i didn't even know they were still "instituting" lectors and acolytes

So, what does this say to the seminarians who are instituted into those various offices? At my local seminary, they receive these offices. So, now that women can be given such, so does that mean that the next step is to institute female deacons and priests. But then,this is how Francis works...incrementalism. I will just ignore this as women can already read and serve at the altar. It adds nothing to the problem and creates more.

“this is how Francis works...incrementalism.”

Pope Francis himself has spoken out against the possibility of women’s ordination to the priesthood many times and hasn’t budged on the women deacons matter after several golden opportunities to do so if he wanted, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The former in particular has the weight of several encyclicals of doctrine that would be darn near impossible to unwind. Acolytes and lectors, no so much.

What theological justification has there ever been for reserving these offices to men? As noted in Francis' motu proprio, holding these offices requites only the common priesthood of the faithful conferred by Baptism.

These offices aren't minor orders anymore, so there's no need to reserve them to the clerical state.

The fact that these offices were reserved to men was basically a post-Vatican II oversight, where they removed them from the clerical state but didn't get around to opening them to women. Francis' motu proprio fixes what should have been fixed 60 years ago.

I appreciate the perspective from a very much so traditional priest I am friends with. His comment on the Motu Proprio:

Before anyone jumps to ideological conclusions (America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter ideological bandwagon on one side, right wing traditionalist venues & punditry on the other side) and sets their hopes or fears high as might be the case:

1. It is a fact that both women and men have been reading at Mass at virtually every NOM Catolic parish in the world for decades and for good reasons.
2. It does provide a clarification and direction going forward (Pope Paul VI had already reformed and eliminated the “minor orders” but left some elements mid-course that felt the status of these two lay ministries was kind of an unfinished job).
3. Lay ministries and ordained ministries are two different things and are not to be confused; Pope Francis says it clearly, by quoting John Paul II’s authoritative intervention on this matter. Again, sorry folks on the left or on the right who are going to try to spin this for their own agenda, the Church is clear and deep on this [and definitive] if you are willing to take an honest look.
4. It is completely within the authority of the Church to intervene on such matters (and so she did over the course of 2,000 years).
5. By rooting these ministries in the dignity and mission of Christians given in baptism, further impetus is given to the New Evangelization, which is not and cannot be a clerical “job” only. Unless every baptized fully embraces this identity and mission, we are going to limp along at best! At worst, it’s going to be a failure.
6. As always, read the sources (they are right there on the Vatican website).

Adam Wood I understand few dioceses instituted lectors precisely because they could not appoint women. GIRM§101 (GIRM1975§70) allows the functions to be delegated to 'suitable' laity, so why make extra problems. I recall the Administrator of Westminster Cathedral in the late 70s designating the Sanctuary as the area of carpet on which the altar stood, because he had been delated to Rome for permitting women readers to stand at the ambo (which stood forward of the carpet) and the rubrics permitted women to read provided they did not enter the sanctuary.

@kevinf although in one way this is a small change, it could, as I hope and perhaps you fear, have important effects. I am not worried by seminarians, but it could be used for good or ill in liturgy.
It is an opportunity for more dignified celebration, vested adult ministers performing all the important service, no ill-dressed lay readers rushing up from the congregation, ditto for EMHOCs.
This move is precipitate, surely they should have waited another 20 months until 50 years had elapsed from the start of the experiment!

At Walsingham and throughout the Ordinariate we have quite a large number of instituted acolytes and instituted lectors. We have, also, a goodly number of permanent deacons; and, anyone who can't sing the deacon's parts of the mass hasn't been among their number. No girls will be found serving at our altars, nor would they think of doing so. We have no lack at all of rigourously trained young boys and young men who very conscientiously do. The instituted lectors are charged with singing the lectionary on solemnities and such. They are vested and sit in choir. We also have a large roster of non-instituted lectors, both men and women, who read on ordinary Sundays, who rise up from the nave. They undergo training in diction and delivery, always read with authority, and are appropriately attired..

There are certain types who will welcome this development, indeed rejoice at it. To me, it is sad and disappointing that HF Francis has done this - but he has done it, and done it within his prerogatives and the authority of his office. As was noted a few comments up from here, the only reason most if not all bishops had not deigned to institute acolytes and lectors was precisely and for no other reason than that they couldn't institute women. Now that they can do so, voila, there will no doubt be a multitude of institutions just because of and for no other reason than that women can now be instituted - and, most of them probably will be women. Certain types are rejoicing at this. To me it is an attempt to placate and please certain chic 'modern times' relevantist types and is tossing fully a two thousand year example, grounded in scripture, into the furnace.

