I took a course in Catholicism years ago and it was explained to me that the only person who can consecrate the host is a priest. That is the whole point of being a priest and what sets him apart. The communion ceremeony is also the whole point of the mass. A deacon can do everything else and even preside over a mass providing the host has already been consecrated by a priest.This is done on occasion when a priest is not available. MAny other sacraments can be done by non priests such as baptism. In fact, in emergencies, non-Catholics can baptize. My sister is a nurse and when she worked with newborns, she had to learn the formula as part of her instruction as did all nurses.This was at a Mormon nursing school, BTW. If things were changed in the Catholic church to the point that a woman or other non priest could consecrate the host, there would be no need for priests per se and the church would no longer be recognized as Catholic. The only way women would be allowed to preside over communion would be if they were ordained priests as they are in the Episcopal church
Priests are also responsible for daily recitation of the principal and minor offices of the Liturgy of the Hours.[27] Catholic priests are the only ministers of the Sacrament of Penance[28] and Anointing of the Sick.[29] They are the only ones who can celebrate the Eucharist in the Catholic Church [30] (not to be confused with distribution of Communion by deacons or extraordinary ministers). They, together with deacons, are the ordinary ministers of Baptism and witnesses to Holy Matrimony

Here is a section from Wiki describing the duties of priests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 09:18PM by bona dea.

It is CHERYL that is making that claim.

Take it up with CHERYL.

And again, the Catholic Church can change the nature of the role of priests even though you claim to have taken a class about Catholicism. The role and nature of Catholic Priests has changed in the past, it can change again, as can Mass.

But again those are comments within the context of CHERYL'S claims about women presiding over communion, not MY claim.

Please, Bona, do be critical of the RIGHT PERSON. If you are going to be critical of the claim that women are presiding over communion, then you need to be critical of CHERYL, NOT ME.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 10:01PM by MJ.

You said the church could change and turn it over to women and that it was a a rite you thought priests would be happy to do so.I think that is highly unlikely and that was the point. I know what you said and what Cheryl said, thank you. Women do help distribute communion. Cheryl can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what she meant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 10:43PM by bona dea.

What you think unlikely does not govern the Church. One can study the early church and see that the RCC has already made changes that make it unrecognizable to its origins.

We do not need to have Cheryl correct us for anything, we can search back and see here original claim.

"Last time I attended a Catholic funeral, a women officiated communion"

"Officiated communion" is WHAT WAS SAID and that is the terms in which I addressed my comment. I addressed my comment TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. I am NOT GUESSING that she meant something other that what was said, that sort of nonsense I leave to you.

And if Cheryl was so unclear as to mean something different than what she said, then BITCH AT HER FOR BEING UNCLEAR. Don't bitch at me for responding to the wording she actually wrote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 10:49PM by MJ.

I am discussing your statement with you. Cheryl is a different subject and I agree she was a bit unclear, but several posters already corrected her.I think that is a dead issue. As far as whether the Catholic church could change their rules on who officiates in communion, I said it was unlikely.They could also give up communion entirely and stop worshipping Jesus, but I am not holding my breath. I never said it was impossible that non priests could officiate at communion but I'm not waiting with baited breath for that to happen either.. Also, I have been civil with you which is a lot more than you have been with me.You seem to want to start a fight and I am not interested. I guess I should have known better. Anyway, good bye

My statement was in DIRECT RESPONSE to the statement "Last time I attended a Catholic funeral, a women officiated communion". There would be no reason for me to have made a statement about communion without Cheryl's statement. To try to take what I said out of that context is to try to change the meaning of what was said.

I don't care what you think unlikely, The RCC has already changed many, many times. The RCC has changed many times to adapt to changes in society. It will change again. What that change is or how it happens nobody can say.

But in regards to woman officiating communion, CHERYL'S claim not mine, Just giving women the ability to "officiate communion" (Cheryl's words not mine) would not give women any more power.

Again, Cheryl made a SPECIFIC CLAIM, I responded to that claim, IF Cheryl's claim is false TAKE IT UP WITH CHERYL.

