Women Lectors and EMHC's

  • Thread starter Thread starter HenryV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HenryV

Guest
For me to recieve communion means that I recieve Jesus from Himself, in the person of his appointed priest, (In persona Christi capitis) as the apostles did at the last supper.
When I recieve holy communion from a EMHC this is obscured, of course I still recieve the sacrament but the spiritual experience is somehow gone.
Am I alone in thinking this way?
What is the theological thinking behind these EMHC?
Why do they have to be? Of course, I don’t question the authority of bishops to institute them.
Are the presence of EMHC stifling vocations?
 
HenryV said:
For me to recieve communion means that I recieve Jesus from Himself, in the person of his appointed priest, (In persona Christi capitis) as the apostles did at the last supper.
When I recieve holy communion from a EMHC this is obscured, of course I still recieve the sacrament but the spiritual experience is somehow gone.
Am I alone in thinking this way?
What is the theological thinking behind these EMHC?
Why do they have to be? Of course, I don’t question the authority of bishops to institute them.
Are the presence of EMHC stifling vocations?
Click to expand...
When the bishop of a diocese gives permission for EMHC there should be no apprehension about them serving at the parish, because we are to be obedient to legitimate authority.

A priest cannot serve all those who are invalids and confined to the home, or all those in hospitals and nursing homes. The EMHC provides great service to the Church.

I don’t believe they are stifling vocations…it is obvious we need vocations!
 
Redemptionis Sacramentum has this to say about the relationship between extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and priests and deacons:
[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253]
Click to expand...
[152.] These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.
Click to expand...
[153.] Furthermore, it is never licit for laypersons to assume the role or the vesture of a Priest or a Deacon or other clothing similar to such vesture.
Click to expand...
 
I am not here to incite a riot or start any fights so please don’t become argumentative. I just want to know if I am the only woman who believes we should not be doing these things. I really believe that if we only allowed men to do these things more men would volunteer or feel called to this ministry. I also can’t help but feel this is only a symptom of our culture emasculating men and trivializing their importance within the family.

Don’t get me wrong… I am always the first one to help out anyone when the need arises, I just think it is a man’s place to minister in this respect. After all, a man is supposed to be the spiritual head of the household isn’t he? I know if I ask why women are included in this ministry, people will say that men didn’t step up to the plate and women were willing to… Why wouldn’t a man want to serve in such a capacity? My thought is that society has beat them down to such a point that they don’t see how important they are in their own families let alone in their spiritual communities.

Any thoughts?
 
I am actually ok with what you have to say here. I would not feel the least bit repressed if this were the direction that the Church decided to take, for the very reasons you cite. But then again, I’m quite secure in my feminine role, and don’t need to be the boss of everything to know that I’m valued.

So - no riot from me! 👍

~Liza
 
I do not understand the point of your post. You do not want people to argue about this topic. Arguments (based on rhetoric, logic and dialectics) are necessary to see if people with different ideas can reach a common ground.

I am sure that a lot of men and women that either agree or disagree with you. I have my on opinion but I am not going to discuss it right now.

Are you looking for someone to argue (not to fight, but to discuss) in such a way that would help you to feel more comfortable with your opinion or do you want to argue to convince an audience of your point?

An argument between two opposing views is useful only if both or at least one of the persons is willing to change his/her mind. If no one is open to a change of view than argumentation it is a futile practice.

You mentioned different things (some causes and some effects). My suggestion is to pick just a specific one and dig into the discussion if you and someone else with a different opinion are willing to change point of view.
 
Christiano…
Usually when you aren’t sure of the point, it is a good idea to look for question marks, although not necessarily always. I posed a few different questions but I wanted to be sure this was not going to turn into a gender battle also. Below are a list of the questions I posed:

  1. *]I just want to know if I am the only woman who believes we should not be doing these things.
    *] a man is supposed to be the spiritual head of the household isn’t he?
    *] Why wouldn’t a man want to serve in such a capacity?
    *] Any thoughts?
 
lizaanne said:
I am actually ok with what you have to say here. I would not feel the least bit repressed if this were the direction that the Church decided to take, for the very reasons you cite. But then again, I’m quite secure in my feminine role, and don’t need to be the boss of everything to know that I’m valued.

So - no riot from me! 👍

~Liza
Click to expand...
Thank God I am not the only one!!! Yes, I think it does take someone who is secure in their gender role to be ok with what I said.
 
It is a result of secular culture seeping into Catholic culture. Also feminism influencing men to act sheepish or apologetic for being men.

Many Catholic men don’t know how to act like men and step up to the plate, heck half the time they need to be dragged to Mass or Parish events.

So we end up with a gender switch with women needing to step up and fill the place of the men (maybe even being more manly than the man) and men just sitting off to the side acting like little girls, too shy or timid to do anything even stand up for truth.

