Liturgical terminology and vocabulary

[matthias]

I have a question. The Church has Instituted Acolytes and Lectors. I, somewhere along the line, picked up the impression that when we say Lector we mean Instituted Lector, and if the person is not it is more proper to call them a “Reader”.
Likewise we should say “altar server” and not Acolyte unless we mean Instituted Acolyte?

Is it really proper to call those not instituted into these ministries by the proper titles? It seems to me that it confuses the distinction between lay ministers acting in an extraordinary way and those who are instituted into those ministries in an official and permanent capacity.

For instance seminarians will be instituted into these ministries as part of their formation before they receive holy orders. These are usually seen as steps toward ordained ministry. In fact these offices used to be considered minor orders before these were suppressed after Vat. II.

Anyway… thats the question… one of proper terminology.

Any ideas?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have a question. The Church has Instituted Acolytes and Lectors. I, somewhere along the line, picked up the impression that when we say Lector we mean Instituted Lector, and if the person is not it is more proper to call them a “Reader”.
Likewise we should say “altar server” and not Acolyte unless we mean Instituted Acolyte?

Is it really proper to call those not instituted into these ministries by the proper titles? It seems to me that it confuses the distinction between lay ministers acting in an extraordinary way and those who are instituted into those ministries in an official and permanent capacity.

For instance seminarians will be instituted into these ministries as part of their formation before they receive holy orders. These are usually seen as steps toward ordained ministry. In fact these offices used to be considered minor orders before these were suppressed after Vat. II.

Anyway… thats the question… one of proper terminology.

Any ideas?

You are correct. We need to get back to a very precise and clear Catholic vocabulary. We have become very sloppy.

 

[matthias]

Anyone have any actual Church references for this though? I’m curious. I like to make distinctions but I have to be careful that I am not making up distinctions that don’t exist in the language?

 

[otjm]

I suppose we could say it is sloppy; on the other hand, in many areas there simply are no instituted lectors nor accolytes as such. Would it be better to distinguish between the two? The great majority of people in the pews neither know of the offices, nor particularly care, I suspect, and although it is not counting angels on the head of a pin, it is not one of the issues I would care to make a point of. I am more concerned that people learn their faith, and this is such a minor item that it is not one I can put any energy into.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think the word “instituted” is necessary to avoid confusion.

I think all the English translations of the liturgical books refer to an instituted lector as “reader”, except for the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Here are some examples:
“18. … d. An acolyte or a reader who by formal institution has this special office in the Church is rightly preferred over another layperson as the minister designated at the discretion of the local Ordinary to impart certain blessings.” (Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page xxviii).
“31 The office of reader was historically the first of the lesser ministries to emerge. This office exists in all the Churches and has never disappeared. Readers receive institution for an office proper to them: to proclaim the word of God in the liturgical assembly. …” (Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 25.)
“54. During the celebration of Mass with a congregation a second priest, a deacon, and an instituted reader must wear the distinctive vestment of their office when they go to the lectern to read the word of God. Those who carry out the ministry of reader just for the occasion or even regularly but without institution may go to the lectern in ordinary attire that is in keeping with local custom.” (Lectionary Volume 1 Study Edition, Collins Liturgical Australia, 1983, ISBN 0 00 599764-X, page xxix.)
“Bless + our brothers who have been chosen for the ministry of reader. Grant that as they meditate constantly on you word they may grow in its wisdom and faithfully proclaim it to your people.”
(From Institution of Readers, in The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 105).

So I see no logic in expecting people to understand “lector” to refer to a instituted reader, and “reader” to refer to someone proclaiming the scriptures in the liturgy but without institution.

Personally I prefer the term “lector” for both. It highlights the different role of someone reading aloud to a group. A “reader” sounds like someone who is reading a newspaper to themselves. But nearly all the liturgical books use the term “reader” and so I do not see it as wrong to use that term.

 

[awalt]

Deacon candidates in our archdiocese are instituted as Readers and Acolytes along their journey to ordination, as are the seminarians. I assume this is the same everywhere.

 

[matthias]

Ah. Thank you so much. These references from official English church texts make it clear that Reader and Lector are generally used to be the same and there is no clear distinction between these two terms. It is apparent that the word “instituted” is key. Thank you.

I think the word “instituted” is necessary to avoid confusion.

I think all the English translations of the liturgical books refer to an instituted lector as “reader”, except for the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Here are some examples:
“18. … d. An acolyte or a reader who by formal institution has this special office in the Church is rightly preferred over another layperson as the minister designated at the discretion of the local Ordinary to impart certain blessings.” (Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page xxviii).
“31 The office of reader was historically the first of the lesser ministries to emerge. This office exists in all the Churches and has never disappeared. Readers receive institution for an office proper to them: to proclaim the word of God in the liturgical assembly. …” (Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 25.)
“54. During the celebration of Mass with a congregation a second priest, a deacon, and an instituted reader must wear the distinctive vestment of their office when they go to the lectern to read the word of God. Those who carry out the ministry of reader just for the occasion or even regularly but without institution may go to the lectern in ordinary attire that is in keeping with local custom.” (Lectionary Volume 1 Study Edition, Collins Liturgical Australia, 1983, ISBN 0 00 599764-X, page xxix.)
“Bless + our brothers who have been chosen for the ministry of reader. Grant that as they meditate constantly on you word they may grow in its wisdom and faithfully proclaim it to your people.”
(From Institution of Readers, in The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 105).

So I see no logic in expecting people to understand “lector” to refer to a instituted reader, and “reader” to refer to someone proclaiming the scriptures in the liturgy but without institution.

Personally I prefer the term “lector” for both. It highlights the different role of someone reading aloud to a group. A “reader” sounds like someone who is reading a newspaper to themselves. But nearly all the liturgical books use the term “reader” and so I do not see it as wrong to use that term.