at mass are fundamentally lay functions. If the move is deflected, then the idea that these functions are fundamentally clerical will be emphasized.
That's the difference, IMHO.
Again there is next to no training for these readers and dyslexia abounds among them.(My own husband is. Father expects him to get up and read. This is very difficult especially, since he has not had time to read it over before Mass. It is hard for us to listen to also.) It doesn't matter apparently. The Mass is just so unimportant that such slip shod execution is par for the course.We just have to have more lay people, and especially women traipsing around the altar.
What does a lector's understanding of the scripture have any bearing on reading the readings and the psalm in Mass? The priest or deacon comments or explicates, not the lector.
I am almost getting tired of reading this website because it all seems like bad news lately. Instituting women as lectors? Do our bishops have so little understanding of the nature of masculine and feminine vocations as to want to institute what has been a prime example of the-exception-used-as-the-norm "spirit of Vatican II"? Are they even trying to help us understand the teaching of Saint Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34?
No. They are falling prey to popular opinion and trying to give us poor, downtrodden women what we say we want -- but not what we need. Not the truth. The truth is a cross and a humility that far too many women are unwilling to bear. Come on ladies, let us welcome the humility of Christ into our hearts and not deem equality (undifferentiated equivalence) with men "something to be grasped at."
And let us listen with submission to our loving leader and father, St. Paul: "But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? ... Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way." (1 Cor. 12)
Amy,
I disagree with your take on what the bishops are doing. They are not changing the exception. They are changing the norm.
If a ministry, formerly a clerical state, has truly been separated from the clerical state, then why exactly would it be reserved to men?
The stronger these distinctions between clerical and non-clerical become, the more distinctive the reservation of the diaconate and priestly ministries to men becomes.
Amy,
I would also say that our loving leaders and fathers are the bishops in union with the Holy Father. These are our magisterium now and we should follow their teaching.
I am enjoying this conversation very much. (Probably because no one has brought up the election. Damn! I just did. Mea culpa.) There are a few points I'd like to raise if someone would care elaborate.
There are instituted and commissioned lectors. The office of instituted lector is a step toward the diaconate. But is it a necessary step? I mean that in two senses. One, is the lectorate a sine qua non of diaconal or priestly ordination? Second, is the position of instituted lector the same (in terms of training and execution of the ministry) for one intending to progress toward Holy Orders as it is for one merely intending to serve as a lay minister?
Finally, my impression is that, as a practical matter in the life of a parish, using commissioned lectors is much more common that instituted lectors.
It seems to me that women act as lectors so often, via the "temporary deputation" designation, that they are hardly distinguishible from their male counterparts.
Which begs the question - if in practice the differences are minimal if not nonexistant, why should a bar remain against female lectors?
In the Pauline church, women certainly acted as patrons, deacons, and ambassadors for Paul. So now, why not lectorships?
This is unfortunate. Why? Because we are playing bishop tug-of-war. As soon as a group of bishops allegedly make a statement that sounds in line with modernism, the liberals jump in with their "the good bishops in union with the bishop of Rome are our benevolent leaders to whom we must be obedient". When a group of bishops make clear, unequivocal statements that Catholics cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician, these same liberals say "those bishops are out of line, that's why we need to change the Church!".
The difference between the liberals and the practicing Catholics is that practicing Catholics will be obedient with whatever the final decision of the Magisterium is on the issue of instituted lectors. We understand that this report (from a well-known mouthpiece for modernization) would only be a first step to a longer process. The Successor of St. Peter has yet to rule in on the topic, so nothing is official. The practicing Catholics will also submit to the authority of the local bishops who have the power to declare that it is morally impermissible to vote for a politician like Obama. They understand that, unlike this proposition that has been reported by CNS, the statements given by the local bishops do not require the Bishop of Rome to weigh in. There is the disconnect.
Where practicing Catholics are actually obedient, dissenting liberal Catholics feign obedience. They are as obedient as Martin Luther, who was only obedient to the point where the Magisterium diverged from his personal opinion.
There is no reason to get our knickers in a twist over this. CNS got all hot and bothered over this because they though that they saw a Futurechurch morsel thrown in their direction (though a few people who have commented have pointed out that even if women do get "installed", it doesn't mean that they will be somehow promoted to a clerical state).
Let's wait and see what really becomes of this before we trust reporting that is one rung below that of Newsweek on Catholic matters.
There is a video about Pope's Benedict private Mass, and the reading is done by a woman of the Papal household.
Ephrem,
I was not saying that the bishops are changing the exception, I was saying that they are trying to turn the exception into the norm (which is, obviously, changing the norm).
In regard to reserving lectorship for men, even if it is properly separated from clerical orders, I would respond that the way you are framing your question seems too concerned with the legalisms of Canon Law (and the theological implications, to an extent) but excludes a broader understanding of the theological significance of having a woman read in Mass.
The problem is evident in the remark made by Sidonius Apollinaris: "It seems to me that women act as lectors so often, via the 'temporary deputation' designation, that they are hardly distinguishible from their male counterparts." This is all too true, in most Catholics' eyes, as it is true in their experience. But the problem is that women SHOULD be distinguishable from their male counterparts, as distinguishable as the priest from his flock, the congregation; as distinguishable as the Lamb from his Bride, the Church. The beauty of the mystery of the relationship between men and women is an extention and reflection of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, between Christ and His people, between a priest and the laity. In each relationship, the Lover inhabits a particular role, and the Beloved welcomes and cherishes that in her own role. It is in the nature of the Lover to give forth, to outwardly create, to preach and plant the seed of the Word. It is in the nature of the Beloved to receive, to conceive interiorly, to nourish and 'think on these things in the silence of her heart' (as Mary did).
So when we regularly invite women to read at Mass, pulling us (the Beloved) up out of the congration (the priest's Beloved) to speak forth the Word into the hearts of the receiving listners, we subvert the entire nature of the beautiful reflective mystery God has granted us. We stop seeing any distinction at all between men and women in the laity, and, if we continue down this path, we will eventually lose our intimate, rich understanding of the nature of the Glorious relationships from which all relationships take their meaning. I cannot believe the Holy Spirit would allow us to go so far as to ever allow women priests within the Church, any more than to believe in a feminine person in the Trinity, but our understanding of our own faith will lose considerably for it. Just look at the current drama between pro-Obama, nominal Catholics and the Church to see how fragmentary and surface-level most Catholics' understanding is. The "elevation" of women to this kind of "equality" -- the degredation of their true spiritual gifts -- has already done much damage, to the point where most of us find it strange to even propose a difference between men and women wielding the Word of God in our Mass.
Amy,
I don't think the Liturgy of the Word is the time/place where we need to demonstrate that relationship.
This is the nuttiest discussion yet. Vocations to what are at stake? It's no surprise when Bishops don't want women to participate in their own decisions that they would want to exclude them from any form of participation in the formal liturgy. What's next is maybe separate rooms for women, like an orthodox synagogue?
Commenting by HaloScan
