Lay people reading Scripture in Mass

[curlycool89]

I tend to favor restricting the sanctuary during Mass to as few laymen as possible as it tends to reduce the image of the “Holy of Holies” and seems to lend a more informal, less sacral air to the Mass, but I think you are on solid ground with your interpretation.

On the other hand, trying to be too restrictive can pretty quickly turn into clericalism.

 

[PietroPaolo]

On the other hand, trying to be too restrictive can pretty quickly turn into clericalism.

Fair enough, but trying to give the laity more ‘jobs’ during the liturgy can turn into clericalizing the laity. Pope Francis has spoken about this danger saying:

“We priests tend to clericalize the laity. We do not realize it, but it is as if we infect them with our own disease. And the laity — not all, but many — ask us on their knees to clericalize them, because it is more comfortable to be an altar server than the protagonist of a lay path. We cannot fall into that trap — it is a sinful complicity.”

 

[Sirach2]

I tend to favor restricting the sanctuary during Mass to as few laymen as possible as it tends to reduce the image of the “Holy of Holies” and seems to lend a more informal, less sacral air to the Mass, but I think you are on solid ground with your interpretation.

You admit that there is solid ground for the ministry of Lector, yet you object to their use personally, wishing to restrict the sanctuary to as few laymen as possible? How many would that be? All of ONE layperson, who happens to have a lawful ministerial appointment to be there and proclaim the readings?

And then you quote the words of Pope Francis, which seem to be taken out of context, to validate your preference? [Um, why do I get the feeling this discussion is becoming combative…]

 

[PietroPaolo]

You admit that there is solid ground for the ministry of Lector, yet you object to their use personally, wishing to restrict the sanctuary to as few laymen as possible? How many would that be? All of ONE layperson, who happens to have a lawful ministerial appointment to be there and proclaim the readings?

And then you quote the words of Pope Francis, which seem to be taken out of context, to validate your preference? [Um, why do I get the feeling this discussion is becoming combative…]

1. We are conflating two different questions. First, does the Church allow lay readers at Mass. This question has been resolved to yes, although the GIRM does not demand their use, it certainly allows it. That settles the question of liceity. A second separate question remains. Is the current practice (which is hardly the traditional practice of the Church) the best way to offer worship to God? Are there unintended consequences to this practice? These questions are prudential in nature and, as such, we are free to hold a variety of personal opinions - one such valid opinion is calling for a reduce lay role in the sanctuary. To take a recent example, a Catholic could have, a mere 2 yrs ago, recognized the liceity of the old ‘dynamic equivalence’ translation of the Mass, but hoped and called for a better for accurate translation (as many Catholics did). We now have that translation.
2. What makes you think the quote is pulled out of context? Here is another quote from our Holy Father: (emphasis added)

“We priests tend to clericalize the laity,” Francis said. “[We] focus on things of the clergy, more specifically, the sanctuary, rather than bringing the Gospel to the world… A Church that limits herself to administering parish work experiences what someone in prison does: physical and mental atrophy.

“We infect lay people with our own disease. And some begin to believe the fundamental service God asks of them is to become greeters, lectors or extraordinary ministers of holy communion at Church. Rather, [the call is] to live and spread the faith in their families, workplaces, schools, neighborhoods and beyond.”*

1. I’m not feeling combative, perhaps you are?

 

[YoungTradCath]

On the other hand, trying to be too restrictive can pretty quickly turn into clericalism.

Yes, but “dishing out liturgy duties” probably clericalizes laity more than anything else. Part of me wants to use the “balance” paradigm in this situation, but I think that term is very insufficient here.

 

[PietroPaolo]

1. We are conflating two different questions. First, does the Church allow lay readers at Mass. This question has been resolved to yes, although the GIRM does not demand their use, it certainly allows it. That settles the question of liceity. A second separate question remains. Is the current practice (which is hardly the traditional practice of the Church) the best way to offer worship to God? Are there unintended consequences to this practice? These questions are prudential in nature and, as such, we are free to hold a variety of personal opinions - one such valid opinion is calling for a reduce lay role in the sanctuary. To take a recent example, a Catholic could have, a mere 2 yrs ago, recognized the liceity of the old ‘dynamic equivalence’ translation of the Mass, but hoped and called for a better for accurate translation (as many Catholics did). We now have that translation.
2. What makes you think the quote is pulled out of context? Here is another quote from our Holy Father: (emphasis added)

“We priests tend to clericalize the laity,” Francis said. “[We] focus on things of the clergy, more specifically, the sanctuary, rather than bringing the Gospel to the world… A Church that limits herself to administering parish work experiences what someone in prison does: physical and mental atrophy.

“We infect lay people with our own disease. And some begin to believe the fundamental service God asks of them is to become greeters, lectors or extraordinary ministers of holy communion at Church.* Rather, [the call is] to live and spread the faith in their families, workplaces, schools, neighborhoods and beyond.”

