….As usual with Francis, there are curiosities behind this document [on women acolytes and lectors].
Where is the consultative process in all this? I thought this was the Pope of collegiality and synodality. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone was consulted. This is reminiscent of Francis’ behavior in the framing of Mitis Iudex in 2015, reforming certain procedures for pursuing a decree of nullity in a marital case. No one was brought into the discussion prior to the decree’s promulgation, as a result of which numerous situations unforeseen by the Pope and his inner circle surfaced only later, so that the document is relatively useless. The Church demands consultation for a reason.
Even Pope Pius IX, in the lead-up to his definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, sought the input of the worldwide episcopate (as did Pius XII with the dogma of the Assumption). All wisdom does not reside in one man, and that is particularly true of Francis, who has a shallow theological background and who actually has expressed his near-disdain for theology on numerous occasions.
Another oddity: The Pope writes a letter to the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, instructing him on the rationale for this decision. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. Was this done because the prefect refused to sign onto this document?
Further, why was Francis seemingly compelled to call on a professor from the Lateran University to provide the “explanatory note” for the document? Is it because, once more, he could find no one within his own Curia to endorse his decision?
Several times, Francis is at pains to distance this move from giving any quarter to female access to the episcopate, presbyterate or diaconate. Of course, this move does, in fact, give grounds for the false hope that access to the formal ministries of lector and acolyte is indeed a stepping stone to eventual ordination. That is pastorally insensitive and harmful to the souls of those being misled. Or, is this document a sop to those fixated on the female diaconate, giving them a soft landing for a final negative judgment on the female diaconate?
What is equally odd is that Francis, arguably the most anti-clerical Pope in history, has now engaged in that very clericalization that he has so often condemned and that was foreseen by John Paul over thirty years ago.
If Francis thought that this action would placate those pressing the cause of female ordination, he is grossly mistaken. The only effect of this document will be a further alienation of those he has alienated for years….
The above comes from a Jan. 11 story on Catholic World Report by Father Peter Stravinskas.
The author seems to forget that St. Paul VI engaged a commission to look at the question of artificial contraception, which recommended it be allowed. There was widespread agreement among theologians and the laity that it was time to relax the ban. Paul ignored them all and issued Humanae Vitae.
Look, this is hardly a big change. It was that way defacto in most dioceses and parishes. It simply regularizes what was common practice.
I don’t see the equivalency between HV and this motu proprio at all, because they are apples and oranges. An encyclical concerning faith and morals and what amounts to an administrative formalization of a role aren’t in the same galaxy.
On a different note, like you said, it is defacto already, Why the institutionalize it? All it will do, if some bishops take the pope up on it, is create an uber parishioner that has the right to ‘bump’ any other regular old parishioner from the lectern.
Pope Francis has spoken out against deacons being ‘glorified altar boys’ and clericalizing the laity….yet this. He will forgive my confusion, I’m sure…
In part, I agree with you Mark. This action was part of the discipline of the Church, not of its faith, the former of which is always and infinitely changeable, the other in theory is not. But if that is a kind of unwitting trap, the author himself falls into it as well, when he brings up consultation around the Immaculate Conception. In fact, he kind of precedes it with Francis’ streamlining of procedural norms around marriage nullity questions.
Why institutionalize it? Because perpetuating the status quo is a charade. The Latin Church has decades ago stopped relegating the minor orders as a kind of “mini-ordination”. Or a mark along the way towards Sacramental Ordination. It de-clericalizes the Church because it opens ministries up to the laity with no expectation of obtaining the clerical state.
About bumping. Most parishes that I attended used to pick out lectors and servers at the last minute without the least bit of preparation. I don’t think this prohibits that, but it does encourage the more recent practice of calling out, for a time, a dedicated group of people who will become more skilled at their task. I don’t see that as clericalizing them or bumping others, but one of making sure that the Gospel is properly announced and the Sacrament properly served.
There are many gifts but the same Spirit. Let us build up each other as once the disciples did.
Those were considered “minor orders” in the Roman Catholic Church previously.
We still have minor orders in the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches (as well as our own Canons, unaffected by this.)
Does this effectively end any notion of minor orders in the Latin Church?
(It seems after Mass we will soon see women who are instituted as acolytes joining deacons and priests in the purification of the sacred vessels.)
