Ask-A-Catholic

[CSloan]

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).

We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God’s faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church ‘a kingdom, priests for his God and Father’" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the ‘common priesthood of all the faithful.’ Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God’s people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

blessings

I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.

If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.

blessings

Sounds like the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-13.

[kensington]

Mellevar...  (SP)

You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.

[ravenlorre]

Quote from: CSloan on August 27, 2007, 03:47:05 PM
Catholic rosary always reminded me of buddhists prayer beads.

They both practices have uncanny similarities. The buddhists count beads and chant mantras, while the catholics count beads and repeat prayers.

This post is from another thread, but it didn't fit the topic, so I thought I would continue the conversation over here.

Yes, on the surface the practice of praying the Rosary and the practice of Buddhist meditation, using beads, does look similar; however, after you understand the two types of prayer, it is easy to see the difference.

Praying the Rosary involves praying to Mary in order to ask her to pray for us / repeating the Lord's prayer / meditating on the life of Christ and our hope for resurrection.  The Rosary is mostly based on verses from the Bible.  The purpose of the Rosary is the same as all Christian prayer - to spend time with God / make requests / share our fears and failures / adoration of God / requests for Him to interact in our lives in a powerful way / etc.

Praying as a Buddhist involves focusing on emptiness; attempting to empty yourself of emotions and desires that impede your progress to Nirvana.  It is the opposite goal - meditation for the purpose of emptying yourself and being absorb into the great nothingness.  Conversely, Christian prayer is asking God to fill us up with His love and presence.

So, I suppose the use of beads in prayer is one practice Catholics share with Buddhists, Muslims, and Jewish mystics.  Since we are looking at surface similarities - the Christian practice of worshiping in a building has a lot in common with Muslims, Buddhists and Jewish followers, as well.

Finally, since when does repeating a prayer constitute repeating a mantra?  Does this apply to the repetition of praise songs during Evangelical worship services?  Some of the services I have attended required the congregation to repeat the same verse of the worship song for 20 minutes - the average Rosary prayer takes about 15 minutes at most.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).

We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

blessings

I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.

If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.

blessings

Sounds like the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-13.

Hmm....sounds to me like you are trying to fit Catholicism into the same category as the Pharisees.  It is easy to label a person or organization when you only rely on your preconceived notions - I was there too, so I understand - I just pray that you become truly educated about the Catholic Church before you choose to criticize it.  I challenge you to go and talk with a priest or read some material that isn't written for the purpose of bashing the church.  The Catholic Catechism is always a great source - so is "Catholicism" by McBrien.

When I wanted to understand Mormonism, for example - I went right to the source - I read all the scripture, talked to as many knowledgeable Mormons as I possible could, and avoided bias authors/materials like The Godmakers and James White's ministries.  After my own research I felt equipped to form an informed, measured opinion about the LDS Church. 

blessings

[janine]

Mellevar...  (SP)

You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.

Who says?

[janine]

Whether you see the thousands of years of added, un-inspired men's traditions as something nice -- like the many glowing layers that build up to make a pearl --

Or as something neutral, or even as something nasty -- encrusted dung, anyone? --

The thing is, it's added, it's of Man and not of God.  Some of us will be glad to look at tradition in the same useful light as any other cultural, historical factor -- but it does not in any way hold the weight of Scripture.

[DCR]

Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...

I have to ask... why not go straight to the source?  Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?  It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.  It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).

And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us.  If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you."  But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).

If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself.  So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?

And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us.  But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

[CSloan]

Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...

I have to ask... why not go straight to the source?  Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?  It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.  It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).

And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us.  If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you."  But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).

If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself.  So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?

And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us.  But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?

[DCR]

Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?

Maybe... which is another reason why I'm uncomfortable contacting them, even if we are asking them to pray for us.

[ravenlorre]

Whether you see the thousands of years of added, un-inspired men's traditions as something nice -- like the many glowing layers that build up to make a pearl --

Or as something neutral, or even as something nasty -- encrusted dung, anyone? --

The thing is, it's added, it's of Man and not of God.  Some of us will be glad to look at tradition in the same useful light as any other cultural, historical factor -- but it does not in any way hold the weight of Scripture.

