Women & the Mass 2

[First_of_9]

Permission for women in the sanctuary was first granted in 1994, when the Pope was sick in hospital, just several months after he promised Mother Teresa that he wouldn’t allow it. What happened?

Maybe Someone appeared to him and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

 

[jmj603]

Maybe Someone appeared to him and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

By their fruits you shall know them. In parishes where altar girls has been instituted, the number of altar boys has dried up to a trickle. When they have both, the boys look understandably distracted. Candidates for seminary are usually altar boys first. Test everything, retaining only what is good.

It is said that the devil appears to one priest every night in his bedroom. From talking with priests, I think that’s probably a low estimate. This is why we must pray for priests and bishops regularly.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

No they weren’t. Pope Paul suppressed them in 1972 in a independant document, Ministeria quædam.

( If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Vatican II did such and such, when it really didn’t )

Yes, I probably should have been more specific by saying after Vatican II and that it only applied to the Latin Rite. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Lazarette]

It was asked by what authority women can be readers at Mass and one response was Mulieris Dignitarum. That’s an apostolic letter which is explanatory, but is not itself the authority.

The authority for women to be lectors in the US is in the Appendix to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 66.

 

[jmj603]

It was asked by what authority women can be readers at Mass and one response was Mulieris Dignitarum.

No, it was asked by what authority it was said that “everything that is open to lay members is open to women”, and the answer given was Mulieris Dignitatem. I asked for a precise citation, and haven’t received one. I doubt one will be forthcoming, because it is a demonstrable (and herein demonstrated) error to say that “everything that is open to lay members is open to women.”

The authority for women to be lectors in the US is in the Appendix to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 66.

That 1975 paragraph was superseded in 2003 and has no effect whatsoever now, nor did it ever have the effect of allowing women to be instituted lectors, only allowing women to “be admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministries” such as reader, which canon law allows on a temporary basis. Given the express prohibitions against women being instituted as lector by Ministeria Quaedam (1972) and the Code of Canon Law (1983), and the unanimous testimony of the history of the Christian Church, it is clear that lawful authority was never granted for women to be instituted as lectors in the United States or anywhere else.

 

[Brendan]

Married men with little children cannot, either.
.

You’re joking right?

I know LOTS of Deacons with small children. Some of the Diaconal programs even provide child care.

Can you please provide a Canon that forbids married men with small children from being Ordained?

 

[Lazarette]

No, it was asked…

Yes, it’s true that reading through this thread for the first time, seeing that most of the posts dealt with lectors/readers, I phrased my response that way. Very good of you to go back and get the precise wording.

As for a precise citation, I think the onus is on you to show where someone is forbidden from a certain role.

That 1975 paragraph was superseded in 2003 and has no effect whatsoever now, nor did it ever have the effect of allowing women to be instituted lectors

Where did I say that women were allowed to be instituted lectors? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

As for the 2003 GIRM, paragraph 101 says In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture

Laypersons includes men and women.

 

[jmj603]

Where did I say that women were allowed to be instituted lectors? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

OK. I’ll take the words directly from your keyboard:

The authority for women to be lectors

You can’t be a lector unless you are instituted as a lector. You can “fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation” (Canon 231), but you cannot be a lector.

 

[Lazarette]

Good grief. Please note that I did not say instituted lector.

If, at 1:44 am, I use the word lector which has the more common usage although the word reader is technically correct, I suppose that does give you the opportunity to do the one-up game.

Your one-uppism also provides a distraction from a point that you did not refute: paragraph 101 of the 2003 GIRM which allows women readers.

 

[jmj603]

Good grief. Please note that I did not say instituted lector.

If, at 1:44 am, I use the word lector which has the more common usage although the word reader is technically correct, I suppose that does give you the opportunity to do the one-up game.

Making a mistake is one thing. Taking it personally when you’re justly corrected is entirely another matter. Reader is not a technically correct term for women.

Your one-uppism also provides a distraction from a point that you did not refute: paragraph 101 of the 2003 GIRM which allows women readers.

What is to be refuted here? Have I ever said that it is forbidden under the law for women to read the Scripture readings at Mass?

Besides which, you (still) insist on shortening the precise text of GIRM. GIRM says, and you quoted, “In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture”. It says nothing about giving them job titles like “reader”.

 

[Catholic90]

By their fruits you shall know them. In parishes where altar girls has been instituted, the number of altar boys has dried up to a trickle.

Boy, is THAT an erroneous statement as it applies to my parish! We have both boys and girls. We have over 70 young people on the server list. We have 2 servers at each mass. We do have an even split, boys and girls, and they ALL love it.

