M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
As you are becoming fond of telling me.
Vatican II: LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS?
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m afraid that this theologically incorrect. Chastity is the use of our sexuality and sexual faculties according to the will of God for our state in life. A married person is also called to chastity, but not to continence. You do not use your spouse as an object for your pleasure and then move along. That would be a sin against chastity, a very serious one too.
Are you sure that you’re not confusing the vow of chastity that religiuos make with the virtue of chastity? The vow of chastity that we make is really continence.
Chastity acknowledges sex a gift and marvels in the awesomeness of the human body, its potential to generate life and its purpose in true love. The more deeply that we go into the meaning of chastity, the more capable we are of using our sexual gift according to God’s will for us and plan for salvation.
Actually, chastity is two-fold. It is part of the ancient decalogue and it is one of the three Evangelical Counsels. In neither case does chastity mean no sexual intercourse. It’s not about sexual intercourse, it’s about the dignity and purpose of human sexuality. Sexual intercourse is part of human life. In some people’s lives sexual intercourse may be a very important part of their chaste state.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m sorry, but I could not resist. I don’t know if brother is becoming fond of telling you. But reading through this thread, I’m beginning to believe that you’re fond of him telling you. The man is posting the documentation and you keep writing your version of theology. Don’t do that, you’ll only give yourself ulcers. Trust me, they hurt. Go with what the CCC says. If you want to see were the CCC is coming from, get the compendium. It tells you the sources behind each paragraph. In fact, the Brits have a very good compendium. I saw it the last time I was there, but I could not afford it. Your prices are outrageous over there.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
notredame_999
Guest
Council of Elvira- year 305-306
From Wikipedia:
Among the later canons, of especial note are canon 33, enjoining celibacy upon all clerics, married or not, and all who minister at the altar (the most ancient canon of clerical celibacy);
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Thank you but that was a local council and not binding upon the whole Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
STOP THE PRESS
Why is it that everytime you folks find a cleric or a religious who tells you what the Church says immediately jump to, “I disagree with Father, Sister, or Brother.”
Explain thsi to me.
The Church says, that only she has the authority to decide who is called and who is not. The Church says that Christ calls only through her.
If you disagree, then be honest and say, “Brother Jay told me what the Church says, but I DISAGREE WITH THE CHURCH AND WHAT SHE SAYS ABOUT HERSELF.”
It’s very easy to say that one disagrees with Brother, in order to avoid disagreeing with the Church. But it’s also dishonest and I’m getting tired of this game.
You either agree with what the Church says or you say that you disagree with the Church. Do not shoot down the people who are telling you what the Church says and sya that you disagree with them, but you are at peace with the Church and in full communion withher and everything that she says about herself. The fact ist hat you are not presenting yourself at peace with the Church on this issue. Otherwise, you would not have started at least three threads on this issue. The fact is that what you’re saying about being caled and what the Church says are not in agreement, but you won’t admit that you dissent.
This is bordering on silliness. If you’re not in communion with the Church on this point, say so and let’s move along.
The leadership of these seminaries has nothing to do with Christ calling. This is about admnistration and policies, not about calling.
There never was a binding teaching in the East or West that said that men or women had to abstain from sex before handling the Eucharist. You’re creating binding teachings. Even the Canons of Elmira were not binding teachings. They have been abrogated for hundred of years.
You’re going to give yourself ulcers and the rest of us are going to be blamed for it. I don’t want to be the blame for your ulcers. So please stick to milk.
Fraternally,
Btr. JR, OSF
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Without going into specifics it just does not relate to this thread.
Not too sure what your meaning is
Would never presume to do so. I am no theologian. I do struggle with getting my head around the fact that the sexual relations between a husband and wife constitute “chastity”; and, that the theological concept is at odds with the definition of the word in the Oxford Dictionary. It also confusing that I often see celibacy used as a synonym of chastity. To me celibacy is not being marriage which my knowledge of French reinforces in my mind as the word célibataire means bachelor.
I know my stomach is fine following the ordeal of a gastroscopy.
Tell me about it!
N
notredame_999
Guest
So you would agree that this council is binding on the latin church then?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Secular defintions do not always mesh with theological definitions.
What I have trouble getting my head around is the fact that I provided actual Church document, the Catechism, which contains the defintion of Chastity as used by the Catholic Church and you still told me I was wrong.
Once again though, words used in a theological context and/or used by the Church do not always match the secular definition of the same word.
E
estesbob
Guest
**2349 **“People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.” Married people are called to live conjugal chastity;
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137
J
joandarc2008
Guest
OK - Since Mr Holford since we seem in agreement that we are called to obey God’s law through Confirmation - and what we seem to be in disagreement on is the definition of Chasitity - I will take my definitions from the index in the CCC:
This is the word that the Secular Society such as the Oxford Dictionary seems to confuse mainly with Chastity:
*As the word integrated is used - I would say that this part of a larger proof that we are all whether Religious, single, or married called to Chastity.
This is the word that the Secular Society such as the Oxford Dictionary seems to confuse mainly with Chastity:
And now Br JR and Br David - but especially Br JR take a big sigh and say wow she can be taught.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Either that or the Vatican theologians are still thinking about it.Fair enough.
The distinction between discipline and doctrine isn’t always as clear-cut as I probably made it sound, inasmuch as the former is often based upon the latter. But since the issue here (and the focus of my comments) is not whether women can be priests, but whether they can be EMHCs, I stand by my initial point that if a doctrinal statement on the suitability of women to be EMHCs was required, it would already have been made. It hasn’t, hence the concern of the OP is unwarranted.
Best wishes.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I would be grateful if you would refrain from accusing me of things that I have not done. I have just taken the trouble to read the whole thread and at no point have I told you that you are wrong.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Indirectly you did.
After I posted paragraph from the Catechism pointing our your errooneous understanding of Chastity you posted a reply saying.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
I was just going to say the same thing Brother David - and while you did not use the words “You’re wrong.” statements like this when speaking to Religious are not helped just because you start them with Dear Brother-
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Dear Br. David I fail to see how you reach that conclusion. The second quote in you previous post was my response to another poster.
I give up!:bowdown:
I not not taking any further involvement in this thread.
A
Aramis
Guest
No. He acts in the person of Christ; or from another view, he acts as a bishop.
Originally, the bishop was the sole Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist.
Priests were Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, celebrating the divine liturgy (mass) only* in asbentia episcopus*… in the absence of the bishop.
The priests at that time required separate faculties to say the Liturgy; their inherent competency by ordination was solely to preach, teach, and distribute the Body of Christ.
Times have changed, but the priest is, when saying the Mass, still technically the bishop’s stand-in. He has become the ordinary minister of the Eucharist because it is no longer normative to have one parish per town. The bishop is never his own stand-in… he says the mass/liturgy by his own right as bishop of ___.
A
Aramis
Guest
No, you’re taking one of several definitions, and presuming it is the same one the church uses, when it is not.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Sorry, to be more clear, isn’t it the priest’s role to offer the Sacrifice? The Bishop, receiving the fullness of Holy Orders, can act as Priest or even Deacon, same as a Priest can act as a Deacon during Mass
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think this is a bottom up view of Holy Orders.
The Bishop has the fullness of Holy Orders. At one time in the Church there were only Bishops. Priests and Deacons act for a Bishop in some limited capacity, they derive their authority from that of the Bishop.
A Bishop acts as such at Mass, even when he is visiting a different diocese, he still vests as a Bishop if he is the celebrant or con-celebrant.
- Status