Well, if the best thing you can say about sacred Tradition, inspired by God; is that it is "nice" at best and un-inspired "man-dung" at worst - I am not sure we really have much to talk about.

Here are a few question for you - where did the Church go between the death of the last Apostle and the Reformation?  Where did the NT come from?  Why is it so easy for Protestants to believe in an infallible book, written by thousands of men or thousands of years, but not a Church that defended Christianity from heresies like the Arian, Gnostic, Montanisn, Cathar, and Jainism movement for the past 2,000 years, and development doctrine all Christians use to day like the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation?  It is a real mystery to me.

blessings

[mllevaleur]

Mellevar...  (SP)

You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.

Mm...no, that's incorrect.

Now, they may have already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.

But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).

[mllevaleur]

Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...

I have to ask... why not go straight to the source? 

Oh don't misunderstand, we don't pray to saints INSTEAD of praying directly to the source. We do it IN ADDITION to praying directly to the source. The more people praying for us, the better!

And even more, scriptures tell us that the prayers of a righteous person avails much. Scripture also tells us that no unclean thing can enter heaven, so those in heaven have been cleansed and purified and are about as righteous and holy as you're going to find. Therefore, asking those righteous people in heaven to pray for us avails much.

Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?

See above.

It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.

We believe that God allows departed Christians to hear the prayers of those on Earth. So it's not that they have power in and of themselves, it's that God gave them the ability to hear and see Christians on earth. They are outside of time and space, after all, so it's not really all that big of a deal.  

It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).

No, whether or not you agree that it's the same as asking someone on earth to pray for you, the fact is, for us it is the same. You ask a saint to pray for you for the same reason you would ask friends and family to pray for you, in addition to praying to God yourself. If that's asking friends and family to "tap God on the shoulder" as some kind of insurance in case God doesn't hear your prayers, then so is asking saints to pray for us.

And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us.  If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you."  But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).

Well that's completely understandable! The thing is, though, there's a chain of faith here that Catholics have which others are missing. We have faith saints can hear us because the Church says so, and we have faith the Church is correct because we believe Christ promised His Church that He would guide her into all truth, and so we trust that the Holy Spirit has guided His Church into truth on this matter as well.  I agree, it does take faith, but so do many other teachings of Christ.

If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself.  So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?

As I said before, it's not the either/or type situation you seem to imply here. I both pray to God, and ask others (on earth and in heaven) to pray for me.

And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us.  But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

Indeed!

[ravenlorre]

Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...

I have to ask... why not go straight to the source?  Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?  It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.  It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).

And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us.  If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you."  But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).

If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself.  So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?

And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us.  But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

1.  Catholics usually pray straight to God.  We also pray with the Body - this includes those who are not separated from God by death - the saints.  It is often times comforting to pray in a group, rather than praying alone.

2.  I do not believe that God is more likely to hear a saints prayer than my own, but I do believe fully sanctified saints have a perfect relationship with Him and I am a work in progress.

3.  I think we are unable to conceive of Heavenly things with our created brains - who knows how saints can hear us or manage or prayers - all I know is that death does not separate us from them - we are all still part of the Body of Christ.

4.  Yes, it takes faith to believe that saints can hear us, but we are supposed to be people of faith and it takes faith to believe in God / Heaven / Hell / the Resurrection of Christ / and life after death so it kind of comes with the territory.  It also takes faith to trust that your friend really will pray for you, no matter what he or she tells you - I could ask you the same question, why not cut out the middle man and go right to the sorce?

5.  Revelation speaks of the prayers of the saints:

5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

8:3  Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.

6.  I think praying to the saints is a minor point - even for Catholics so I have no problem agreeing to disagree.

Thanks for the discussion.

blessings

[mllevaleur]

Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?

Maybe... which is another reason why I'm uncomfortable contacting them, even if we are asking them to pray for us.

