There are indeed instances of that. We have an extraordinary female minister whom the priest had to chastise for her "demands" of doing it her way. Men are not immune from that, either, Kolo. I agree that it is a temptation for SOME to see themselvse as part of a show and get attention. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to do this anymore unless their is a shortage. I do not care for watching 8 lay people go to the altar. However, I do know other women who are more humble and see their actions as a service, just as my actions were a service. I don't think a woman should be prohibited from this act of service, as sacramental theology does not prohibit it. The symbol of a female disciple of Christ is not, in my mind, an outrage! As you know, ANY ritual can be abused. We don't do away with rituals because of the potential. If it is theologically licit, then it should be allowed, while watching for abuses. Unfortunately, some priests, in an effort to remain politically correct, are fearful of calling the laity to the task and reminding them what is taking place on the altar...
What theological reason would you have for not allowing a female to give the consecrated host during the Eucharist?
Jo, its the very “flexibility” which has become so prevalent in the Western Church and Western culture since WWII which lead to the liturgical and catechetical mess the Church of Rome finds itself in now.
Perhaps you are correct. However, the Church would have been even worse off today if they HADN'T done ANYTHING. Society is different here. I think there HAD to be some changes on how things were done. Where the problem stems from, my friend, is NOT the flexibility offered, but people taking carte blanc with the Liturgy and going BEYOND what was allowed or envisioned in this "throwing open the windows" movement. Of course I am not happy with some of our Liturgy. But people of the time were ALREADY just going through the motions, a dead faith, when they looked at life of the world around them. The Mass had little meaning and was not relevant to a rapidly advancing society. To make Christ relevant, the Church had to allow the vernacular during Liturgy, for example, to allow participation at an intellectual level.
Please do not think I am the typical Catholic. There are many who are more liberal, others more conservative. I believe in following the essentials to the letter, but leave some room for "schools of thought" in allowable matters. That is how a teacher of the faith has to be. I have to allow for reasonable and allowable reflections from people on both sides. I provide correctives in matters that I feel are necessary and essential. On the rituals, there is more room for being flexible. Thus, I try to hear those who hate altar girls, and those who think they should be up there... I am in a difficult position - what am I going to base my teaching on if I say "NO" to, say, altar girls? "Because we never did that before"? That doesn't fly here. There are a lot of things "we haven't done before" that have been relegated to the trash heap, like belief in a flat earth...
And then, Every man a pope...and heresy! :(
I think that charge can be leveled against the Eastern laity who judge whether synods of Bishops are valid or not, sacking those who do not appeal to the ordinary. To some degree, we all like to "take control" since we "know better" than others. We are all under some self-delusion, and it is dangerous in the religious field.
We do have a Catechism that acts as a guide, despite you disdain for it! We don't make things up on the fly ("we" meaning those who take their faith seriously, that it is revealed from God). Liturgical rites are not part of "Apostolic Tradition" or "Scriptures" that are unchangeable matters of our faith. The Liturgy SHOULD take into account the society for which it acts as a symbol of Divine Worship. If kneeling suddenly takes on a societal meaning of disrespect, you'd get rid of kneeling in Mass, wouldn't you??? You wouldn't care if it was part of the ritual for 1500 years. Rubics are supposed to move the mind to something spiritual and transcendant. If they don't, or move the mind to something different, then you have problems.
Society has changed much more here, so we've had to change here on liturgy. Some changes were poorly handled - an understatement, you'd no doubt agree with. But the concept is valid, my friend.
Brother in Christ
“What theological reason would you have for not allowing a female to give the consecrated host during the Eucharist?”
You will grant me, I am sure, that women are absolutely forbidden to be ordained. The Councils are uniform in this. I am sure you will agree that sub deacons are in fact ordained, as the canons provide and yet, sub deacons “...have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord’s vessels.” Canon XXI Council of Laodicea, “...must not give the Bread, nor bless the Cup” Canon XXV Council of Laodicea, and most tellingly when one understands the lay out of a church in those days (and to this day in Orthodox, Monophysite and Oriental Orthodox Churches), “Women may not go to the altar.” Canon XLIV Council of Laodicea
Now, it is conceivable that deaconesses did bring communion to sick women, but they received from the priest or a deacon outside the altar. Today’s Eucharettes, or for that matter the male version, are not ordained in any fashion and therefore are forbidden from even touching the Holy Vessels, much less the Holy Mysteries themselves. In the Orthodox Church, women are not allowed inside the altar and frankly no layman should be in their without a good reason. It is arguable that no man, other than clergy and those who have received tonsure is allowed in. The only people who can touch the holy vessels are priests and deacons, though subdeacons can if the vessel is covered with a cloth.