acolytes, lectors and women

[Gorgias]

But if clothes like those above are appropriate enough to attend Mass in, aren’t they appropriate enough to serve in?

I would say ‘no’. Let’s take the opposite tack: if clothes have no significance, then let’s ask those who wear their work uniforms to Mass what their bosses would say if they showed up without them. After all, if jeans and a top are appropriate enough to visit at the casino, aren’t they appropriate enough to work in?

There’s another consideration, though: the particular style or mode of clothing might draw attention to itself. Then, when the person serves at the altar, they are putting themselves on display and taking attention away from the liturgy. (Mind you, I’m not saying “all work clothes bad, all dress clothes good”, either – there are plenty of dressy clothes that are inappropriate for service at the altar, too!) This comment often gets rejected with the response “that’s the problem of the person looking at them”; however, if the role of the person at the altar is to serve and enhance the liturgy, shouldn’t they be concerned that all they are and all they do at the altar is conducive to good liturgy?

Let’s take the original poster who mentioned her scrubs: she claimed that internal preparation is more important than external preparation. Clearly, she sees the need to be ready to read the Word of God. I would think that she realizes that, if she’s not prepared to properly proclaim the Word (by practicing the reading, getting all the pronunciations right, etc), then she might detract from the liturgy by any shortcomings in her proclamation. In other words… she’s concerned about what other peoples’ reactions to her service at the altar will be! So, then… if we’re concerned about how we enhance the liturgy, then we should be concerned both about action and appearance.

Those in the pews should likewise be concerned about appearance, but to a different extent – because they’re not putting themselves at the front of the congregation in positions of ministry…

 

[Lapey]

There were no women priests, ever. In the early Church the only priest was the bishop, and it is clear with St. Paul’s Epistles that only men were bishops. Only later was the priesthood confered on the presbyters, but even before this time the presbyters (elders) were still only men.

Women back then were ordained to the diaconate. Although what the nature of the ordination of the diaconate back then is under debate. Even the role of the male deacons in the early Church were not the same as the role of deacons today. Back then deacons were literally (as the name implies) servants of the Church. They did a lot of the groundwork for the Church like charitable work. The seven deacons in Acts were comissioned to serve tables (ie. a First Century soup kitchen) and not really to lead prayers and help with the Sacraments. That is a later development.

I believe you have been corrected before on this misstatement on your part, if not consider this post exactly that. The diaconate was in the very beginning and throughout the Churches history much more than what you write here. Please do not let your personal views of anything in Mother Church, especially ordained ministers of Mother Church, skew your view of history.

First off, the debate is whether women who were called deaconesses were actually ordained or not, many believe they were what the orders of widows and virgins were referred to. Some other believe they were the wives of deacons. To my knowledge, and I am no Church History expert, there is no evidence that these deaconesses were ordained at all; in fact by the recent statements by JPII and actions by the Church, I would tend to believe they were not.

Most importantly read the Acts of the Apostles again, but this time, don’t stop at “to serve at table.” Read on to the parts where the first deacons were seen baptizing and preaching the word to new Churches and calling in the bishops to confirm the newly baptized.

Also, look through history and see the additional roles deacons played in ministering charity, preaching the word, administering the sacraments proper to their office. Look into the lives of Saint(s) Stephen, Lawrence, Gregory the Great, Francis or Assisi, etc.; research the first 750 years of popes and see that most were elected to the office of Bishop of Rome from the diaconate office.

I’ll never understand the attempt to diminish the true role deacons play now and played in past years of the history of Mother Church.

This is not the topic of this thread, so if you care to debate these issues, let’s do it by PM or a new thread.

 

[Jegudiel]

Not always. People sometimes feel comfort is more important. Sleeveless shirts or blouses, tank tops, short skirts or dresses, flip flop shoes, tennis shoes or sneakers, etc. Many things that are normally worn by many to Mass would not be appropriate to wear at the Ambo or to serve at the altar.