Is there another agenda at work here (about which the Vatican is not being transparent)?
As the article noted, things like collegiality, consultation and accompaniment, as well as transparency, have been trumpeted by the Vatican in recent years, but seem to be lacking.
It is not a step on the way to women priests.
I believe the Church should make all current deacons into priests, and all religious brothers and sisters into deacons. Allow priests to marry. Respect the fact that women keep things running. I feel that this would help make vocations once again attractive to the young. In today’s world, living with no sex and no savings account does not attract most youth.
There ARE married priests in the Catholic Church in the Eastern Rites and some convert priests were allowed to stay married.
St. Paul wrote in the New Testament that a bishop can be married BUT ONCE. That has always been interpreted that after his wife died, he remained as the Lord was – single. The Lord said that some would forgo marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. St. John the Apostle did. The Virgin Mary was left in his care as she had no other sons. St. Paul was single. St. Thomas the Apostle went to India, and there seems to be no evidence he took a wife. Ask Deacon Anderson?
Since this has long been the practice of many or most local parishes, I am happy to see this. So many old time San Franciscans were disheartened when Star of the Sea parish suddenly denied girls their rights as altar servers; I pray this brings about an immediate change.
There is no “right ” to be an alter server; you want to have this? Plenty of Protestant denominations have that and more .
Among the many ‘former Catholics’, I know women who left because of the stained glass ceiling they encountered.
Mike M, I hope the door hits them on the way out….if you were properly catechized you would have said to them Christ chose only men and we have enough women in the priesthood as it is.
Is Jon going to tell Cal-Catholic that it’s wrong to publish an article critical of Pope Francis? Because everyone knows for darn sure that he’d say that in response to a private comment.
I know there have been some long arguments but this is inappropriate.
Will those instituted into the offices of lector/reader and acolyte be required to complete the same course of formation and study as seminarians, who prepare for years before being installed into those offices?
Or, will a few hours of “training” be now considered adequate?
And, if so, can seminarians get the “fast pass” too?
Seminarians study and are formed to become priests, not to be lectors and acolytes. Getting used to being in front of a live television audience, as it were, is part of that training, not the other way around.
It seems you misunderstand the history and roles of lector/reader and acolyte as they’ve existed in the Church for millenia. It’s more than getting used to being in front of an audience, live or “televised.” An acolyte or reader is not the same as an actor or talk show host. It has to do with the person installed in those offices, not merely their obvious function.
I disagree dear deacon but what is your point?
Sure, I’ll try to explain. Both the minor and major orders existed long before Trent, as did, of course, the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopacy (all of which you’ll find in the Bible and the early Church). Before my bishop laid hands on me to ordain me a deacon, he “ordained” me to minor orders of reader, cantor/chanter, acolyte and subdeacon. It’s a little different for us Eastern Catholics, but all those minor orders existed in the Latin Church with the addition of porter and exorcist (and without cantor/chanter) until 1972. At that time, the Latin Church no longer called them minor orders but called them “ministries” and reduced them to the two being discussed here.
My point is simply that minor orders were never so much about function (what one did publicly and doing it well, as important as that is), but rather about who one is. I am a deacon. It is not a “job description,” let alone a temporary one. And, when I was ordained a subdeacon, a minor order, there was clearly a grace that was ontological, personal and experiential regardless of how well I served at Divine Liturgies. It’s about person, not primarily function at public worship. I hope that helps explain my point.
And, could you elaborate on your statement, “Women clearly had liturgical roles in the first centuries”?
To what roles are you referring?
I think, Dear Deacon, you are falling into the trap that because we have backed ourselves into thinking a certain way today, that therefore it is either always been that way or is the natural evolution of things.
In Europe, “Orders” are quite common. There are secular orders, there are religious orders, there are sacramental orders. Most princes of Europe were granted multiple “orders”. I think you are mixing up a bunch of them,
As to the liturgical role of women, I point you to many architectural findings of women at the altar in the orans position, and the Biblical references to deaconnesses. I’m not an expert on such things, but it appears quite convincing to modern scholars.
