Female Instituted Lectors and Acolytes
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,390
    i didn't even know they were still "instituting" lectors and acolytes
  • Perhaps the admins could combine threads as another one was already started a little while ago. https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/18659/apostolic-letter-spiritus-domini-motu-proprio-on-the-amendment-of-canon-230
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,124
    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.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    what does this say to the seminarians
    Perhaps "Carefully consider that when (if) you are given a cure of souls, you will have to work with both men and women" ?
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • pfreese
    Posts: 66
    “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.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,124
    @ a.f.hawkins...Its not the care of souls that concerns me, as your statement is correct. Its that instituted lector and acolyte are offices reserved for men. So, is their office cheapened by Francis when he says women can be those also. Or perhaps this is just a fly in the wind argument and really does not matter. Perhaps I am the fool in this matter.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    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.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • PolskaPiano
    Posts: 208
    .
    These offices aren't minor orders anymore, so there's no need to reserve them to the clerical state.


    To me the motu proprio sounds like it is making official in documents what was already agreed to and has been practiced since VII.
    Thanked by 2MarkB CHGiffen
  • PolskaPiano
    Posts: 208
    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).
  • pfreese
    Posts: 66
    Wonderfully put PolskaPiano, thank you.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    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.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,938
    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.

    N.B. We London (U.K.) parish (N.O. parish with E.F. community) have female readers but no young women (under 30) can found to read. We have never had females serving, not that they would find many young women to serve, they are not interested. The N.O. Masses even have a lack of boys interested in serving. Our N.O. confirmation has been a goodbye celebration for a couple of decades, we never see most of these young people again...

    Meanwhile the E.F. community continues to grow...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    @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!
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    hasn’t budged on the women deacons matter after several golden opportunities to do so

    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.
  • 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.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    To me, it is a shame. As was noted a few comments up from here, the only reason most if not all bishops had not seen fit to institute acolytes and lectors was precisely because they couldn't institute women. Now that they can do so there will no doubt be a multitude of institutions just because women can now be instituted - and, most of them probably will be women. Certain types are rejoicing at this. To me it is a shameful retreat to please certain relevantist types.


    What exactly are we retreating from here? There is no theological justification to bar women from a lay role.

    I don't buy this argument that we need to reserve certain roles at Mass for men because men are otherwise too weak to do something that wasn't specially saved for them. The parish I grew up in had a large population of altar servers that were about equally male and female.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,387
    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.
  • vested adult ministers

    Lectors in vestments are pretty rare in my experience. Besides, there are no proper vestments for women.

    It seems to me that laymen, even instituted, who are exercising liturgical roles as envisaged by CIC 230 etc should not wear liturgical vestments, but culturally appropriate neat clothes ("Sunday best") as befits their role based on the common condition of being baptized. My opinion even applies to altar servers. It makes no sense to me to vest children in cassock and cotta. Particularly since lay adults serving at the altar never wear them. (Well hardly ever.)
  • 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.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 66
    “ It makes no sense to me to vest children in cassock and cotta. Particularly since lay adults serving at the altar never wear them. (Well hardly ever.)”

    Maybe this is regional thing, in my neck of the woods it’s very common, and increasingly so, for adult altar servers to vest for mass. A lot don’t at my parish, though I chalk that up to them being stereotypical boomers and gen-xers who long ago decided (unfortunately) that jeans and sneakers were perfectly appropriate for Sunday mass. I invariably instruct all new altar servers to vest, even adults.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    Boy & Adult, vested servers: https://tinyurl.com/y3usbab7

    Boys & Adults, vested, but more obviously a N.O. Mass: https://tinyurl.com/y5uqloce
  • MarkB
    Posts: 414
    The instituted acolytes in my diocese always look ridiculous in the sanctuary. They're aged men, their albs don't fit well and their beer bellies protrude over the cincture or velcro belt, they are way too old and big to be altar boys/servers and they aren't priests or deacons, yet they walk around the sanctuary dressed like altar boys doing semi-official things and sometimes substituting for altar boys when there aren't any at Mass; the optics just don't look very good.

    I don't think the optics would be better with female instituted acolytes. Do people really want Susan from the Parish Council instituted as an acolyte and walking around the altar, vested in an alb during Mass? Susan is the first one who will volunteer, followed by other elderly women who want to be priests.

    To relate this to the young adult sacred music discussion in another thread, I don't know any young adult women who would desire to become instituted acolytes. They would mock such a thing.

    Female lectors are a different story. Don't see any potential problems with that because it's already the common practice to have female lectors of all ages, and they don't wear any liturgical vesture.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    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.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,938
    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?

    Well if we look at Mass attendance over the last 50 years (In Europe), people have just walked out the door and not come back. At least some of those will have walked out the door after being repelled by the antics on the sanctuary. Our young people also walk out the door as soon as they can, usually after being Confirmed. One of our bishops noted this and wondered why he had just Confirmed these young people, he of course did not ponder this for very long, and carried on with the ever diminishing crowd.
    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?

    I think this is called kicking the can down the road... Although I do wonder why the Vatican follow this big tent policy, what is the point of trying to keep Susan from running off and joining (or even starting) yet another sect / 'church' / whatever? I am sure people that want to watch Macbeth, would rather go to a theatre with professional actresses, rather than their local parish church to watch one scene on endless repeat.

