Why did Pope Francis open up the "ministries" of acolyte and lector to women?

[@stephaniehill2652]

After many years of hearing about your book, I’m eagerly waiting for it to be delivered! My church put out a video seeking more laity help and I was interested in being a lector but I won’t. I hope they find a way to have more people entering the seminary instead 🙏

[@jameseacmen607]

The answer to that is really quite simple: while Pope Francis posts are preponderance of platitudes that are above contesting or are ambiguous but sounds good, then he removes a brick from the traditions that underpin the Catholic faith. He's been doing this for a long time now.

[@museluvr]

Remember all Catholic devotees: Christ Himself stated the church will never fall.. no matter how hard these corrupted popes work at doing it. I'd hate to be them when facing Him.

[@gerardkearney3683]

He doesn't encourage or teach the gospels, he does not spread the good news, Pray for him🙏

[@williamcurrie4482]

They just can't do it. A woman cannot stand in the place of Christ. Why doesn't Pope Francis encourage women to be Mothers? Why doesn't he encourage large families. I am one of ten children from a Catholic family and therefore I am not in trend!! My Mother and Father had to battle against priests and Bishops in supporting the Church. What are they doing to it?

[@leejennifercorlewayres9193]

Communists are chipping away at foundations both inside and outside the Church.

[@IrishAnnie]

@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 And he’s the AntiChrist

[@bdvjack9214]

@@IrishAnnie Pope is not the Antichrist but he is leading the church into paving the way for the Antichrist.

[@museluvr]

francis has sold out to lucifer and no longer cares to follow what he should be doing. Very disheartening and disappointing. God will judge him in the end.

[@bdvjack9214]

@@museluvr yes I agree but I think that Francis will lead the church into the new world religion thinking he will be the head of it the Antichrist will take over they will cast Francis aside and hopefully by then he will concentrate Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary . But the Traditional Latin mass parishes will be the small remnant left behind ...

[@SirStevenGilroy]

I'm an instituted acolyte (outside of seminary), and this motu proprio felt like a punch in the gut to me and to my vocation. Since women aren't capable of being Catholic ministers, to admit them into these offices is effectively to declare them no longer to be ministries. As an aside, those who received the minor order of lector could also chant the Epistle at High Mass (SRC 3377).

[@Ang.0910]

Even the TLM in my area has women lectors. Where can I go for normal old school mass now!? 😢 orthodoxy?

[@cassiemiller7321]

Many porters became saints. Who was the porter at St. Josephs shrine in Canada that became blessed?

[@ronalddececco4662]

ST. ANDRE BESSETTE

[@mdm5287]

Does the traditional Catholic Church have the minor order of Exorcist for laity like the Acolyte???

[@gregdolan340]

So chaotic/evil. He's got his hour, Almighty God has His Day!

[@chesterwoodring5228]

3:58 order vs ministry. Whats the difference? Side comment about women. Wasn't it so that women have also experienced stigmata.

[@Vanda_SEP]

Ao alterar o direito canônico para isto, ele está abrindo a brecha para as tais "sacerdotisas"

[@heatherwhitehead3743]

Why not a division of spiritual labor? God gave men and women different gifts. I believe there is such a thing as Christian feminism. It is Mother centric and is devoted to placing respect on those feminine gifts. Acknowledging and giving both sexes their due respect would be so healthy for the church. Giving boys and girls different tasks points them to God's beautiful design.

[@josephlozano5935]

Bowing to social political correctness. God how he was to be worshiped and gender to do it. Jesus reflects the Father. The Church should always reflect our Lord Jesus.

[@gerardkearney3683]

Amen Joseph 🙏

[@karenmunch4316]

A time is coming when there will be a Mass for every stripe and color. Every Mass will be different. Don't want to offend anyone...

[@kevinwilcox1835]

There may come a time when women will become priests - strange theology, Mary the first priest ("protopriest" or "archpriest") bringing forth Christ into the flesh.

[@jamesnielsen3095]

Hello??? Women have been serving as "Lectors" for years and years . . . This is nothing new!

[@cassiemiller7321]

I was a woman eucharisti. Minister. I went to confession for touching the True Body and Blood of Jesus 1000s of times; i will teared it till the day I die. Jesus, please forgive me/us!!!

[@cassiemiller7321]

Regret it till the day I die.