As for the priesthood, I think that John Paul and Francis, not to mention Benedict, have all said that the matter of the all male priesthood (a 'priest', by definition, is a man) was settled. Is this not true? It seems to me that it is almost infallible.

I don't expect to receive any 'thanks' for this comment.

If it means that properly trained instituted lectors will be exercising the role in preference to unprepared, fumbling volunteers, there will be, well, some benefit from this.

It may be advisable for parish cantors to seek the ministry of lector in order to avoid conflicts over who should exercise the role of psalmist.

What theological justification has there ever been for reserving these offices to men?

This one is sadly very simple and St. Paul is quite direct:
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-34.htm

We are tracking our Mass attendance every day, so looking at this latest announcement, it is more of a case of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

On the one hand I get where you're coming from, but on the other hand I earnestly ask: when will people finally start taking liturgical abuses seriously and stop tolerating them?

That doesn't counter the incrementalism argument, it just shows that he hasn't released enough changes yet for that to literally be the next one.

Agreed. There's nothing to stop him saying, "with further consideration, a female diaconate seems tenable." Also, he keeps asking for new dicasteries and committees to study the prospect of female deacons. Each time a commission comes back and says "there's no historical proof for it" he rounds up a new group and tasks them with studying the same thing. One has to wonder why?

If it means that properly trained instituted lectors will be exercising the role in preference to unprepared, fumbling volunteers, there will be, well, some benefit from this.

I suppose this is true.

Boy & Adult, vested servers: https://tinyurl.com/y3usbab7

Boys & Adults, vested, but more obviously a N.O. Mass: https://tinyurl.com/y5uqloce

You're forgetting female EMHCs... though, they probably fall into the same category of women who want to be/look like some sort of priests. They'll look as ridiculous as their demands.

His Holiness appears to be following the policy which I summarize thusly:

If you didn't come up with permission to do what I want, you haven't studied the question enough.

(Think Henry VIII and Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons

CGZ is that different from BXVI? "Dear bishops, JPII asked you to be generous in giving permission for TLM Masses, you are not being generous enough, so henceforward no priest has to ask for your permission"
BTW I applaud BXVI's move.

AFH, yes well, there's a vast difference between being generous or even giving permission and banning it, the authority of which they were not really give to do.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but my guess is that you mean to imply that the Pope lacks the authority to give the permission for there to be female lectors and acolytes. Do I understand you correctly?

So let me go out on a limb here and play "Devil's Advocate", and quote the words of Christ to St. Peter: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven...Matthew 16;18-19.

So am I to understand that the pope's do have the authority to make certain changes as they see necessary or not? In addition to that can a pope bind his successors to certain decrees on matters of liturgy and doctrine? This situation is a completely different matter as Pope Francis has not "declared it" in the formulaic way that would make it a binding matter, but that's my opinion so far.

I'm curious as to the consensus about this, but the premise I set forth is not my own opinion.

I am sure that Francis realizes that what he has done is essentially irreformable, in that, unless the next Pope is a man of iron will, spine, and other bits, no future Pope will dare to rescind this, putting the large number of Sisters of Our Lady of the Pantsuit who will not doubt queue up for this this spring along with the Seminarians, and the Bishops in an awkward position.

Nothing that Francis does or says is a 'gaffe' or mistake, or not thought through; His Holiness isn't stupid: This was done with a great deal of thought and "discernment".

@ Salieri

The Holy Father is/was a Jesuit, need I say more? Despite my differences of opinion, I still pray that he is guided by the Holy Ghost.

Either they are clerical or not. If they are, they should be reserved to men only, as instituted minor orders; if they are not, then there is no need for any kind of 'institution', just as organists, cantors, choir members, DREs, etc., just simply exist, without any kind of institution as a "minister". AND, in the latter case, seminarians should NOT be instituted as a "step to" Ordination, since it isn't a clerical position.

Serviam is correct in interpreting my statement.

theologically correct[ive?]...

If you mean that he is making what people are doing no longer "wrong," according to Canon Law... sure. But I don't appreciate the precedent that "if you but persist in your liturgical abuses, we'll eventually cave and change Church Law to accommodate you, rather than drawing you back in from the fray."

what exactly here is wrong

There isn't anything exactly correct with allowing females to do anything in the sanctuary or at the ambo, either. "But women aren't equal, otherwise..." (sister Pantsuit who follows America Mag & National catholic Reporter) Spare me.
I'm sorry for the unattractive attitude, but after dealing with women who play emotionally manipulative cards to get their way, I'm not interested in men taking up their ridiculous cause, either.