My pastor is quite insistent on being prepared and properly dressed, and also responsible; he has a three strike policy for those who miss their assignments without finding a suitable replacement. They are removed from the ministry list if they violate it. They are also called in if there is a problem with attire or the way they carry out their functions.

During the preparation period for the changes to the translation of the missal last year leading up to Advent, he called each group of ministers in as an individual group and “re-trained” them. He also had each person sign a document with the guidelines and requirements of each ministry, so that no one could say, “well I didn’t know that.” I can tell you the list of ministers shrunk a little but that is changing now as more people step up to minister. The Mass is much more reverent and more properly prayed now. We have seen quite a bit of change this first year since these latest Roman Missal changes to the translations.

I’m sorry to those who feel these guidelines are too strict, but it should mean something to get up to the ambo to proclaim the Word of God or serve at the altar; it’s not just a “thing” to do. This is the Mass we are talking about; many people in this congregation you are proclaiming the Word to, this is the only scripture they will hear for the entire week or whenever the next time they go to Mass may be. It’s more important than what you think you should be able to do or wear.

It sounds like your pastor is very much in charge of his parish as he should be. If my pastor instituted a simple dress code like you mentioned, there would be a HUGE amount of whining. If he tried to institute a 3-strike policy there would be huge whining to the bishop. That said it it was all done with charity and tact, while there would be some rocky roads, things WOULD settle and they would be far better after awhile.

It simply takes a pastor with the drive and guts to do it along with love and tact.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It sounds like your pastor is very much in charge of his parish as he should be. If my pastor instituted a simple dress code like you mentioned, there would be a HUGE amount of whining. If he tried to institute a 3-strike policy there would be huge whining to the bishop. That said it it was all done with charity and tact, while there would be some rocky roads, things WOULD settle and they would be far better after awhile.

It simply takes a pastor with the drive and guts to do it along with love and tact.

Things are not always that simple for a pastor. They are human too and can’t get raked over the coals from anything from talking about the sin of abortion too much to his homily being 2 minutes too long. Sometimes they have to pick their battles too…especially in places where the Bishop would not back them up.

I myself…having to find someone at the last minute when they don’t show up…would LOVE a 3 strikes you are out policy. About a month ago I got racked over the coals by a couple because they were 10 minutes late from when they should have been there and I had people fill in. They said that I should know that they would always be there…which I thought was funny because the last time they did not show up. Sigh…oh well. Not the time to have an argument. Here is a clue…you can not show up 5 minutes before Mass and expect that they will not have found a replacement…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It’s interesting the thing about dress…but first back to the OP…

So I’m guessing the reason there are not more installed lectors is that men don’t see the reason for it? Especially if they would be first in line to read and are not always prepared? What would be the reason to be a lector vs. a reader (if you are male)?

So…the way I see it…if you are a reader…male or female…you should wear appropriate attaire. I just don’t get in the one CAF’ers parish why appropriate dress for a female can not be pants? Seriously?

The other problem that can happen…and I have this happen is if you are expecting (and hoping) to go to Mass and just be there in the pew - and get drafted into service because someone did not show up.

I actually have this happen at daily Mass a lot - when I’m in jeans and sneakers…but what can you do?

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s interesting the thing about dress…but first back to the OP…

So I’m guessing the reason there are not more installed lectors is that men don’t see the reason for it? Especially if they would be first in line to read and are not always prepared? What would be the reason to be a lector vs. a reader (if you are male)?

So…the way I see it…if you are a reader…male or female…you should wear appropriate attaire. I just don’t get in the one CAF’ers parish why appropriate dress for a female can not be pants? Seriously?

The other problem that can happen…and I have this happen is if you are expecting (and hoping) to go to Mass and just be there in the pew - and get drafted into service because someone did not show up.

I actually have this happen at daily Mass a lot - when I’m in jeans and sneakers…but what can you do?

