More accurately, the Subdeacon reads. The Subdeacon was a major order in the Latin Church until its suppression by Pope Paul VI, and before priests were ordained, they were first ordained Subdeacon then Deacon. In Masses without a Deacon and Subdeacon, the Priest would read the Epistle as an exercise of his office of Subdeacon, and the Gospel as an exercise of his office of Deacon; the latter is still true today.
Do you have a source for the bolded part? I’ve been under the impression that Christ himself instituted these three offices.
That’s what the sentence says. Read it carefully. The part after the conjunction applies to the the ecclesiastically instituted offices, not the divinely instituted ones. These three are listed for contrast.
Ah! Thank you! Probably a sign that I should hit the hay.
I don’t know about that one but one of the complaints my boss had back in the 60’s was that groups reciting in “cadences” weren’t really praying so he quit going to church altogether.
With all due respect, you do realize that the last sentence of your question is a bit condescending, don’t you? When one is not familiar with new subject matter, one should not respond to its discovery with a flippant response such as “What possible reason could there be…,” which implies that there could be no such reason in existence. This is especially true when the matter in question was the Church’s practice for nearly all of its history. One should instead wonder why such a radical change was made.
And since this change falls under a “discipline” of the Church, which is not of the essence of the mass, it is capable of being changed by those who have the authority to do so. Those who object most strongly to disciplinary changes are usually uninstructed, or who refuse to accept them, using human reason as their basis, rather than filial submission to those who are entrusted with liturgical matters.With all due respect, you do realize that the last sentence of your question is a bit condescending, don’t you? When one is not familiar with new subject matter, one should not respond to its discovery with a flippant response such as “What possible reason could there be…,” which implies that there could be no such reason in existence. This is especially true when the matter in question was the Church’s practice for nearly all of its history. One should instead wonder why such a radical change was made.
It is probably an indication of the new Mass being introduced without adequate explanations. There appear to have been many instances of this, even though the changes were supposed to be explained to people, not just dropped on them. If changes are not explained, people make up their own.
I cannot fathom a Catholic making such a deplorable statement, alleging it as fact. As I read your post, I sense that this one of those “made up” explanations that “some” people assumed. Anyone who needs an explanation can read the authorization in Canon Law.
This authorization from Canon Law did not exist until fifteen years after the new Mass had been promulgated, so it was not available during the earliest period of adjustment to the changes. Even when it became available, it was an authorization rather than an explanation. When a father backs up his order to his child with “because I said so” he may be within his rights, but it does not help the child to understand the reasons for the order.
True, the Law was enacted many years after the changes due to the extensive care the Commissioners made to adapt it to the documents of V-II. This entailed a lot of work and review during the process. However, the changes that were made years earlier were not done without authorization. It is important to understand that they did not suddenly become legal after the Code was promulgated. The Code simply gave expression to that which had lawfully taken place.
I am certainly not questioning whether the change was lawful, but whether the reason for the change was widely understood is very much in question. I am not sure that we can even answer that question other than by collecting a variety of anecdotal evidence.
I don’t believe Vatican II has anything to do with this. This permission was given by the Pope himself, not the Council. These changes did not come into play till some years after the Council ended.
Irrelevant. The permission was given by the authority designated to bestow it. It does not matter when it was given. There should be no argument about its present licitness.
I’ll bite. What are the positive reasons for allowing Lay Readers?
Since we were speculating on how many people understand this, I’m interested in seeing how others answer this question. I hope you don’t mind if I delay giving my answer.
IMO, it’s like a lot of other things. It’s new, it’s different, we didn’t used to do it back when Cokes were a nickel and homburgs were in fashion.