    It is not a good look to be so indecisive, so lacking of any backbone, and in some ways so dishonest. Does it really help anyones eternal salvation to be told that if you disagree with 2000 years of teaching and practice it is o.k. you will be fine? How can we really be part of the Church Christ founded if it is o.k. for us to remain in lives bemired in sin, with our Shepherds complicit and even encouraging our sins?
  • 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
  • pfreese
    Posts: 66
    “ If you didn't come up with permission to do what I want, you haven't studied the question enough.”

    Are we already forgetting about the Amazon Synod? Where the delegates voted overwhelmingly for women deacons and Pope Francis still said no? Between that and the first commission on the subject activists are 0-2 with Francis, and commission # 2 doesn’t look like they’ll come to any different conclusion based on who’s on it. If he really wants women deacons this seems like an awfully ineffective way of putting that into practice.
    Thanked by 2Liam Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    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.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw sdtalley3
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    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.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    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?
  • No, I believe she meant that the bishops who banned the TLM never properly had the right to do so, so BXVI's action was more of a correction of a wrong than anything.
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 162
    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.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,938
    Yes, Matt. 16;18-19. is an interesting read and causes all sort of problems. But the life of Christ has many teaching opportunities about people being subject to a higher authority. So Peter and his successors have not been given a free rein, they are of course subject to the Law, and to God.
    Now in the limited remit of binding and loosing, which should be read in the light of Vatican I, we see a clear limit and a distinction between comments made in the low Oxygen environment of an aeroplane, and statements made ex Cathedra. Just as Pilate sat in the Seat of Judgement.

    So yes the Pope has the Authority to allow girl altar servers etc. whether he has the power to allow female deacons is probably no. (Although we have had Deaconesses, but they were not equal in job description with a Deacon.) and just because he has the Authority to do something does not make it a good idea. We all still have free will to make mistakes.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,655
    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".
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • There is one issue with female instituted acolytes. Instituted acolytes are allowed to serve as straw-subdeacons in the EF, but women cannot serve as as straw-subdeacons, as it’s only open to men.
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 162
    @ 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.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    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


    As we've discussed, the Pope's move is an obviously theologically correct move as restricting a lay position to men is contradictory and illogical. Why the pejorative tone here? What would a "man of iron will" have to gain by going back to this weird limbo of having the minor orders half in a state of being clerical and half not?

    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


    and what exactly here is wrong with having lay female lectors?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,655
    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.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    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 for organists, cantors, choir members, DREs, etc., just simply exist, without any kind of institution as a "minister".


    I agree with this. For the record, I have no idea what an "instituted lay minister" is. It seems to be a deliberately confusing concept. What does the Church have to gain from creating legal loopholes to jump through to be a lector? Restricting who gets to wear vestments? This could be justified maybe as a quality control measure but none of what I've ever heard about instituted lectors actually controlled quality.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    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/
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    I see that this motu proprio was accompanied by a a letter to Cdl Ladaria of CDF giving more of the Pope's thinking. So far only in original Italian, but there is an unofficial translation here
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 134
    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.
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,140
    There's a lotta lotta goin' on.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,655
    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.
  • ...SO well done.
    Indeed it is! I've witnessed numerous remarks from deacons that would have left a third grade theology student scratching his head. I had occasion a number of years ago to attend a 'communion service' which was conducted by a deacon who lamented that he could only give out communion but didn't know why he couldn't celebrate mass. I have been left speechless any number of times by similar utterances from deacons.

    To be fair, though, I know many who are a credit to their breed and regularly go above and beyond the 'call of duty'.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 930
    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:
    468 x 910 - 160K
    Thanked by 2tomjaw MatthewRoth
  • As I am now discerning I need to take some time for silence, I will simply leave this last thought:

    I am perpetually flummoxed by the many Catholics who seem to forget the binding force of tradition in the Catholic Church. We have scripture AND tradition and they both carry grave weight. Regardless if there is nothing epistemologically incorrect with changing a given praxis in the church, I find myself very ill-at-ease every time something else gets changed that flies in the face of 19 CENTURIES of tradition. For instance, the novus ordo missæ is a statistical blip on the map. 60 years is a blink of an eye in church time. If every single generation of Catholics up until, say, 1970 would have rejected X,Y, or Z, does this not give you serious cause for concern? Tradition speaks as loudly to me as scripture. I am saddened this does not seem to be the case for very many Catholics any more (and I mean this in general, not simply the within the scope of this one conversation).
  • 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.
    Thanked by 2sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,209
    CGZ - I have seen no direct evidence of Pope Francis's view of admitting women to the diaconate. There is plenty of evidence that on principle he does not approve of stifling debate, certainly not of prohibiting debate. So I see this as "I don't agree, let's have some more argument (& kick it into the long grass)".
    The other, more immediately important question is "What would that achieve?"
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • stulte
    Posts: 267
    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.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 873
    I remind everyone that Pope St. Paul VI eliminated the minor orders, and that was before the institution of the OF. So the argument about the EF is invalid.