Nope, big difference.

With necromancy, you're trying to summon spirits to communicate (as in a 2-way communication) with the dead.

We don't expect spirits to start coming down and talking to us when we ask a saint to pray for us.

For that matter, Jesus is a human being who died as well...if simply "talking" to a dead person (without expecting a spirit to come talk back or do your bidding) is considered necromancy, then talking to Jesus would be the same.

Now, if you want to tell the grieving daughter that her little "chats" with her recently deceased mother while staring at her picture is considered necromancy, go right ahead. But I believe there's a world of difference between "talking to" someone who has died, and expecting them to come back and talk to you.

[ravenlorre]

Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...

I have to ask... why not go straight to the source?  Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?  It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.  It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).

And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us.  If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you."  But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).

If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself.  So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?

And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us.  But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?

Catholics pray to the living - it is nothing like conjuring the dead to ask them to tell us our fortunes.  You could ask Jesus the same thing during His Transfiguration:

Matthew 17:3
3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

blessings

[kensington]

Mellevar...  (SP)

You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.

Mm...no, that's incorrect.

Now, they may have already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.

But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).

Nope.. My husband was the protestant layleader for the Chaplain's office of the Atlantic fleet for four years, He met often with the Chaplain of the Atlantic fleet, (A Rabbi) and the Catholic layleader who was under him on the ship. We together have gone to get the things they needed, and when they are underway, the layleader does not have a priest available.

The Catholic layleader on a ship does everything a priest does, except marry.  There is no priest on a ship that has a layleader, because the ship is too small to warrant having its own chaplain, they fall under the authority of the Chaplain of the fleet. And he was a Rabbi.

Makes for a good joke.. AAYY??  The Rabbi, the Catholic, and the Protestant, went to the religious shop to buy wafers?  But, it's true.

[janine]

So kensington, you're saying your husband has at times passed off bread, that no priest had been able to get at, as if it had been consecrated by a priest?  Doesn't he know he's not part of the Apostolic Succession?  Hmmm...

So, ravenlorre and mllevaleur, you're saying it's OK to pray to dead people because they are not really dead? 

Or is it OK because they are really alive, even though they are dead, because they are with God... as in "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"... So pray to dead people all you want. Just so long as they do not answer you.

But dead people who were really alive came to talk back to Jesus at the Transfiguration... So it must be OK to have two-way conversations with dead people.  Excuse me, alive people.  Who have been dead.  But not really.

But only do it up on a hillside with disciples watching and making silly observations about building shelters for the dead visitors.  If you go to some cave in Endor to talk to dead people who may or may not sort of be somewhat dead but really more or less alive actually -- that's when you get in trouble.  Yes?

[DCR]

Hmm.. Janine... maybe this is some kind of OT/NT thing, where communication with the dead (one-way or two-way ) was only prohibited under the Law of Moses.  But, in the New Testament age, maybe we now have the liberty to do it? 

Could that be?   

[don has a plan]

I've stood at my grandmother's grave and spoken to her, as if she were there.  I know--and I don't need anyone else's validation or invalidation--that she hears me.  I've done the same many times at my grandfather's grave. 

To me, that is the same as speaking to the saints who have passed on and asking them to pray for me.  You must have an understanding of the Communion of Saints in order to adequately participate in a discussion on intercession.  It's clear that understanding is lacking here.

It's not necromancy.  If you don't know the correct definition of necromancy, look it up.  We really shouldn't use big words to make false accusations when we obviously don't even know what the words mean, should we?

Comparisons to Pharisees?  Oh, you mean legalists?  I know plenty of legalists, and none of them are Catholic.  Give me a break.  I continue to be amazed at the depths some folks will go to in order to discredit something they don't like.

[kensington]

"So kensington, you're saying your husband has at times passed off bread, that no priest had been able to get at, as if it had been consecrated by a priest?  Doesn't he know he's not part of the Apostolic Succession?  Hmmm"

No Janine, read again... My husband was the PROTESTANT Layleader, he didn't do anything in the Mass on the ship.  But, He was the Head layleader and oversaw all the religions on the SHIP, and worked with and helped the Catholic layleader to train and prepare to be the Catholic Layleader on the ship.  BOTH worked under the authority of the Head CHaplain's office, and He was a Rabbi. 

