- Status
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
The answer to the question is so obvious that the real issue is why it needs to be addressed.
Of course an instituted lector should proclaim the first reading, a deacon should proclaim the gospel.
But at the Vatican’s Midnight Mass the first reading was proclaimed by a woman (who cannot be an instituted lector). The second reading was proclaimed by an instituted lector, Robert Lampitt.
So with this example from the Vatican it is little wonder that there is confusion in seminaries the world over about the role of instituted lectors.
Father McNamara deserves a lot of credit for raising the issue.
Of course an instituted lector should proclaim the first reading, a deacon should proclaim the gospel.
But at the Vatican’s Midnight Mass the first reading was proclaimed by a woman (who cannot be an instituted lector). The second reading was proclaimed by an instituted lector, Robert Lampitt.
So with this example from the Vatican it is little wonder that there is confusion in seminaries the world over about the role of instituted lectors.
Father McNamara deserves a lot of credit for raising the issue.
P
pgoings
Guest
Who was vested in neither the alb, nor the cassock and surplice; but instead retained his lay dress, in accordance with Msgr Marini’s (unrubrical) wishes.
E
Elzee
Guest
John Lilburne:
Okay, I’m confused now! Can a woman not be a lector at Mass?
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
Yes, I believe so. Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service reported Bishop Marini saying on 3 July 2002:
“The readings are read by lay people. Individual seminaries have rules on how their seminarians are to dress, but in liturgy those who have not yet been ordained to the diaconate are laymen, and they are to dress as laymen.”
But this contradicts the 1981 General Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass, n. 54: “… 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 without institution may go to the lectern in ordinary attire that is in keeping with local custom.”
Since 2002 he has become Archbishop Marini, on 29 September 2003 according to catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmarini.html
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
A women cannot become an instituted lector. They cannot particpate in the ceremony in which a bishop institutes them as a lector (i.e. reader).
According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 230: “Lay men who possess the age and qualifications determined by decree of the conference of bishops can be installed on a stable basis in the ministries of lector and acolyte in accord with the prescribed liturgical rite” (From Code of Canon Law Latin-English edition, Canon Law Society of America, ISBN 0-943616-20-4, page 77).
The Latin word, correctly translated as “men”, is “viri”.
This reflects the 1972 Motu Proprio “Ministeria Quaedam”: “7. In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men.”
Having a women read (who cannot have been instituted) is wrong when an instituted lector is available. It would be like having a deacon proclaim the first reading. It breaches the 2002 GIRM, “101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.”
D
decn2b
Guest
Lector, acolyte, exorcist, and I think porter? are the four minor Orders. Exorcist and Porter have been supressed but the order of acolyte and lector remain but are very very rare. Lincoln is the only diocese that I know of that institutes Lectors and acolytes. Sinces these are part of the minor orders they are only open to men. I think my deacon told me that most dioceses do not have any living instituted acolytes or lectors and i believe my diocese only has one. This one happens to belong to my parish and he moved here from of all places Lincoln, NE. GIRM allows for lay men and women to be lectors. HOWEVER I think canon law indicates that Lay men and women should ONLY be used in the absence of an instituted LEctor. Which brings a thought to mind for me personally. I believe that the code also says that an instituted lector must be wearing an alb or surplice when approaching the ambo. The guy in my church is very orthodox… but he still wears his suit and tie. Hmm I think I will give him some ribs about this.
A
awalt
Guest
Actually, there used to be four minor orders – porter, lector, acolyte, and exorcist, and then three major orders – subdeacon, deacon, and priest. This was the established pattern for over 1000 years. It was revised in 1972 when Pope Paul VI, following the desires of the Second Vatican Council, suppressed the minor orders, and the one major order, subdeacon. So it’s only deacon and priest now.
I got this from an Imprimatur book, “101 Questions and Answers on Deacons” by William T. Ditewig.