Actually, I think you’re mixing up secular matters with ecclesial matters. That’s understandable, in a sense, because “ordination” did not refer only to ordination to the Holy Orders (bishop, priest & deacon). Rulers, abbots, abbesses and others were “ordained.” As St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote in 2 Thess. 2:15, hold on to the teachings/traditions that you received. Although I wouldn’t claim to be an expert, I do know a fair amount about this subject. The orans position does not indicate priesthood. Many Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) pray the Lord’s Prayer at Mass in the orans position. And, of course, there were deaconesses, but they were not deacons. Their “ordination” rite is different and did not take place at the altar, as it did (and does) for deacons. They served differently than did the deacons. And, actually, the evidence has convinced modern scholars that women were not ordained to (major) Holy Orders. That’s why Pope John Paul II reiterated that constant teaching of all Catholic and Orthodox Churches. See Cardinal Gerhard Muller’s book, Priesthood and Diaconate, for example. He was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is a highly respected scholar. Women in the Priesthood? by Manfred Hauke is another book you may be interested in, if you’d like to learn more about this issue.
Anonymous, there is a feminist who has posited that the meaning of 3 artworks found in ancient churches is that women had liturgical roles. I do not accept her interpretation. Pope John Paul II spoke infallibly when he declared that the Church has not been given the authority to ordain women.
There has been no infallible teaching on the ordination of women to the deaconate, as many bishops and theologians have reminded us. But I don’t think that lay EMHCs and lectors is a step in the direction of any kinds of ordination.
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
John Paul II Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
How many millennia exactly? Seminaries were only instituted after Trent and women clearly had liturgical roles in the first centuries. So again I ask, how many millennia were women prohibited from liturgical roles?
Curious, only the seminarians being trained to be priests of Vatican-approved Tridentine Latin Mass societies, go through the complete minor orders of porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte. They also go through the three major orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Pope St. Paul VI ended the minor orders, and order of subdeacon, after Vatican II. In 1972, the minor orders were re-designed for use in Vatican II, and called simply “ministries.” For laymen performing similar roles, such as lectoring or serving at Mass, local churches may have a short training, followed by some sort of ceremony to install them. This varies throughout the Catholic world. A layman’s role is totally different, it is not a “ministry” like the clergy’s ministry, and cannot compare to the roles of seminarians and ordained clergy, with similar duties– even though an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is a layman’s role– yet the layman who serves as a Eucharistic Minister at Mass, really has no true “ministry, nor are they seminarians training for the priesthood. I believe personally, that the Pope made a big mistake, and his document may later lead to a big confusion of proper roles of clergy and laity, at Mass– already confused, in our Vatican II era! This is just my opinion, take it or leave it. The Pope’s document is for just the Novus Ordo Missae, the Mass of Vatican II.
Of course we knew that sooner of later, there would be wo-man priests. After all, we have been told (or know) women are the same (or better) than men.Or are we? We can’t open a jar of pickles when a man isn’t around. I know that doesn’t make sense, but does anything make sense anymore?
Cranky – you are right. Your post doesn’t make sense.
My wife opens all jars, pickles or otherwise.
As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church is one of only a few institutions which does not treat males and females equally.
By the way, I consider myself reasonably well chatecized, having sixteen years Catholic education, through University.
mikem, so, do you think we should have women priests and bishops?
And, I open jars as well as my wife.
(Though I’m not clear about your point regarding glassware. But, I think you should help your wife by opening some of the jars.)
Curious, I do most of the cooking. Wife does all baking. She has stronger wrists, thats all. .
As to women priests, as a cradle Catholic, I accept the Church’s teaching. I do think this will be an increasingly difficult position for the Church.
Curious, I’m curious as to your thoughts.
The Catholic Church has never ordained women to major Holy Orders. And, the teaching of the Church has always been that only men may be ordained such. Pope Saint John Paul II restated that not long ago. For various reasons, too lengthy to note here, about which books have been written. that seems not likely to change. As has been noted, it seems to be God’s will as our Lord Jesus broke many social conventions of His time, yet appointed only men, even bad ones like Judas, as Apostles. (The Church does identify some women as “equal to the Apostles,” but still not Apostles.) His Mother is the holiest human person there is. She surpasses all others in qualifications for ordination, from a worldly perspective. Women are equal to men and oftentimes holier and more competent. Yet, Saint Mother Teresa and other holy women did not desire ordination. Their worth, holiness and more were not dependent upon offices held.
That said, while you said you accept the Church’s teaching, do you think the Church should have women priests and bishops?
(Simply looking for your opinion on the issue.)