I'm sorry for reposting this from the other thread on the matter, but it is still important.

The underlying problem with this document is that it eviscerates the clear teaching of St. John Paul II in the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici

"It should be stated at the outset that John Paul was not inventing theological categories.

Indeed, one cannot point to a single line in the sixteen documents of Vatican II where the word “ministry” or “minister” was applied to the non-ordained.

So, let’s see what the careful John Paul is saying and how that squares with what Francis is saying." https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/01/11/confusion-twice-confounded-on-the-motu-proprio-spiritus-domini/

There isn't anything exactly correct with allowing females to do anything in the sanctuary or at the ambo, either.

We are making a theological and moral error if we are restricting a lay position to men. As has been mentioned by multiple posters, we don't restrict choir directors or members, youth ministers, directors of religion education, so on and so forth, to being men. It seems that people are engaging in special pleading to justify singling out lay lectors for this treatment.

But I don't appreciate the precedent that "if you but persist in your liturgical abuses, we'll eventually cave and change Church Law to accommodate you, rather than drawing you back in from the fray."

That's hardly a fair or nuanced description of reality. This change is being made because restricting a lay position to men is theologically unjustifiable. It's been theologically unjustifiable since the minor orders were canned. This decision brings church policy more in line with our teachings and traditions about the lay state.

This is also engaging in a common trad cheap shot of calling things that are explicitly legislatively allowed "liturgical abuse." Prior legislation allowed Bishops to let non-instituted female lectors serve whenever an instituted lector was not present. Almost every bishop gave this permission. Basically none of what was happening was liturgical abuse. What would actually have been an abuse would have been a bishop instituting a female lector prior to this legislation, and I believe that you won't be able to find any examples of this. "Liturgical abuse" becomes a meaningless buzzword when in practice it means "legal things I don't like."

I'm sorry for the unattractive attitude, but after dealing with women who play emotionally manipulative cards to get their way, I'm not interested in men taking up their ridiculous cause, either.

You're engaging in a leftist narrative here that this about women's progress or something like that, when this is about having our theology of the lay state correspond to our laws for what we allow people in the lay state to do.

And personally, I think this is a disrespectful way to speak of our sisters in Christ. I don't think it's fair to smear women in toto based on the incorrect actions of specific women you've known. This has not been my experience of lay women and I'm quite frankly disturbed by the frequent pejorative descriptions of women serving the Church in this thread.

If it means that properly trained instituted lectors will be exercising the role in preference to unprepared, fumbling volunteers, there will be, well, some benefit from this.

And we can have confidence in this because the training of Permanent Deacons is SO well done.

Prior legislation allowed Bishops to let non-instituted female lectors serve whenever an instituted lector was not present.

Everybody knows that that isn't what happened. Just like "altar girls" were supposed to be allowed in some sort of an emergency when there were no boys to be found.
When these girls and ladies are on a schedule they are not, in any way, being allowed as a worse-case or emergency or necessary scenario.

This decision brings church policy more in line with our teachings and traditions about the lay state.

This decision brings church policy in line with what is already happening - just because it is already happening doesn't make it okay.

on the incorrect actions of specific women you've known. This has not been my experience of lay women and I'm quite frankly disturbed by the frequent pejorative descriptions of women serving the Church in this thread.

See attached:

Hawkins,

[Sorry, I'm late in replying to this, but a flurry of other posters has jumped in....]

The difference isn't in the approach, but in the locus of truth. Pope Benedict did a good thing. Pope Francis (in this instance) does a bad and pointless thing in trying to get a new group of experts to change the position of the Church.

What is truly amazing about the two synods is that the vote to allow women deacons wasn't unanimously in favor, given who was allowed at the synod. If 735 French Revolutionaries had to change the rules to get a simple majority to support execution of the king, how come the Pope can't get his hand-picked rubber stamps to rubber stamp his program of demolition? Answer: the Holy Ghost protects His Bride.

As far as the question of allowing women into the sanctuary to assist the priest is concerned, Pope Benedict XIV had this to say in 1755 in Allatae Sunt:

Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.

It would seem that the principle of non-contradiction is a dead letter to certain individuals.