>
>However, is it conceivable that the 'conhospitae' and their administration
>of the chalice (and whatever other duties they might have performed) were
>survivals of earlier Christian practice imported into the 'Celtic' West
from
>elsewhere in Christendom and then left stranded, as it were, by later
>developments?
>
I think this is entirely possible and, indeed, the most likely explanation.
There are a lot of references in patristic sources to liturgical practices
that clearly never made it into the dominant traditions, and often these
involved the participation of women. Most of the sources are disapproving
and downright condemnatory so it is hard to discern what was really going
on. But the Breton example sounds compatible with the reference from
Irenaeus of Lyons (late 2nd century) against Marcion who celebrated the
Eucharist with a female partner. Skipping over the centuries, Gregory the
Great tried to prohibit women in his own neighborhood from handling sacred
vessels and entering the sanctuary. As late as the 10th century, Queen
Mathilda of Germany was in the habit of bringing the bread and wine to the
priest on the altar (apparently as an acolyte of some sort). In that case,
the information comes from her Vita and appears as a miracle story where a
deer who had somehow stolen the ampoule she used returned it in time for the
consecration. I think we should simply accept that in a lot of places,
particularly out-of-the-way places, people probably developed ceremonial
practices which were not approved by the hierarchy but which need not be
attributed to pagan practices, goddess worship, or heresy.
Jo Ann
|