No my husband didn't give Communion to Catholics, the Catholic Layleader did. But, my husabnd says having a priest involved was not required. 

I even asked him last night, after posting that to make sure I was being accurate as to what I know he had told me before.  This is His 3rd time as the Head Layleader a ship.  He actually is in on the deciding process to choose who will be the Catholic layleader.  He himself was chosen by the Head Chaplain with the Fleet. 

[mllevaleur]

Mellevar...  (SP)

You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.

Mm...no, that's incorrect.

Now, they may have already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.

But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).

Nope.. My husband was the protestant layleader for the Chaplain's office of the Atlantic fleet for four years, He met often with the Chaplain of the Atlantic fleet, (A Rabbi) and the Catholic layleader who was under him on the ship. We together have gone to get the things they needed, and when they are underway, the layleader does not have a priest available.

The Catholic layleader on a ship does everything a priest does, except marry.  There is no priest on a ship that has a layleader, because the ship is too small to warrant having its own chaplain, they fall under the authority of the Chaplain of the fleet. And he was a Rabbi.

Makes for a good joke.. AAYY??  The Rabbi, the Catholic, and the Protestant, went to the religious shop to buy wafers?  But, it's true.

Ok then, I don't doubt that what you said happened, but according to official Church teaching, that is not a valid (nor licit) Eucharist. There simply must be a priest involved. If laypeople just decided to do it themselves (which basically seems this is what is happening in this case) then it still isn't valid. Perhaps the rabbi who was in charge and the layperson who did the "consecrating" weren't aware of that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

I asked a Catholic friend whose husband was in the navy, and she said he was in charge of the Eucharist himself. He took already consecrated hosts on board, kept them safe, and distributed them. But he never did any consecrating himself. That's what I've heard is most common. If someone is trying to consecrate hosts himself, according to Church teaching, nothing happens to the hosts, they don't become consecrated, and it's simply invalid.

Also, the definition of a "lay leader" (from About.com, obviously not an authoritative source but it's what first popped up) says:

Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.

[kensington]

Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.



This is just what I said.  They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty.  Extra.  They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them.  He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it.  It is a layperson.  I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.

And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.
But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?

Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared.  The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.

My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.

But, they still can't marry anyone.

[kensington]

Nevermind... I'll go ask Brother Bruce (Parish Priest) I suppose, we have discussed things like this before.

He told my husband.. "I like her attitude, she is a joy to talk to, she is not afraid of the WORD." LOL. 

I asked him what I may call him, since I am not Catholic, and I can't in clear conscience call him "Father"...  My sil, insisted.. "His name is "FATHER BRUCE"... He just smiled, "You can call me Bruce."

I call him brother Bruce.  LOL. He'll give me the answer to what I am asking. Thanks anyway. 

[janine]

I've stood at my grandmother's grave and spoken to her, as if she were there.  I know--and I don't need anyone else's validation or invalidation--that she hears me.  I've done the same many times at my grandfather's grave. 

To me, that is the same as speaking to the saints who have passed on and asking them to pray for me.  You must have an understanding of the Communion of Saints in order to adequately participate in a discussion on intercession.  It's clear that understanding is lacking here.

It's not necromancy.  If you don't know the correct definition of necromancy, look it up.  We really shouldn't use big words to make false accusations when we obviously don't even know what the words mean, should we?

Comparisons to Pharisees?  Oh, you mean legalists?  I know plenty of legalists, and none of them are Catholic.  Give me a break.  I continue to be amazed at the depths some folks will go to in order to discredit something they don't like.

Nobody says you need any permission or validation to go talk to your loved ones at the graveyard.  But I don't think they are there.