1. I’m not feeling combative, perhaps you are?

My link appears to be broken. The original Pope Francis quote was pulled from an article in the NC Register found here: ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-reform-of-the-laity/

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, but as Pope Benedict noted, “it should be clear that the word ‘participation’ does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration.” (Sacramentum Caritatis, no 52.)

Yes, that is exactly right. It can’t be “mere external activity.” One’s heart has to be in it as well, not out of pride but out of a genuine desire to serve God through the knowledge that one is called by God to do so. Nor can it be “mere internal, spiritual participation” either.

We are to love God with our heart, mind and strength - spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical - not one to the exclusion of another but all of the above. A Church full of people standing, sitting and kneeling without being fully spiritually engaged is just as bad as a Church full of people in a spiritual bubble, ignoring the presence of other members of Christ’s body sitting six inches from them.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Besides, there is a Scriptural basis for the laity reading scripture at liturgical functions.

Guests and strangers used to be invited to read the scriptures and even to speak at the synagogue on the Sabbath.

**He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. ** (Luke 4:16-17)

It was a very common practice to have ordinary people read from the scriptures at the synagogue.

-Tim-

 

[PietroPaolo]

Yes, that is exactly right. It can’t be “mere external activity.” One’s heart has to be in it as well, not out of pride but out of a genuine desire to serve God through the knowledge that one is called by God to do so. Nor can it be “mere internal, spiritual participation” either.

We are to love God with our heart, mind and strength - spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical - not one to the exclusion of another but all of the above. A Church full of people standing, sitting and kneeling without being fully spiritually engaged is just as bad as a Church full of people in a spiritual bubble, ignoring the presence of other members of Christ’s body sitting six inches from them.

-Tim-

Yes, but what is the proper role of external activity for the laity in the liturgy? Certainly, we’d agree (assuming no physical impediment is present) all are called to sit, stand, and kneel at the appropriate times, but this doesn’t logically entail the distribution of particular tasks to some of the laity, otherwise you are setting up a scenario where some laymen participate more by reading than others do by listening, some participate more by distributing communion than others do by receiving, etc. If we instead say it is the Body of Christ actively participating as a whole, then such participation would not be lessened by having those in orders, who are also a part of the Body of Christ, perform these functions. Finally, your final comment would seem to suggest that a private Mass, where the celebrant is necessarily in a “spiritual bubble” is deficient, which we know to be false.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Besides, there is a Scriptural basis for the laity reading scripture at liturgical functions.

Guests and strangers used to be invited to read the scriptures and even to speak at the synagogue on the Sabbath.

***He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. *** (Luke 4:16-17)

It was a very common practice to have ordinary people read from the scriptures at the synagogue.

-Tim-

Yes, but the Mass is not just an outgrowth of the synagogue, also being informed by the Temple, where the functions of worship were carried out by the priests. Further, the passage you cite would seem to be evidence not for lay readers, but for the priest to do all the readings - the priest being alter Christus and Christ having read from the OT at the synagogue.

 

[Sirach2]

PietroPaolo:

What makes you think the quote is pulled out of context? Here is another quote from our Holy Father: (emphasis added)

The essence of the Holy Father’s article certainly did not deal with too many lay persons in the sanctuary, as you have depicted, but rather on “mutilating the message” of the gospel through negativity, censure, and criticism - such as I am finding in your post. You criticize the role of Lector as favoring less lay persons in the sanctuary, although there is only ONE Lector. It amuses me that radical trads usually focus myopically on one issue, while highly celebrating another practice like this parish that customarily has SIX lay persons in the sanctuary (EF liturgy):

te-deum.smugmug.com/2009-Liturgy/Feast-Days-and-Misc-Masses/St-Monica-Sodality-Mass/i-pQ9d28K/0/S/IMG_9237-S.jpg
Pope Francis:

One of the wild grapes that flows from the vine of clericalism, the future Pope said in El Jesuita, is a hypercritical spirit that leads some Catholic priests and faithful to expend most of their energy censuring others inside and outside the Church rather than seeking to live and share the joy of the Christian faith.

“This is a problem not only for priests,” he said, “but also for laypeople. One isn’t a good Catholic when he is looking only for the negative, for what separates us. This isn’t what Jesus wants.”

Such unredeemed behavior — found regularly in personal conversations, blogs, comment boxes and Internet video analyses — “mutilates the message” of the Christian faith and scares people away from it, he said.

Firing vitriolic criticism at those with whom one disagrees is not the path of the reform of the laity and the Church.

