Lector vs reader

[Lea101]

Someone in my parish made a comment that only men can be lectors, while men and women can be readers.

This is quite confusing as I was a lector for some time. Is there a difference? Was that pre Vatican II?

 

[Herculees]

In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the term “lector” or “reader” can mean someone who in a particular liturgy is assigned to read a Biblical text other than the Gospel. (Reading the Gospel at Mass is reserved specifically to the deacon or, in his absence, to the priest.)

GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…y_of_the_Word_

1. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture.[86]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p2s2c1a2.htm

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.89

1306 Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation.123 Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that "the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time,"124 for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

Does a person need to be confirmed to be a Lector?

stjohncathedral.org/liturgy/ls-lector.htm

None of the liturgical documents insist on Confirmation as a prerequisite, although it is desirable that a Lector have received the Sacrament of Confirmation. A Lector needs to be in good sacramental standing with the Church so he or she can fully participate in the celebration. At weddings and funerals, however, a non-Catholic Lector may proclaim one of the readings or offer the petitions, with the permission of the pastor.

archdiocese.la/prayer/wor…es/lector.html

1. Lectors are fully initiated, practicing Catholics whose lives witness to the Word which they proclaim. On special occasions and for pastoral reasons, a young person who is not yet fully initiated (i.e., not yet confirmed) may serve as lector during a liturgy. Proper training for this ministry is expected.

 

[FrDavid96]

Someone in my parish made a comment that only men can be lectors, while men and women can be readers.

This is quite confusing as I was a lector for some time. Is there a difference? Was that pre Vatican II?

On the one hand: the two words mean the same thing. They are both just translations into English of the Latin “lector” (one who reads–anything). The two words really are interchangeable

On the other hand: sometimes, people make a distinction between (a) a layperson who is temporarily deputed by the priest celebrant (which is the mostly typical experience in the US, and would describe your own situation as well as the women you see doing the readings at Mass) and (b) an Instituted Lector which is a formal ministry which most (not all) diocese reserve for seminarians. Instituted Lector is the modern replacement for an Ordained Lector. And yes, only men can be Instituted Lectors.

In some contexts, the distinction in vocabulary is useful. For example, if I’m visiting a seminary, and I ask someone “are you a lector?” he knows that what I mean is “have you yet been installed as an Instituted Lector by the formal Rite” as opposed to “are you the one reading the Epistle at today’s Mass?”

Please note that I’m saying that the distinction is sometimes useful, which is not to say that it’s strictly necessary (which it is not).

 

[Lea101]

Thank you!

 

[Solomonson]

I don’t believe the terms “lector” and “reader” are synonymous in this context. As others have pointed out, “lector” refers to a male who is instituted for life to that office. A “reader” is any Catholic layperson who is temporarily commissioned to that office.

I have never heard “altar servers” (any Catholic layperson) referred to as “acolytes” (another lifetime institution limited to males) for instance – at least not in English.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t believe the terms “lector” and “reader” are synonymous in this context. As others have pointed out, “lector” refers to a male who is instituted for life to that office. A “reader” is any Catholic layperson who is temporarily commissioned to that office.

I have never heard “altar servers” (any Catholic layperson) referred to as “acolytes” (another lifetime institution limited to males) for instance – at least not in English.

I have heard “altar servers” called acolytes back before Vatican II. In context, it usually referred to either the ones who were actually serving at the altar vs the one simply present in the sanctuary or to an older server with a lot of experience.

The lector/reader thing exists only in English as far as I can see. The insistence that “lector” only applies to instituted lectors is not something I’ve run into in the many parishes of which I’ve been a member but it is something that is common in these forums (fora?). In fact, the first English document I’ve seen on the instituted ministries (Ministeria Quaedam, 1972) refers to the instituted ministry of “readers”:

1. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.

5.The reader is appointed for a function proper to him, that of reading the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly, he is to proclaim the readings from sacred Scripture, except for the gospel in the Mass and other sacred celebrations; he is to recite the psalm between the readings when there is no psalmist; he is to present the intentions for the general intercessions in the absence of a deacon or cantor; he is to direct the singing and the participation by the faithful; he is to instruct the faithful for the worthy reception of the sacraments. He may also, insofar as may be necessary, take care of preparing other faithful who are appointed on a temporary basis to read the Scriptures in liturgical celebrations. That he may more fittingly and perfectly fulfill these functions, he is to meditate assiduously on sacred Scripture.

Aware of the office he has undertaken, the reader is to make every effort and employ suitable means to acquire that increasingly warm and living love [7] and knowledge of Scripture that will make him a more perfect disciple of the Lord.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

The lector/reader thing exists only in English as far as I can see. The insistence that “lector” only applies to instituted lectors is not something I’ve run into in the many parishes of which I’ve been a member but it is something that is common in these forums (fora?). In fact, the first English document I’ve seen on the instituted ministries (Ministeria Quaedam, 1972) refers to the instituted ministry of “readers”:

Sure.

Our entire language is mostly words borrowed from other languages, more so than any other, so the result is that have a huge number of synonyms.

The whole lector/reader distinction is entire dependent on context. It’s a rather rare situation that we ever have a genuine need in writing or conversation to make a distinction between a layperson reading at any given Mass or a seminarian.

It’s as you just wrote: in everyday Catholic life, there’s simply no need to make any distinction. In a seminary context, or in a L&S forum context, or an academic setting, we might need to distinguish between 2 different roles, so having 2 different words gives us a way to do that without constantly adding words to the sentences.

We cannot say that it’s necessary. We cannot say that it’s proper or even just better. It’s merely that at some times some people find it useful.

In an online setting, I’ll sometimes write “duly Instituted Lector (usually a seminarian)” the first time, then simply write “Lector” (note the caps). Likewise, “layperson temporarily deputed to proclaim the readings” becomes simply “reader.” It saves me some typing; it’s really no more important than that.

 

[Phemie]

In an online setting, I’ll sometimes write “duly Instituted Lector (usually a seminarian)” the first time, then simply write “Lector” (note the caps). Likewise, “layperson temporarily deputed to proclaim the readings” becomes simply “reader.” It saves me some typing; it’s really no more important than that.

What I’ve found in my years on these forums though is that people get really insistent, if not downright nasty, that there is only one correct way and you are less than Catholic for not knowing that. It can be quite a turnoff if you’re new to the forums.

Same goes for “take” vs “receive” for Communion. I’m sure that of those who say “I took Communion”, fewer than 1/100 mean that they went to the Ciborium and helped themselves, yet that’s how they are treated. Usually, when someone offers you something you say you took it, not that you received it. And taking medicine means consuming it, so taking Communion means consuming the Host. Why everyone gets so hung up on those two words is beyond me.

 

[FrDavid96]

What I’ve found in my years on these forums though is that people get really insistent, if not downright nasty, that there is only one correct way and you are less than Catholic for not knowing that. It can be quite a turnoff if you’re new to the forums.

Same goes for “take” vs “receive” for Communion. I’m sure that of those who say “I took Communion”, fewer than 1/100 mean that they went to the Ciborium and helped themselves, yet that’s how they are treated. Usually, when someone offers you something you say you took it, not that you received it. And taking medicine means consuming it, so taking Communion means consuming the Host. Why everyone gets so hung up on those two words is beyond me.

I hear you.

In my last post, I underlined “it saves me some typing.” Perhaps I should have underlined the other half of the sentence instead: “it’s really no more important that that.”