And it's a tongue-in-cheek thing to call it necromancy when you're talking to Great-Aunt Martha and asking her to please ask Jesus to see what He can do about your problem(s).

[broach972]

Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.



This is just what I said.  They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty.  Extra.  They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them.  He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it.  It is a layperson.  I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.

And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.
But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?

Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared.  The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.

My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.

But, they still can't marry anyone.

There is only one way to settle this debate--Canon Law.  I shall do some research.  However, I believe that Mllevaleur is right...only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist.

[broach972]

According to Canon Law:


Can.  900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

With that said, there is a section on Chaplains, and military chaplains are governed by special laws.  However, I cannot see that a layperson would be allowed to consecrate the bread and the wine and it be a valid Eucharist.

[mllevaleur]

Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.


This is just what I said.  They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty.  Extra.  They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them.  He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it.  It is a layperson.  I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.

And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication because of the Catholic understanding that certain things, besides just marriage, are reserved for the ordained clergy. Under the bolded part above, under the title of "other activities" we would include consecrating the Eucharist, as well as the sacrament of reconciliation (confession), as well as confirmation, and sacraments such as these. These are reserved for the ordained clergy according to Church teaching. So as a Catholic, when I read that, I see a statement saying, a lay leader may not (indeed, according to canon law, CAN not) consecrate the Eucharist. And that's what I was attempting to point out in the definition.

But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?

Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared.  The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.

My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.

But, they still can't marry anyone.

If there aren't any already consecrated hosts left, and there are no priests to consecrate them, then  no, there simply won't be any Eucharist. Christ will surely be with them in spirit if they desire the Eucharist, but no lay person can validly consecrate the host.

[kensington]

No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...

Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce.  Leave it at that.

[mllevaleur]

No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...

Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce.  Leave it at that.

I'm glad you'll be asking a priest, I was simply trying to explain what I was saying as there was obviously some miscommunication.

[DCR]

No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...

Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce.  Leave it at that.

And, just so we're clear, I don't think they're saying that a priest has to be present in order for the Eucharist to be valid.  It's just that the elements had to have been consecrated by a priest.

So, a "layleader" or non-ordained chaplain apparently may be able to administer communion, as long as the elements being given were consecrated beforehand... if I understand what our Catholic posters are saying.

[mllevaleur]

No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...

Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce.  Leave it at that.

And, just so we're clear, I don't think they're saying that a priest has to be present in order for the Eucharist to be valid.  It's just that the elements had to have been consecrated by a priest.

So, a "layleader" or non-ordained chaplain apparently may be able to administer communion, as long as the elements being given were consecrated beforehand... if I understand what our Catholic posters are saying.

Yep, you've got it!   

[Mere Nick]

According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests.  "Royal" priests, actually.

[mllevaleur]

According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests.  "Royal" priests, actually.

Is this a question? There wasn't a question mark...I'll pretend there was.

I'm talking about the ministerial priesthood, the one that requires the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I do believe we've covered this topic in this very thread already, though...and indeed we have! Why don't you take a look to gain a better understanding of how Catholics see the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood.

I'll add a quote (source here) that might explain a bit more as well:

What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly.

Thanks for your question about how Catholics view the priesthood, hope that explains it. 

[Mere Nick]

According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests.  "Royal" priests, actually.

Is this a question? There wasn't a question mark...I'll pretend there was.

I'm talking about the ministerial priesthood, the one that requires the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I do believe we've covered this topic in this very thread already, though...and indeed we have! Why don't you take a look to gain a better understanding of how Catholics see the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood.

I'll add a quote (source here) that might explain a bit more as well:

What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly.

Thanks for your question about how Catholics view the priesthood, hope that explains it. 

Thanks for trying to explain it, though I don't see what Paul's ministry, as described in Romans 15:14-16 has to do with whether or not there is a priesthood of all believers and some sort of super dooper level above that.  Paul wasn't there with them in Rome when he wrote the letter to them and it seems the folks there could handle all aspects of communion without Paul having to be around.

[mllevaleur]

All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.

It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it.