[@amascia8327]

This is not a difficult question: the goal of Francis The Apostate is destruction of the Church... obviously.

[@raymack8767]

A.) St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who *say* they want to go back to the early church ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which affects what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors. And St. Paul wrote in the Sacred Scripture that women were to keep silent in the churches (1 Cor. 14: 34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-12). Then Sacred Tradition enters... 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are amicable don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradition".*

[@raymack8767]

B.) 1.) Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, past popes, etc, are binding on the faithful, on Francis, and on Vatican II as well: “But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” 2.) This would bind all Lumen Gentium to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, etc. Ergo, what Francis and Vat II teach has to be in accordance with, abide by, and be in confirmity with Revelation, successively handed down over the centuries, either in written or oral form, and, for example, The Council of Trent cited "Apostolic Tradition". The above means that church teaching goes back to and is anchored in the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, Ecumenical councils, previous popes, etc, and Vat II and Francis cannot be islands unto themselves. Thus when Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition popes, councils, etc, (based upon and strengthening previous popes and councils) are against Francis and Vat II, then Francis and Vat II are overridden. 3.) Modernist schismatics are teaching that Francis and Vat II can override Sacred Scripture and Tradition, previous popes (potentially even override the first Pope, Peter) together, previous popes working with Ecumenical councils and councils and they can’t. Francis is like Luther in that he wants to discount previous popes and councils and wants to elevate himself to be pope of popes and Vat II to council of councils. Modernists schismatics just want the flavor of the month and are like revisionists who sees history in only one direction.

[@raymack8767]

C.) The Pachamama Papacy is promoting things contrary to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Traditions, popes, Ecumenical Councils, councils, etc. He promotes invincible ignorance when the Apostles, Apostlic Fathers, ECF's, and past them didn't, Jesus Christ said one must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, St. Paul wrote that God commands all men (Buddhists, Hindus, etc) everywhere to repent, he wrote that there is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved, etc. Francis has said the church agrees with Luther on Justification when it doesn't as Luther laid the ground work for forensic justification, making this justification permanent and not subject to James 2 after salvation, his inviting of the pagan, demonic Pachamama idol and its devotees onto sacred ground, bowing before it, blessing the idol, and allowing it to be paraded in front of the high altar, for one, is idolatrous and goes against everything past, and he has actually exceeded Luther in divisive behavior.

[@karonwoolger4420]

No women. Its as God wanted to be. I dont accept this new way. Will never.

[@bernadettemintmier9618]

I agree totally with your statement. I'm also a trad Catholic, and DON'T believe women should be allowed in these Church positions. It's just so very WRONG. God please have mercy on us all here on this corrupted earth. Amen.

[@davidnord1979]

why dont you people just read a bible ?????????????

[@paulperla4813]

We "people" do. If you are referring to Catholics, the Bible came to you through the Catholic Church which came first.

[@jamesnielsen3095]

?

[@country_boy7475]

Why we are not to read the bible as a protestant. There was once a Protestant who became a Catholic, he once read the bible at random seeking personal answers the Passage he randomly picked was when Judas hung himself. He being distraught then sought out another passage, ye shall do likewise. If he had of paid attention to those random passages well he would be where Judas could be. Hence sola scriptura is flawed.

[@iss5917]

Why don't you ponder upon who preserved the Bible for you, and who removed whole books from it in the 16th century? There wasn't even a canon of Bible books for the first almost 400 years of christianity. You are absolutely depending upon Christian Tradition with a capital T to even know what scriptures are considered inspired. To say that the Bible proves or validates itself, is circular reasoning. What would you say if a muslim came to you and said that the Koran proves itself by it's magnificence or some similar wordings? You would just dismiss it as stupidity. But there you are, saying the same thing in your own way. Good luck with that. And hey, ask yourself these questions... Who was David's father? The Bible has more than one option. Who killed Goliath? The Bible has more than one option. How could Hagar carry Ismael when he was so much older than his brother? Why did Barnabas leave Paul? What did the disciples teach people about, when Jesus sent them out two and two to preach before he died on the Cross, and before they knew or understood (according to the NT) He was going to die for their sins? Obviously you need Tradition. But hey, good luck with that only the Bible doctrine. Which one of the 40 000 interpretations are you going to choose?