Last night I got into a theological discussion with a Catholic lady, with the husband sitting there not saying a word. He pretty much just begged us to go to another subject. It was embarrassing as she was the one who was discussing the faith, like a good Catholic woman, yet the man just stood there waiting for an escape.

Until we have Catholic men ready to act like men and do their job, women will continue to feel they need to make up for it. Many times they even have to make up for it and the guys are so wimpy they see it as a sign to step back and it just becomes even more pronounced.

In Christ
Scylla
 
lizaanne said:
I am actually ok with what you have to say here. I would not feel the least bit repressed if this were the direction that the Church decided to take, for the very reasons you cite. But then again, I’m quite secure in my feminine role, and don’t need to be the boss of everything to know that I’m valued.

So - no riot from me! 👍

~Liza
Click to expand...
Ditto from me. I couldn’t have said it better.
 
Women are welcome by the Church to serve as EMHCs and Lectors.

The only problem I have with women lectors is me, I’m going deaf in my old age, and I often can’t hear higher pitched voices, even when they’re on a microphone.

A hearing aid is around the corner for me, but age discrimination in the work place has been keeping me from taking the step.

I don’t have a problem hearing male voices which are usually lower.

Jim
 
Now It is my turn to express my view on the whole thing.

Facts:
1- I am a man, father of a boy, EMHC, catechist, member of a perpetual adoration team, and a student of theology
2- My only son is an altar server and he still feels that he wants to become a priest
3- He has always been told that my expectations for him are to become a good Christian and a well educated one. After that he will discern his calling in life and I will help him.

My opinions:
1- We need more Priests (I will repeat it often)
2- We will have more priests if we raise our boys into becoming one
3- Our boys will become priests if we teach them that is OK to be one and that priests are real men
4- We should teach our boys to act as real men, with a strong sense of responsibility, sacrifice, family, and compassionate love
5- We do that by role model with our behaviors in the family and in the Church
6- Biological fathers must show their love for Christ and the Church by participation
7- Men must show their love for Christ and the Church by being role models to the children that not have fathers that participate in the Church.
8- Men can do that by becoming Deacons, Acolytes, EMHCs, catechists, Knights of Columbus, members of social ministries activities, etc. etc.
9- EMHCs are a temporary necessity and they should be treated as such. We need more Priests and Deacons, and we should stop having EMHCs as the norm in the liturgy.
10- EMHCs like altar servers can be of both sexes and that is fine with me until…
11- UNTIL they do not take men away from those roles to make room for equal opportunity agendas.
12- If there are not enough men then women could and should serve.
13- Men and boys should not be afraid of serving together with women. If they are afraid then they are not real men, and we should teach that to our boys.
14- Men should be raised to love women and not to lust after them as a cute thing.
15- Women should be supportive of men when rising boys into real men

Now going back to my first post in this thread. I will add that those are my opinions and I am not interested in changing them (at least for now). So it goes my all rant on the art of argumentation, and I should probably keep my mouth shut from now on.
 
Wow excellent post Christiano! The only point I disagreed with was # 10- EMHCs like altar servers can be of both sexes and that is fine with me until…

And your opinion is fine…

I am almost embarrassed when I see all women at mass. As Ushers (which I don’t have a problem with), lectors, emhc’s, altar servers (girls here). It is like we have squeezed men out.

My husband is discerning the diaconate and he has been a very good role model for my boys (not to mention my girls). You will here no complaints there from me. What I find very sad is the number of women who have to be the spiritual leaders of their families. Before I met my husband and before his conversion I had to be the spiritual leader for my family as my childrens’ biological father announced his disbelief in Christ after mass one day shortly before he baled on us. So until my marriage to my dh, this fell on my shoulders. I found it hard to teach my boys to be true men and spiritual leaders themselves. I welcomed my dh’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject.

I wish I could believe that EMHC’s were just a temporary thing… and I pray you are right about that! Although I must say I was totally encouraged when I accompanied my dd on a trip to Washington DC for the March for Life… It was totally awesome to behold the number of seminarians and the number of religious that were at the March!!!
 
scylla said:
It is a result of secular culture seeping into Catholic culture. Also feminism influencing men to act sheepish or apologetic for being men.

Many Catholic men don’t know how to act like men and step up to the plate, heck half the time they need to be dragged to Mass or Parish events.

So we end up with a gender switch with women needing to step up and fill the place of the men (maybe even being more manly than the man) and men just sitting off to the side acting like little girls, too shy or timid to do anything even stand up for truth.

Last night I got into a theological discussion with a Catholic lady, with the husband sitting there not saying a word. He pretty much just begged us to go to another subject. It was embarrassing as she was the one who was discussing the faith, like a good Catholic woman, yet the man just stood there waiting for an escape.