No, because most dioceses will not confer lector except on men going on to the priesthood.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe you have been corrected before on this misstatement on your part, if not consider this post exactly that. The diaconate was in the very beginning and throughout the Churches history much more than what you write here. Please do not let your personal views of anything in Mother Church, especially ordained ministers of Mother Church, skew your view of history.

First off, the debate is whether women who were called deaconesses were actually ordained or not, many believe they were what the orders of widows and virgins were referred to. Some other believe they were the wives of deacons. To my knowledge, and I am no Church History expert, there is no evidence that these deaconesses were ordained at all; in fact by the recent statements by JPII and actions by the Church, I would tend to believe they were not.

Most importantly read the Acts of the Apostles again, but this time, don’t stop at “to serve at table.” Read on to the parts where the first deacons were seen baptizing and preaching the word to new Churches and calling in the bishops to confirm the newly baptized.

Also, look through history and see the additional roles deacons played in ministering charity, preaching the word, administering the sacraments proper to their office. Look into the lives of Saint(s) Stephen, Lawrence, Gregory the Great, Francis or Assisi, etc.; research the first 750 years of popes and see that most were elected to the office of Bishop of Rome from the diaconate office.

I’ll never understand the attempt to diminish the true role deacons play now and played in past years of the history of Mother Church.

This is not the topic of this thread, so if you care to debate these issues, let’s do it by PM or a new thread.

It is not diminishing anything, but just an honest fact that the roles of the clergy did evolve over time. Presbyters, for example, never served as priests until midway through the First Millennium. Back then only Bishops were priests. When you say priest, you meant the bishop, not the presbyter. In fact in Acts, St. James wasn’t even called an episkopos, he was called a presbeutros, an elder. Though without the formality of the title everyone knew he was the chief elder, thus the bishop. But that role wasn’t clearly defined by then. At least by the First Council of Jerusalem.

No doubt that the deacon started to develop from the get-go. Though deacons at some time were personal errand-boys of Bishops, especially the Patriarchs (like the Pope). Although today you’d see that role fulfilled by someone who is a priest, sometimes a bishop, and usually a true errand-boy would be a subdeacon. Even today in the East a subdeacon really needs to serve as a subdeacon if the bishop is there, he isn’t even required to vest if the bishop is not present. Although many would have them vest anyway to emphasize their honor of ordination. But again, the deacons of today have a much different role from the deacons of the early Middle Ages, about the time the deaconess fell into disuse.

Some Orthodox have claimed to have preserved the Rite of Ordination for deaconesses. Though I have not have the time to read them. Frederica Matthews-Greene has a book where she did a research on deaconesses, maybe some time in the future I will get around to reading it.

 

[Brendan]

No, because most dioceses will not confer lector except on men going on to the priesthood.

It is also required of those men progressing towards the Diaconate. Or, more specifically, the instituion of a man as lector is required for ordination to the Diaconate, regardless if the man is seeking Sacerdotal Orders as well.

 

[SHoJ]

For those who think parishes should get rid of lay readers and such, how many acolytes and lectors should each parish have?

How often should they serve? Should they have to serve every Sunday and Holy ? (deacons don’t have to serve every Sunday, and priests get vacation time)

What would happen if they were sick and there are no other lectors/acolytes available to take their place?

 

[Brendan]

For those who think parishes should get rid of lay readers and such, how many acolytes and lectors should each parish have?

Considering that Instituded Readers and Acolytes are lay people in the Roman Church (they are actually clerical roles in the East), I don’t think ANYONE on the thread so far has advocated for the elimination of lay readers.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Considering that Instituded Readers and Acolytes are lay people in the Roman Church (they are actually clerical roles in the East), I don’t think ANYONE on the thread so far has advocated for the elimination of lay readers.

…Semantics…

To answer the question, I think that would depend on the number of Masses celebrated on weekends. I would say one lector for each Mass plus a contingency of one or two more, and for acolytes at least two for each Mass plus a contingency of two more.