My point is, WHATEVER "officiating" woman do over communion, whatever it was that Cheryl saw, gives them NO POWER.

I AM NOT MAKING CLAIMS THAT WOMEN DO OFFICIATE OVER COMMUNION. Please re-read that until it sinks in.

I am Claiming that whatever Cheryl saw GIVES NO POWER to women.

I am also claiming that IF the RCC does find a way to give women the ability to "officiate" over communion without giving them the priesthood (however unlikely that may or may not be), women would still have no power.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 12:01AM by MJ.

ANd where did I say that you said women officiated at this moment in time? Geez!, MJ, I know Cheryl said that and I know what you said. What part of that do you not get?

What PROBLEM, EXACTLY, do you have with what I have said?

My last post was nothing but a reiteration of my original point.

Whatever it was that Cheryl say gives NO POWER TO WOMEN.

So, where is your beef for going on and on as you have?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 01:54AM by MJ.

Perhaps you could read the thread again and figure it out.

All I see is you bitching because I used CHERYL'S Terminology.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 02:06AM by MJ.

in what ways has the RCC changed the role of the priest in the past. I know the RCC very well (more than a class) and agree with everything bona dea said in her first post. Priests are responsible for the same things they were 1000 years ago. What has changed about "the role and nature of the Catholic priest"?

Thanks. I agree except that originally priests could marry. Apparently, to MJ everything I say is unsubtantiated opinion and everything he says is true. Whatever? He can believe what he likes.

Funny, I thought the RCC was over 2000 years old.

Well, priests haven't been allowed to marry since the early middle ages, so that's about 1000 years. Granted, there have been changes along those lines, but:

The essential function of the priest is to offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

The RCC will NEVER find a way to "pass this off" to women without ordaining women priests.

I know you already know this, bona dea...it's more for MJ and as an anon poster I can't edit my posts.

I don't think he "gets" the Catholic priesthood and how different it is from any other. Not worth arguing over; we've made our points. Thank you for promoting accuracy!

If you stick around long enough, you will see that MJ isn't big on logic or even carefully reading posts and he is always right. I knew you were talking to him, but I thought I would mention the one way things have changed before MJ googled it and started arguing about it, but I agree the basic idea of the mass and consecration hasn't changed in 1000 years even if some other teachings have. What it was like in the time of the apostles is an unknown.

I see we ALL are in agreement, the RCC priesthood HAS CHANGED. Where Celibacy was NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT, it is very important NOW. Many people blame the RCC's current child molestation problem on this important change in the priesthood. This important change in the priesthood has lead to devastating consequences to untold numbers of families and children.

Thanks for pointing out a specific example important change to the priesthood.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 02:08AM by MJ.

But the basic purpose of a priest has not changed and the difference is that you think it might and I think it is highly unlikely. I hope that is clear enough for you. Celibacy came about for economic reasons. The church didn't want to support a priest's family or have him leave his property to them.

Because you want to claim that celibacy in the preisolated should somehow be discounted so you can stick with your claims is pathetic.

It is a substantive change that has had devastating affects.

We already have decided that the spiritual view, the spiritual definition, of what a priest is and is not has changed. The spiritual definition of a priest can change again.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 02:16AM by MJ.

Celibacy has nothing to do with the powers of a priest.Its economic reasons are well documented. Look it up. Good night.

Celibacy is a critical part of the priesthood, it is critical to the definition of what a current catholic priest IS. The pope defends celebrity as critical to the priesthood.

But that definition of what a priest is HAS CHANGED. The definition of what a Priest is can change again.

To dismiss important changes in the priesthood is pathetic, bona, even for you.

You might not be aware than in some cases, married priests are allowed. Therefore, being celibate isn't absolutely necessary to function as a priest. If it were, there could be no exxceptions.For instance, if a priest in a church which allows married priests, such as Anglican, converts to Catholicism and is married, he can still be a priest and is not required to give up his marriage.

