Lectors are part of the minor orders in the Orthodox Church. The minor orders refer to a distinct service of clergy junior to those of the major orders (deacon, priest and bishop). In ascending order of seniority, the minor orders are: candle bearer, cantor, lector and subdeacon. Hence the lector was junior to the subdeacon and senior to the cantor. They exist in all Orthodox Churches, not just the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, it is also true of the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Eastern Catholic Churches and pre-1972 Latin Catholic Church.
It should be noted that the Latin Rite has retained the all-male instituted ministries of Lector and Acolyte. While canon law allows males over the age of 18 to be permanently instituted to these two ministries, it also allows Bishops’ Conferences to set the criteria for institution. Many, if not most, limit institution to these ministries to men preparing for ordination to the Diaconate, whether permanent or transitional.Interestingly, the Western Church (ie, the Latin Catholic Church) also used to have minor orders, including lectors, mirroring that of the Orthodox Churches. They were the porter, lector, exorcist and acolyte. The subdeacon was also present in the Western Church, but it was considered a major order, junior to the orders of deacon, priest and bishop. It was one of the ancient traditions that survived with the divided Church, despite a whole millennia apart, and was a proof of their common fidelity to tradition (more or less, anyway). However, they, along with the subdiaconate, were abolished in the Western Church in 1972.** In their place, however, we have what we call ministries, whose members are not ordained.** The Eastern Catholic Churches, however, retain the minor orders.
Even in parishes where there is more than one priest but no deacon, the second priest would read the Gospel, but generally lectors (instituted or not) would read the First and Second Readings.
You are indeed correct. However, an institution is not the same as a minor ordination, nor is it intended to. The Rite of Institution is different in rite and nature from the minor Rite of Ordination. That is why the Church also changed the name by which the offices are referred to as well, to ensure that people do not confuse the two. The reasons for this reform have been explained before, and regardless of how some might feel about them, they are what they are. Further to that, Fr. Z has a good article regarding the differences between the older and newer understandings of their office.
The truth of which is not under contention.
I don’t think lector carries an ‘extraordinary’ qualification.
No, the Church does not. Is the Extraordinary Form outside ordination? Is extraordinary means of medical care only allowed to be given by non-clergy?
I don’t know that we’d characterize it as a debate, but what I have learned from this moved thread (it was originally up in the Eastern Rite section and then moved down here for some reason) is that in both the Orthodox and the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, lectors are ordained, which is interesting to know. I had no idea.
I’m not sure if I would call it a debate either. I was the one who pointed out that lectors are currently not ordained in the Western Church, and I understand that while that has drawn many a response, none were trying to contend this particular point. We all agree that the current state of the lectorate in the Western Church is that of an non-ordained office. What we did discuss, however, is the nature of the office within the understanding of it being non-ordained.