I got this from an Imprimatur book, “101 Questions and Answers on Deacons” by William T. Ditewig.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
John Lilburne:
When someone initiated into the proper ministry is available, that person should perform it. The paragraph you cite says other laypersons MAY proclaim the readings. But a deacon actually holds the office of lector and should be given preference, I think. The practice of having a reading done by a deacon would only breach the above quoted sentence if it said something like “In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons are/must be commissioned…” but even this overlooks the fact that a deacon IS an instituted lector, albeit now ordained, so there is still no absence. Of course, my line of reasoning fails here because, whaddaya know, a priest is also an instituted lector, even though official preference seems to be that he does not perform this role when it can be done instead by a non-instituted layperson. I find that silly, but thought I should concede it. The whole point is just that your citation does not prove the questioned practice would violate the GIRM.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Concerning the orders, yes, the minor orders have been suppressed. There used to be porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte, followed by the subdeacon, deacon, priest, and (where was this in that imprimatur-ed book?) bishop, the fullness of orders. Yet while all the minor orders were suppressed as clerical states, the orders of acolyte and lector were converted into instituted ministries for men. While acolytes and lectors used to be clerics, they are now laymen, although they fulfill, I believe, basically the same function as previously.
While those who do the readings in Church are typically referred to as lectors, only those who have been instituted to the ministry (and thus only men) are properly so called. Everyone else is acting as a reader, not a lector.
While those who do the readings in Church are typically referred to as lectors, only those who have been instituted to the ministry (and thus only men) are properly so called. Everyone else is acting as a reader, not a lector.
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
Instituted lectors and institituted acolytes are not as rare you suggest. In fact it is a requirement of the Code of Canon Law for someone who is planning to become a deacon to first be instituted as a lector and acolyte. Your name “decn2b” suggests this applies to you. From Canon 1035:
“Before anyone is promoted to either the permanent or the transitional diaconate he is required to have received the ministries of lector and acolyte and to have exercised them for a suitable period of time.”
This reflects the 1972 Motu Prioprio “Ministeria Quaedam”:
“11. Unless they have already done so, candidates for ordination as deacons and priests are to receive the ministries of reader and acolyte and are to exercise them for a suitable time, in order to be better disposed for the future service of the word and of the altar. Dispensation from receiving these ministries on the part of such candidates is reserved to the Holy See.”
The same was required in 1998 in the “Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons” of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education and Congregation for the Clergy:
“58. Aspirants to lectorate and acolytate, on the invitation of the director of formation, will make a request for admission, which has been compiled and signed freely, and present it to the Ordinary (the Bishop or Major Superior) who has the authority to accept it.(Footnote 59: Cf Idem, Ap. Lett. Ministeria quaedam, VIII a): l.c., p. 533) Having accepted the request, the Bishop or Major Superior will proceed to the conferral of the ministries, according to the rite of the Roman Pontifical.(Footnote 60: Cf Pontificale Romanum – De Institutione Lectorum et Acolythorum, Editio typica, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis 1972.)”
So if there are people intending to become deacons and priests then they will be instituted lectors and instituted acolytes. Many will have been instituted and later have discerned that they should not be ordained. They remain instituted lectors and instituted acolytes.
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
You seem to be saying that in 1972 Pope Paul VI supressed all 4 minor orders, including acolyte and lector. This is not correct and I would be surprised if William Ditewig published something like that.
In 1972 Pope Paul VI wrote in the Motu Proprio “Ministeria Quaedam”:
(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, page 909).
A
awalt
Guest
Gee John, sorry but he did publish exactly that - I copied that word for word out of the book…
And it is marked Imprimatur:
Reverend Monsignor Godfrey Mosley
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
He is a Deacon, PhD, and Executive Director of the Secretariat for the Diaconate at the USCCB in Washington, DC.
Sounds like your quote says exactly that - the minor orders are gone and they are now ministries for all? I am not an expert but I can tell you that’s exactly what he said.
And it is marked Imprimatur:
Reverend Monsignor Godfrey Mosley
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
He is a Deacon, PhD, and Executive Director of the Secretariat for the Diaconate at the USCCB in Washington, DC.
