“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.
Many Western theologians will say Pope John Paul 2 made an infallible teaching declaration verifying what has been said before to that effect. It is no longer up for discussion, despite the femi-nazi's.
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.”
I do not know what a sub-deacon is or whether he is ordained. We don't have those here in the US as far as I know, maybe in the Curia? I do know that deacons are ordained and they do have the right to "touch the sacred vessels of the Lord".
Women may not go to the altar.” Canon XLIV Council of Laodicea
Here's the rub. Is this considered an infallible doctrine to be held by the Church in all times, everyplace and everywhere, or is this a discipline? It is my contention that if something was licitly done at one time, EVER, and then a later Council ordered it NOT to be done any longer, it is not an infallible doctrine, but a discipline. Why? Because the Church judges that ALL of what we believe, even before being officially defined, was INDEED believed "by the entire Church, everywhere and every place". In other words, it was something already practiced or believed. Not having women at the altar, then, cannot be an infallible part of our faith.
If something was "always" practised and believed, it is an Apostolic Tradition, subjected to being called an infallibly declared doctrine if the Church so wills it through the Spirit at a later time. IF women were EVER allowed to "go to the altar" as part of a licit action, is it reasonable to say Laodicea is more along the order of a discipline that CAN be abrogated later?
Now, it is conceivable that deaconesses did bring communion to sick women, but they received from the priest or a deacon outside the altar.
Maybe. It is conceivable that in the first generation, that women were disciples of the Lord and others were not scandalized by receiving the Body from a female.
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.
The East is rightly emphasizing the Holiness involved in the Eucharist. I think the West is emphasizing the Banquet aspect. Again, this is a matter of discipline, not infallible doctrine.
Regards
In the Orthodox Church a subdeacon is the highest of the minor clergy, higher than the cantor, lower than the deacon. Although there is ordination of a deacon, a bishop can "borrow" someone and "promote" him to act and vest as a subdeacon without ordination. Subdeacons are usually found right behind a bishop as his personal assistants.
Catholic subdeacons were abolished in 1972. Until that time, subdeacons used to be considered major clergy, like deacons and priests and bishbops.
KOLO-”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””
I agree with you on this,Kolo. It’s another thing that needs to be addressed.
FYI..From INAESTIMABILE DONUM
Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery
Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II 17 April 1980
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2INAES.HTM
Excerpt
“”18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.[27]””