If you are only interested in isolating part of the Pope’s message to suit your ideology, then I believe our conversation is kaput.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The essence of the Holy Father’s article certainly did not deal with too many lay persons in the sanctuary, as you have depicted…

Your certainly are feeling combative aren’t you? And not very charitable as well, I might add. I’m certainly not a rad-trad nor did I mention anything about the EF Mass nor am I trying to support and “ideology” nor did I suggest that the entire thrust of the article was aimed at reducing the role of the laity at the Mass, however that is clearly a part of what Francis is saying. Responding by claiming that isn’t the “essence of the Holy Father’s article” is simply beside the point. You seem to be taking this conversation very personally, that is rather odd, isn’t it? Are you claiming the Church requires lay readers? Or even that the Church prefers lay readers? The GIRM does not indicate either of those positions and neither do the remarks of Pope Francis. If you are planning on continuing the ad hominem route, perhaps our conversation being “kaput” is best.

 

[hazcompat]

co-workers in the vineyard

www.usccb.org

Peace

 

[Sirach2]

Please read my post again. I did not call you a rad trad, but tried to point out that this argument has been made many times on the forum by those who strongly disfavor one aspect of lay ministry, but laud another that is more to their liking.

My mention of the EF was to give recognition to the mass from where this photo originated. Again, I pointed no fingers at you. Did you prefer to interpret my post to make accusations of “ad hominem?”

Are you claiming the Church requires lay readers? Or even that the Church prefers lay readers?

Yes. It may be that you did not read the entire thread, notably post #22 where Pope Paul VI wrote, and issued a papal Motu Proprio in that regard. [Notwithstanding the regulation in the GIRM that was already discussed]

Certain ministries were established by the Church even in the most ancient times

for the purpose of suitably giving worship to God and for offering service to the people of God according to their needs.** By these ministries, the offices to be carried out in the liturgy and the practice of charity, deemed suitable to varying circumstances, were entrusted to the faithful**. The conferring of these functions often took place by a special rite, in which, after God’s blessing had been implored, a Christian was established in a special class or rank for the fulfillment of some ecclesiastical function.*

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but as Pope Benedict noted, “it should be clear that the word ‘participation’ does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration.” (Sacramentum Caritatis, no 52.)

Yes, I understand term “actuosa participatio” wasn’t properly translated.

I find it hard to believe that someone who walks into church, perhaps not even understanding the local vernacular or Latin, can’t be considered as participating in the liturgy.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, but what is the proper role of external activity for the laity in the liturgy? Certainly, we’d agree (assuming no physical impediment is present) all are called to sit, stand, and kneel at the appropriate times, but this doesn’t logically entail the distribution of particular tasks to some of the laity, otherwise you are setting up a scenario where some laymen participate more by reading than others do by listening, some participate more by distributing communion than others do by receiving, etc. If we instead say it is the Body of Christ actively participating as a whole, then such participation would not be lessened by having those in orders, who are also a part of the Body of Christ, perform these functions. Finally, your final comment would seem to suggest that a private Mass, where the celebrant is necessarily in a “spiritual bubble” is deficient, which we know to be false.

People are called by God to serve according to the gifts they are given. People serve in various functions when they feel that the Holy Spirit is calling them to serve.

I can’t sing. I take nothing away from the chior by not singing.

If people don’t feel called to be readers then they should just sit in the pew. I wish everyone would stop trying to stymie the Holy Spirit at work in other people.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but as Pope Benedict noted, “it should be clear that the word ‘participation’ does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration.” (Sacramentum Caritatis, no 52.)

Yes, I understand term “actuosa participatio” wasn’t properly translated.

I find it hard to believe that someone who walks into church, perhaps not even understanding the local vernacular or Latin, can’t be considered as participating adequately in the liturgy.

 

[Sirach2]

co-workers in the vineyard

Peace

Thank you Hazcompat. This sets forth very beautifully the mind of the Church concerning lay ministry. Here is the Co-workers in the Vineyard link from the USCCB.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The essence of the Holy Father’s article certainly did not deal with too many lay persons in the sanctuary, as you have depicted, but rather on “mutilating the message” of the gospel through negativity, censure, and criticism - such as I am finding in your post. You criticize the role of Lector as favoring less lay persons in the sanctuary, although there is only ONE Lector. It amuses me that radical trads usually focus myopically on one issue, while highly celebrating another practice like this parish that customarily has SIX lay persons in the sanctuary (EF liturgy):
If you are only interested in isolating part of the Pope’s message to suit your ideology, then I believe our conversation is kaput.

I am really imaging the ad hominem character of this post?

Your quote from Paul VI doesn’t help your cause very much, I’m afraid.

“The conferring of these functions often took place by a special rite, in which, after God’s blessing had been implored, a Christian was established in a special class or rank for the fulfillment of some ecclesiastical function.”

This is an argument for instituted lectors NOT lay lectors.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Yes, I understand term “actuosa participatio” wasn’t properly translated.

I find it hard to believe that someone who walks into church, perhaps not even understanding the local vernacular or Latin, can’t be considered as participating adequately in the liturgy.

Exactly

Further, those taking this line seem to be implying that the EF Mass is deficient, as there are no lay readers, EMHC’s etc… But what then do we make of the Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum? Did Pope Benedict call for a liberalization of the 1962 Missal to provide less participation? That conclusion seems absurd.