BTW, I’m improving my kitchen skills, yet, my wife still surpasses me in virtually all cooking. However, with the backyard grill, I’m the go to guy!
I believe you meant to say that Jesus was the holiest human person :)
She is the holiest non-divine human person. I thought readers would understand that. Yes, Jesus is human and divine, uniquely so. Both, however, are sinless. In this year of Saint Joseph, I wonder at his awesome responsibility of caring for our Lord and His Blessed Mother!
Saint Joseph, pray for us!
Just regularizing what is already common practice? It seems to me that it is the difference between just allowing something unofficially and making it official, which makes it now part of the process leading to priesthood. God forbid.
St John Paul II said the question of women priests is closed.
So what is your point?
It is impossible for women to be priests.
The Catholic priest is “in persona Christi”, represents the person of Christ or stands in for the Lord Jesus Christ, our Sovereign High Priest, and since the Lord was and is a male in His incarnation, only men can be priests.
Pope St. John Paul II explained that quite well and said, “The Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women as priests.” The document was even posted in our secular newspaper when he said and wrote that.
And what woman should be so prideful that she thinks she is so much better than the Mother of Our Lord, whom Christ did not ordained.?
CASE CLOSED!
Our Church has nothing to do with liberal modern secular notions of “equality”– it is based on Christ. No one has any so-called “rights,” that’s babyish. Service to God is very important. Laymen have lots of opportunities– outside of Mass– to serve the Lord. I think the Church needs a return to holiness in her liturgy. I think the ancient and holy steps leading to priestly ordination ought to be brought back, for seminarians. I don’t think it is right for lay people to be running all over the altar all the time. The priesthood needs respect, and a clear understanding of the priest’s sacred responsibilities. I believe in altar boys only, and the introduction to them of a possible future priestly vocation. I do not prefer to go to laymen serving as Eucharistic Ministers, I prefer the priest. I also prefer the holiness of kneeling at the altar rail, to receive Our Lord. I go to church to worship God, not for something to do, to sort of “glorify myself,” up on the altar. The Mass is very, very holy. More than anything, right now, I, myself, would love to see the Pope institute a decent Dress Code worldwide, out of respect for God, for all who enter a Catholic church. I know that few will agree with my views, including the Pope. But I believe mankind has profoundly lost all respect for God, in the modern world.
Well, right now, not many are able to go to Mass, due to the Pandemic. I wonder how things will be for our churches, when the Pandemic is over? We are living in very strange times.
I am a 75 year old female cradle Catholic. We no longer give to any Bishop’,s funds or PSA. But do generously support our small Church. We firmly believe our mission is to get each other to Heaven and to evangelize when ever possible and we have brought in new Catholics who can not believe their good fortune as having discovered the one true Church. Women as Priests is a terrible idea and not from God. Just what our increasing liberals want in order to further take down our Church. Yes to them as alter servers and being on Church councils but as females we are so blessed to have the higher calling of imitating Our Blessed Mother and proclaiming the Love of Our Lord to the world. Please, wake up and see what is happening to or World.
And if you think marriage will solve all the problems with the priesthood, several years ago on the news, it was reported that a married priest caught his wife in a car committing adultery with another man, and all hell broke loose . I won’t bore you with the details.
I am sorry I sent my reply to the wrong person. It was meant for those people who think letting priests get married will solve all the molestation and other problems in the priesthood.
No young woman should ever date a potential rapist or child molestor! The public should be kept safe from all potential harm from such violent, Satanic men!
That is not always easily discernable. There was a public school teacher who was married, and his wife was a teacher also. He was a Mormon. The other teachers at the school thought he was such a good teacher that they gave him an award. Later the Mormons accused him of molestation of children — not teens but children in one of their buildings, and others at his apartment complex accuse him of molesting there. I doubt his wife had an inkling when she first dated him that he would ever do such a thing.,
Well, the misinformed idea that a rapist or child molesting criminal who happens to be a priest “needs a wife” for sex purposes, to stop his crimes, is extremely dangerous! A wife is not a demented, Satanic “sex therapy social worker” for the Satanic filth and evils of a dangerous criminal, hiding in the clerical clothes of a priest! The holy vows of a celibate priest are for very mature and holy Catholic men in the seminary. Likewise, the holy vows taken by a man in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, are for very mature Catholic men only.