As for the technicalities of terms, I found it VERY interesting last week when our ARCHBISHOP celebrated mass at our parish. After the mass he thanked the “LECTORS” (one of whom was a woman, and neither of whom were instituted - he’s a friend, so I know this as a fact) AND he thanked the “EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS” --NOT the ‘extraordinary blah blah blah’.

These words are straight from the ARCHBISHOP’s mouth, so if they are good enough for him, I don’t think we, as little debaters on an internet board have to go quite so ballistic when we use terms like that!!

So much of what I read on this board reminds me of 1) the pharisees who were more concerned about the letter of law rather than the heart of the law and 2) a very wise theologian who once said that Christ is far more concerned with the position of our hearts rather than our knees.

 

[jmcrae]

No, it was asked by what authority it was said that “everything that is open to lay members is open to women”, and the answer given was Mulieris Dignitatem. I asked for a precise citation, and haven’t received one. I doubt one will be forthcoming, because it is a demonstrable (and herein demonstrated) error to say that “everything that is open to lay members is open to women.”

That 1975 paragraph was superseded in 2003 and has no effect whatsoever now, nor did it ever have the effect of allowing women to be instituted lectors, only allowing women to “be admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministries” such as reader, which canon law allows on a temporary basis. Given the express prohibitions against women being instituted as lector by Ministeria Quaedam (1972) and the Code of Canon Law (1983), and the unanimous testimony of the history of the Christian Church, it is clear that lawful authority was never granted for women to be instituted as lectors in the United States or anywhere else.

That’s a clerical role, and yes, clerical roles are for men, only.

A male cleric is not a lay male. Either he is a cleric, or he is a lay person. He can’t be both at the same time.

Mulieris Dignitarum shows us that the basis for forbidding women from the Sanctuary (that women are in some way innately evil) is a false idea, and not part of Catholic theology. Women are created in the image and likeness of God, just like men are - and, therefore, don’t have any innate evilness that could do any harm to the Altar.

 

[jmj603]

AND he thanked the “EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS” --NOT the ‘extraordinary blah blah blah’.

These words are straight from the ARCHBISHOP’s mouth, so if they are good enough for him, I don’t think we, as little debaters on an internet board have to go quite so ballistic when we use terms like that!!

Who’s going ballistic here? Your ARCHBISHOP is not of the same mind as Rome on the matter, and therefore is not to be emulated. If you’d care to provide his name, and the place and date on which this occurred, I will write an e-mail informing him of gravity of the scandal he has obviously caused you.

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[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. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

–Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004)

So much of what I read on this board reminds me of 1) the pharisees who were more concerned about the letter of law rather than the heart of the law and 2) a very wise theologian who once said that Christ is far more concerned with the position of our hearts rather than our knees.

Christ said to follow the letter of the law. He also did follow the letter of the law. He said that you should tithe on mint and cumin. What He said was that following the law wasn’t ENOUGH.

 

[jmj603]

That’s a clerical role, and yes, clerical roles are for men, only.

Lector was formerly a clerical role in the Latin Church. It remains a clerical role in the Eastern Churches. For the Latin Church, it is defined now under Canon 230 (in the section on laity) as a role available only to lay men. The next section of canon law deals with clerics. There is really no other interpretation. FWIW, I think it should be made clerical again, but it isn’t my call.

Mulieris Dignitarum shows us that the basis for forbidding women from the Sanctuary (that women are in some way innately evil) is a false idea, and not part of Catholic theology. Women are created in the image and likeness of God, just like men are - and, therefore, don’t have any innate evilness that could do any harm to the Altar.

It doesn’t actually have the words Sanctuary or Altar in it, so forgive me if I refuse to give any credence whatsoever to your interpretation. Feel free to provide the citation I asked for.

 

[jmcrae]

It doesn’t actually have the words Sanctuary or Altar in it, so forgive me if I refuse to give any credence whatsoever to your interpretation. Feel free to provide the citation I asked for.

It’s in the very title itself - The Dignity of Women. Which means that women were not created by Satan, and that therefore, women can be treated as human beings. There is nothing in the document that contradicts the humanity of women. Therefore, women are fully human - and by implication, permitted to do anything that human beings can do.

Therefore, you should not feel “disgust” whenever you see women behaving like human beings.

I also don’t think that you should suspect the Pope of not being completely in his right mind when he permits women to do things that human beings are allowed to do.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

That’s a clerical role, and yes, clerical roles are for men, only.