Sounds like your quote says exactly that - the minor orders are gone and they are now ministries for all? I am not an expert but I can tell you that’s exactly what he said.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
John Lilburne:
Thank you for the direct source material. In my above post I tried to clear up the matter a bit, and I agreed with the assertion that all the minor orders were suppressed because, although the motu proprio shows they remained as ministries, they ceased to be clerical functions. The duties remained, but ceased to belong to any order of clerics. I think it can be said in this sense that all the minor orders were suppressed (along with tonsure, which I forgot to mention).
M
MusicMan
Guest
It’s my understanding that a Deacon is to exercise his ministry everytime he attends Mass. He is also to “fill in” for other ministries at Mass that he is qualified to perform, in the absence of a qualified minister. Obviously, this means that he could read the OT and NT readings in the absence of a Reader. I would also take that to mean that if a Deacon had the appropriate musical training to serve as an organist, that he would be compelled to “sub” if the organist didn’t show up for Mass. However, I would expect that every effort would first be made in any of these cases to find appropriate “subs” within the congregation before having the Deacon “fill in.”
You’ll notice that the Priest will occassionally read all of the readings, especially at Daily Mass or on a Holy Day of Obligation (we seem to see this in the smaller town churches). By virtue of the same ordination process that the Deacon goes through, the Priest could be compelled to “sub” for a missing reader. In the absence of a Deacon, the Priest also handles all of the Deacon’s functions as well.
It appears that nothing would preclude a Deacon from handling any ministry he is qualified to do, but if he were assigned to do it at the expense of regularly excercising ministries specific to the Deacon, this would be an abuse of his ministry.
You’ll notice that the Priest will occassionally read all of the readings, especially at Daily Mass or on a Holy Day of Obligation (we seem to see this in the smaller town churches). By virtue of the same ordination process that the Deacon goes through, the Priest could be compelled to “sub” for a missing reader. In the absence of a Deacon, the Priest also handles all of the Deacon’s functions as well.
It appears that nothing would preclude a Deacon from handling any ministry he is qualified to do, but if he were assigned to do it at the expense of regularly excercising ministries specific to the Deacon, this would be an abuse of his ministry.
E
Elzee
Guest
I was told that once a man becomes a Deacon he can no longer cantor…this seems odd if he can lector? Was I told correctly?
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
I see difficulties with a deacon both being in the entrance procession and leading the singing of the entrance hymn. As a deacon he should be in the entrance procession.
The 2002 GIRM seems to discourage a deacon singing the psalm between the readings. It has:
“99. The lector is instituted to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture, with the exception of the Gospel. He may also announce the intentions for the Prayer of the Faithful and, in the absence of a psalmist, proclaim the Psalm between the readings.”
There are times when the deacon is expected to do the singing. For example at the Easter Vigi the Roman Missal has: “Then the deacon or, if there is no deacon, the priest sings the Easter proclamation at the lectern or pulpit. All stand and hold lighted candles.
If necessary, the Easter proclamation may be sung by one who is not a deacon.”
W
warrior71
Guest
John Lilburne:
Reply With Quote
If this is really what happened, and I don’t know if it did, then I think it pretty much shows that the Pope is not going to change much of anything as far as the Mass is concerned. As I said before, politics and beauracracy are what controls the upper levels of the Vtican, not what we think might be right, or what the Popes may personally want.
Who was vested in neither the alb, nor the cassock and surplice; but instead retained his lay dress, in accordance with Msgr Marini’s (unrubrical) wishes.
Reply With Quote
If this is really what happened, and I don’t know if it did, then I think it pretty much shows that the Pope is not going to change much of anything as far as the Mass is concerned. As I said before, politics and beauracracy are what controls the upper levels of the Vtican, not what we think might be right, or what the Popes may personally want.
C
CollegeKid
Guest
I thought it was bishop, priest, deacon?
What about bishop? And what’s a subdeacon? How was it a major order/what’s a major order?
C
CollegeKid
Guest
And what were porters?
- Status