Vatican II: LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

notredame_999

Guest
why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?
 
notredame_999 said:
why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?
Click to expand...
We do not have female Eucharistic ministers. Only priests and bishops are Eucharistic ministers. And some of those priests are married so I assume that they are sexually active.

However, we do have married male & female Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We don’t consider those men ‘mini priests’ so why would we consider the females in that way?
 
notredame_999 said:
why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Vatican II said anything about lay EMHCs in the first place. As I recall, it’s one of the things that developed after the Council.

Be that as it may, is the question in this thread that only female EMHCs should be celibate while male EMHCs get a “pass” on that one? I’m not big on the idea of lay EMHCs in the first place but, even so, I don’t get it. :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
notredame_999 said:
why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?
Click to expand...
Well, why are you singling out “lay female sexually active”. Why not the concern for lay male sexually active? The answer to your question is that the church does not allow lay male or female eucharistic ministers period. But she does allow lay men and women to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when needed.
 
zab said:
Well, why are you singling out “lay female sexually active”. Why not the concern for lay male sexually active? The answer to your question is that the church does not allow lay male or female eucharistic ministers period. But she does allow lay men and women to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when needed.
Click to expand...
I am talking about women not men because women have no apostolic tradition of approaching the alter in either the west nor the east.

I am opposed to the whole concept of extraordinary ministers of holy communion, but the idea of a female one seems more sandulous than a male one. Thats because in the latin church there has been a history of married male deacons and priests (although a brief history), while there has been almost no history of women distributing communion.
 
Ok maybe Im wrong. Maybe Vatican II didnt allow lay female “extraordinary ministers of holy communion.” What did allow this then? I am curious.

Your’re right the latin rite doesn’t has to follow the east, but lets not pretend celibacy is a dogma.

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
 
notredame_999 said:
because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist
Click to expand...
Where did this come from?

Our UGCC priest just had a child with his wife. I don’t see that as making him unfit to handle the Eucharist.
 
notredame_999 said:
And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
Click to expand...
So the married priests we have today are unfit to handle the Eucharist? Or don’t married Ordinary Ministers of Communion count?
 
notredame_999 said:
Ok maybe Im wrong. Maybe Vatican II didnt allow lay female “extraordinary ministers of holy communion.” What did allow this then? I am curious.

Your’re right the latin rite doesn’t has to follow the east, but lets not pretend celibacy is a dogma.

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
Click to expand...
You have some very odd ideas. :eek:

I think that the many married priests in the Latin church (formerly of other denominations) would take issue with your assertion that “intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist.”
 
notredame_999 said:
why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, they are not actually “Eucharistic” ministers although they are frequently called that. They are (extraordinary) ministers of Holy Communion, not the same thing.

Did you know that deaconesses assisted with baptisms in the early Church? No one confused them for ordained male deacons let alone priests.
 
notredame_999 said:
Ok maybe Im wrong. …
Click to expand...
… Well obviously you are mistaken about much … history, theology … 🤷
The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
Click to expand...
:ehh: … I wonder where you read this or was it just in your dreams :hypno:

Seriously, you should do a little more in depth study of liturgical history and the theology behind it … you may reach similar conclusions or not … however, they will be based in reality and fact - less fiction …
 
notredame_999 said:
And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. **The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. **So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to provide a source for that claim. I have never heard that reason given as why mandetory celibacy was made the discipline of the Latin Church. :eek:
 
notredame_999 said:
Maybe Vatican II didnt allow lay female “extraordinary ministers of holy communion.” What did allow this then? I am curious.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II allowed for this I believe, that is he allowed the use of EMHC.

I am curious though, how do you know who is and who is not sexually active?
 
Phemie said:
So the married priests we have today are unfit to handle the Eucharist? Or don’t married Ordinary Ministers of Communion count?
Click to expand...
notice i said “latin rite”. Not the byzantine or any other rite. The opinion that vaginal intercourse made a man unfit to handle the eucharist was not my opinion, but the opinion of our latin fathers.

Who are our latin fathers? Well here is a few of them:

St. Ambrose
St. Augustine…especially relevant
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Jerome
many others…

All you have to do is do a basic google serach on these saints and how they felt about sex and you can understand why mandatory celibacy was enacted at the second lateran council in the 12th century.
 
ByzCath said:
Pope John Paul II allowed for this I believe, that is he allowed the use of EMHC.

I am curious though, how do you know who is and who is not sexually active?
Click to expand...
well when an extraordinary minister of holy communion becomes pregnant, I think we can infer that she was sexually active with her husband.
 
YADA said:
… Well obviously you are mistaken about much … history, theology … 🤷

:ehh: … I wonder where you read this [or was it just in your dreams :hypno:

Seriously, you should do a little more in depth study of liturgical history and the theology behind it … you may reach similar conclusions or not … however, they will be based in reality and fact - less fiction …
Click to expand...
How am I wrong? Ok since Im wrong maybe you can tell me why the latin church gradually shifted towards mandatory celibacy…
[/quote]
 
notredame_999 said:
well when an extraordinary minister of holy communion becomes pregnant, I think we can infer that she was sexually active with her husband.
Click to expand...
But…if her husband is an EMHC it’s ok for him? I’m confused??
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
But…if her husband is an EMHC it’s ok for him? I’m confused??
Click to expand...
No but sexually active males should be treated differently since they have a history in the latin church clergy prior to the second lateran council…women do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top