A male cleric is not a lay male. Either he is a cleric, or he is a lay person. He can’t be both at the same time.

QUOTE]

Instituted Lectors and Instituted Acolytes do have a specific canonical status, and yes, that status is restricted to males. But I do not believe that makes them clergy. The Sacrament of Orders moves a male from the lay state to the clerical state, not being an Instituted Lector or Anolyte. They, I believe, are still canonically laymen, despite the fact that they are performing a “clerical role.”

 

[jmj603]

It’s in the very title itself - The Dignity of Women.

Women have dignity equal to that of men. But Catholics, women and men alike, aren’t allowed to compose free-verse versions of encyclicals based on the incipit. Artistic expression isn’t the goal here. We are called to read these documents, to be instructed in the faith in obedience to our true pastors, and to pass on this faith to others. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to those we are ostensibly trying to help.

There is nothing in the document that contradicts the humanity of women. Therefore, women are fully human - and by implication, permitted to do anything that human beings can do.

That is an insane conclusion based on the stated premise. It also goes against everything I learned in Kindergarten. Women are fully human, but the conclusion you have reached is called “radical feminism”, which has been condemned in other Vatican documents. Mulieris Dignitatem has a lot to say about femininity. That there is distinction between the sexes, which extends to ability, is undeniable to anyone who has ever looked under his or her clothes.

Therefore, you should not feel “disgust” whenever you see women behaving like human beings.

When I see human beings sinning, I feel disgust and contrition. When I see a virtuous and holy Christian woman or man, I see Christ and the Blessed Mother.

I also don’t think that you should suspect the Pope of not being completely in his right mind when he permits women to do things that human beings are allowed to do.

The document is suspicious because it contradicted the testimony of a (beatified) saint, was published when the author was infirm, was published two years after it was signed, and reversed previously settled theology and praxis. These are strange circumstances and suspicion arises from them alone.

 

[deacondev]

The way I understand the ‘rules’ is this:
An instituted Lector should read the 1st and 2nd readings - the problem is that there are very few of these - usually seminarians on their way to the priesthood. In their absence a lay person can do those readings. The same goes for altar servers - an instituted acolyte should be used but there aren’t many of those around. Here are a few quotes from the General Instruction:
(You’ll notice it doesn’t specify male or female - however the Bishop of a Diocese can make regulations.)

1. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the
   bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.
2. 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.

 

[jmcrae]

When I see human beings sinning, I feel disgust and contrition.

Here is the part that I fail to understand. I completely fail to understand how it is a sin for a woman to assist her priest when requested to do so by that priest, but it is a holy calling for a man to do the same thing.

I really, really do not understand that part, at all.

How does having been created female cause my every action in aid of my priest to be sinful to the point of being almost worse than prostitution, while at the same time causing the exact same actions to be saintly, when done by a male?

It certainly doesn’t work in reverse. When a man does actions that are traditionally female, he is certainly not considered a terrible sinner for doing them. It might be considered unusual, but no one ever objects, or considers the man to be some kind of pimp or lech for doing so.

I have never seen anyone rail against males who take the linens and wash them, or males who put out and replace the candles, or males who sing in the choir, as much as they rail against girl altar servers or women readers. In fact, I’ve never seen a thread on CAF calling down the wrath of Heaven on these men for “stealing” female roles.

 

[jmj603]

Here is the part that I fail to understand. I completely fail to understand how it is a sin for a woman to assist her priest when requested to do so by that priest, but it is a holy calling for a man to do the same thing.

I really, really do not understand that part, at all.

It’s not a sin, right now, for a woman to serve Mass as requested by the priest as long as the priest is within the law in asking her to serve and the woman does not violate her own conscience. If a woman were to take part in a ceremony of institution of lectors or acolytes as the subject of the ceremony, knowing that such was forbidden to her because of her sex, she would be sinning by breaking the law of the Church.

How does having been created female cause my every action in aid of my priest to be sinful to the point of being almost worse than prostitution, while at the same time causing the exact same actions to be saintly, when done by a male?

If someone breaks the law of the Church, and shamelessly violates her traditions, in the name of pride or bad ideology, he is a sinner. If he follows the law of the Church, and obeys his true pastors, in everything even in his heart, he is a saint. This is elementary Catholicism.

I have never seen anyone rail against males who take the linens and wash them, or males who put out and replace the candles, or males who sing in the choir

All of these are traditionally male roles. Singing in the choir was forbidden to women until the 1950’s. Do you see how far removed your understanding of the Church is from its historic reality?