Until we have Catholic men ready to act like men and do their job, women will continue to feel they need to make up for it. Many times they even have to make up for it and the guys are so wimpy they see it as a sign to step back and it just becomes even more pronounced.

In Christ
Scylla
Click to expand...
Why is it that every time one of these discussions comes up, we get a couple anecdotes, followed by sweeping, broad-brushed statements that it’s all the result of creeping feminism and men not being men.

Hogwash!!

I’ve been part of numerous parishes, and I have yet to encounter a single one where these generalizations hold true. Each has had its share of strong, devoted, and masculine men along with strong, devoted women. Each also contained its fair share of “pew potatoes” who seemed not to care less one way or another.

Since the Church sanctions both men and women for either position, to be proclaiming women to be having some sort of “feminist agenda” for wanting to serve God in a way in which they are capable is truly insulting. To accuse men of being wimpy, when plenty of men are doing the same things, as approved by the Church, is equally insulting.

This constant questioning of people’s motives when they are doing what the Church specifically allows gets really old. If you don’t feel comfortable or called to do something, by all means don’t do it. But PLEASE stop this condemnation by anecdote of people who are showing their love of God through vounteering for service.

As many in the “traditionalist” camp are so fond of saying, “the liturgy isn’t your private property.”
 
This constant questioning of people’s motives when they are doing what the Church specifically allows gets really old.
Click to expand...
Just in case you need a smilie, gospel life … 😃

http://bestsmileys.com/signs13/10.gif

Another goodie is the continual assertion that if you are not a traditionalist, you are therefore a “liberal.” Why is there never an inbetween or a combination?
 
The Church has OKd women EMHC and women lectors. I don’t think it’s wrong or right. If the Church decided tomorrow to stop it, well, that’s fine, too.

I think a lot of parishes use too many EMHCs, but that’s as far as it goes.
 
Woman Lector is an Oxymoron. It is impossible for a woman to be a Lector in The Catholic church. Lector was (before the “spirit” of vatican II) a minor order of the priesthood. Along with Porter, Acolyte, Exorcist . Now ,Lector along with acolyte is an “insititued” role that remains only open to men. WHich is why in the USA and other places for that matter they are a rarity. If a bishop decides to institute Lecotors and Acolytes he must be manly enough to counter the accusations of people for him being a male shauvanist… Bishop Bruskewitz in Lincoln continues to implement this “institution” in his diocese. His diocese has Many priests and very reverent liturgies…He has a spine and we need more like him.

WOmen can however be READERS at Mass.

THe reason I am focussing on the difference between Lector and Reader is the simple fact that I have a good friend who is a Lector and Acolyte and he takes his role seriously enough to use porper terms when referring to people and their liturgical functions.
 
BlestOne said:
I am not here to incite a riot or start any fights so please don’t become argumentative. I just want to know if I am the only woman who believes we should not be doing these things. I really believe that if we only allowed men to do these things more men would volunteer or feel called to this ministry. I also can’t help but feel this is only a symptom of our culture emasculating men and trivializing their importance within the family.
Click to expand...
Yes. You’re right.
BlestOne said:
Don’t get me wrong… I am always the first one to help out anyone when the need arises, I just think it is a man’s place to minister in this respect. After all, a man is supposed to be the spiritual head of the household isn’t he? I know if I ask why women are included in this ministry, people will say that men didn’t step up to the plate and women were willing to… Why wouldn’t a man want to serve in such a capacity? My thought is that society has beat them down to such a point that they don’t see how important they are in their own families let alone in their spiritual communities.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Right again.
 
Joysong said:
Another goodie is the continual assertion that if you are not a traditionalist, you are therefore a “liberal.” Why is there never an inbetween or a combination?
Click to expand...
Hi Joysong,

I just ran into this exact situation in a thread where it was noted that the “modernists” would never allow the TLM to become the normative Mass. It was noted in a later post that it really should “only” have been “liberals and innovators” since modernists would be heretics.

Similar to the current expression that “50 is the new 40”, apparently "orthodox is the new “liberal”. The term gets misappropriated to very narrowly define only one who prefers a specific 400 year tradition, and then those who are “merely” in line with the Church’s Big-T Traditions are no longer good enough to be “real” Catholics.

How very sad for our Church.
 
Instituted ministers (who are men only) should, ideally, do the reading and be EMHCs if required.

From the 2002 GIRM:

“101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.”

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion.”

Despite these official instructions there is a widespread failure to follow them. Not many bishops institute ministers who are not seminarians. At the Vatican’s Midnight Mass, at least for the last five years, one reading has been by an instituted lector and the other by a woman. I find this disappointing and confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top