So, now it's not?

Which is it?

So, why aren't you bitching at Anon nevermo who claims "priests haven't been allowed to marry since the early middle ages". Ah, that's right, you have a personal vendetta going.

Another possible explanation for the origins of obligatory celibacy revolves around more practical reason, "the need to avoid claims on church property by priests' offspring".[15] It remains a matter of Canon Law (and oftentimes a criterion for certain religious orders, especially Franciscans) that priests do not own land and therefore cannot pass it on to legitimate or illegitimate children. The land belongs to the Church through the local diocese as administered by the Local Ordinary, or Bishop.



What the heck. Here is a paragraph from Wiki.

Celibacy is CANON, um, now. But it wasn't before?

The point you make about canon only validates the importance of the change, it represents a core belief and should not be dismissed as you do.

>>> the only person who can consecrate the host is a priest

There is a class of Catholic clergy that some may not be familiar with: brothers. They have less doctrinal training, cannot function as priests, etc, but do serve as teachers, missionaries, clinicians, etc. They typically take vows of poverty, chastity & obedience, and "enlist" for life.

Examples: Christian Brothers, Jesuit Brothers, Xaverian Brothers.

The defunct Palatine Brothers of Baltimore got into hot water for soliciting charitable contributions which were then used to fund a (somewhat) grand lifestyle. The stink caught the attention of the Vatican, and the order was disbanded.

(3X waxing Catholic this AM)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 10:19AM by 3X.

MJ, you ALWAYS attack without provocation. You are an angry person and it is time you stop being of the offensive and READ what is written before you go on the attack. Every time I read your posts I shake my head. You need anger management bad.

Go back and read your replies to several threads. You have issues dude. I am staying anon because I do not wish to start a fight with you but really you are anal retentive and argue about anal retentive subjects. Is that really necessary? Is it possible to have a civil discussion with you without you "shouting" and insulting and arguing with whomever you have a bone to pick with that day? I'm a regular reader of this site and you always come at people in anger. I have seen it for years now. Stop already. It makes for uncomfortable reading and long fights for no reason. A lot of us don't like it.

Or are you just another Bona resorting to Ad Hominem when you lose a debate?

BTW, if you do go back and read the thread, you will find that it was Bona that started with making personal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:55PM by MJ.

At the risk of being flamed here, I'm going to jump in with a couple of relevant observations.

Whatever may have occurred in the past and may at some point occur in the future, at the present time only a priest can consecrate communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I am pretty certain this is also the case in the Orthodox versions of Catholicism. It is clear that others can SERVE the communion after it has been consecrated.

Recently I attended the funeral service of a co-worker in a Catholic church. A mass was not allowed because she had committed suicide. No priest was present. The deacon who conducted the service announced that a priest had prepared communion in advance. It was brought in from outside the sanctuary, and he served it to those who wanted it.

On another occasion many years ago, a good Catholic friend of mine told me the heartbreaking story of her mother baptizing a miscarried fetus. I inquired as to her authority to conduct a baptism, but my friend informed me that anyone using proper form can conduct a baptism. This was of course, in conflict with my Mormon teachings.

en passant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the risk of being flamed here, I'm going to
> jump in with a couple of relevant observations.
>
> Whatever may have occurred in the past and may at
> some point occur in the future, at the present
> time only a priest can consecrate communion in the
> Roman Catholic Church.

And despite the rantings if a few here, I have never claimed different. I did use Cheryl's term in order to address what she claimed she saw. She claimed a woman "officiated" over communion. I was not clear as to what that meant so I used HER terminology to address what she claimed. As you stated, there are ways that this sort of "officiating" can happen, but it still GIVES NO POWER TO WOMEN and in no way shape or form elevates them within the RCC. Of course, that was my point all along.

It also seems clear that those of those same few that they don't understand that my claiming the RCC could change to allow women to officiate over communion was more a RHETORICAL supposition than anything else. I claimed that such changes were possible, but that does not mean I think they will ever happen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 05:02PM by MJ.