cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (09/14/90)
In article <Sep.9.01.36.06.1990.9836@athos.rutgers.edu> uriel@oak.circa.ufl.edu writes: >With all the Catholics that frequent this newsgroup, I'm sure someone is >bound to know: what churches are considered to be in full Communion with >Rome (i.e. able to participate in services, etc. as though one were a >Roman Catholic)? My (usually impecable) source for these kind of answers, _The_ _Catholic_ _Fact_ _Book_ by John Deedy (Thomas More Press, 1986) falls down on me for this question. (Or perhaps it's just indexed obscurly.) But it does contain two articles which answer the question indirectly. The first is on rites within the Church, and describes the Eastern rites and the groups each serves. The second is from an article on Patriarchs, and contains a list of uniate churches served by the Eastern Patriarchs. Eastern Rites: The Eastern Church has five principal rites, serving the Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian and Malabar Uniate Churches, with their more than 12-million communicants. The rites are as follows: * Byzantine Rite. This is the largest rite after the Latin or Roman Rite. It draws its name from the old city of Byzantium, later Constantinople, and now Instanbul, and is based on the rite of St. James of Jerusalem and the churches of Antioch. The rite was subsequently reformed by Saints Basil and John Chysostom. The rite embraces Catholic Uniate Bulgarians, Albanian, Byelorussians (White Russians), Georgians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italo-Albanians, Melkites, Romanians, Russians, Ruthenians (Carpatho-Russians), Slovaks, Ukranians (Galician Ruthenians), Yugoslavs, Serbs and Croations. * Alexandrian Rite. This rite draws its name from the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Certain of its liturgical forms are from the Byzantine Rite, while others derive from the liturgies of Saints Mark, Cyril and Gregory of Nazianzen. The rite comprises in the main Egyptian Copts and Ethiopian Uniates located in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somolia and Jerusalem. * Antiochene Rite. This rite features liturgies originally asso- ciated with the Patriarchate of Antioch, in what is now southern Turkey. Its beginnings are found in the eight book of the _Apostolic_ _Constitutions_, a 4th-Century collection of treatises on Christian worship, doctrine and discipline. The rite experi- ences development through the liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem. Members include Uniate Syrians, Maronites and Malankarese (of In- dia). * Armenian Rite. This rite embraces Uniate Armenians, and has jurisdiction in the Near East, Europe, Africa, the Americas and Austral-asia. The language of the rite is classical Armenian, but the liturgical form is that of the older Byzantine Rite, with in- corporations from the Antiochene Rite. * Chaldean Rite. This rite comprises the Chaldean Uniates descen- ded from Nestorians who returned to unity with Rome in the 17th Century, and Syro-Malabarese, descendants of Christians evangelized by St. Thomas in India. The Chaldeans are located across the Mid- dle East, Europe, the Americas and Africa; the Syro-Malabarese are located mainly in India's Malabar region. The liturgy derives from the Antiochene. With the exception of the Maronites, the Uniate communities are counterparts of separated Eastern Christian groups. The Maronites have been in communion with Rome since their community formed around monasteris founded by St. John Maro, a Syrian monk who died in the 5th Century. ... Patriarchs: ... The Eastern Rite patriarchs are those of Alexandria, for the Copts; three of Antioch, for the Syrians, Maronites and Greek and Catholic Melkites; of Babylonia, for the Chaldeans; and of Sis or Cicilia, for the Armenians. ... So... Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, and Armenian appear on both lists, but it's not clear to me what the relationship is between "Malabar and Byzantine" on the one list and "Greek and Catholic Melkites" on the other. And from the discussion of what rites go with what groups, it's clear that there are subdivisions as well. > ... considered to be in full Communion with >Rome (i.e. able to participate in services, etc. as though one were a >Roman Catholic)? I think your definition of "full Communion with Rome" has got some problems. Catholics-of-the-variety-in-full-Communion-with-Rome and Orthodox-of-the-variety-not-in-Communion-with-Rome are permitted (by Rome -- I'm not so sure about the Orthodox side of this) to worship together when the alternative would be not to worship at all. So, for example, a Greek family who are members of a uniate Church but live in an isolated village with only a Greek Orthodox parish would be allowed (indeed obligated) to go to Mass at the Orthodox parish and receive Communion, although they would be expected to worship in a uniate parish whenever possible. All of these groups except the Maronites were returning schismatics -- so each group has its own arrangement with Rome, and so it's hard to make generalizations about what is different or the same between the Latin Rite Catholics and the Eastern Rite(s) Catholics. All recognize the authority of the pope, but anything beyond that gets more complicated. -- Cathy Johnston # Like a dry and weary desert land, cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu # so my soul is thirsting for my God. # And my flesh is faint for the God I seek, # for your love is more to me than life.
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/25/90)
With all the Catholics that frequent this newsgroup, I'm sure someone is
bound to know: what churches are considered to be in full Communion with
Rome (i.e. able to participate in services, etc. as though one were a
Roman Catholic)?
To be in full communion with the Catholic Church means you're Catholic,
so that sort of shrinks the list (to the empty set).
The only thing I can think of is Catholics of the Eastern rites. They
have their own church buildings and their own bishops and clergy. They
are Catholic, but their customs and emphasis are somewhat different from
Roman-rite Catholics (the vast majority in this country). They typically
do not frequent Roman-rite Catholic Churches, but they are certainly
allowed to.
A year ago or so I attended a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic service to
get a better grasp of the Eastern rite liturgy. It was quite
interesting, much of it was in Old Slavonic. And they love to sing.
Joe Buehler (300 articles to go.)jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/27/90)
Cathy Johnston wrote:
So, for example, a Greek family who are members of a uniate Church but
live in an isolated village with only a Greek Orthodox parish would be
allowed (indeed obligated) to go to Mass at the Orthodox parish and
receive Communion, although they would be expected to worship in a
uniate parish whenever possible.
The Church has never allowed this in the Latin rite in the past, much
less obliged it. It's called "communicatio in sacris" (Communion in
sacred things) in Latin rite canon law, and used to carry an
excommunication.
I admit to unfamiliarity with Eastern canon law, but highly doubt that
something traditionally meriting an excommunication in the West is
obliged in the East.
Joe Buehlerwagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (10/03/90)
In article <Sep.18.05.05.53.1990.9640@athos.rutgers.edu>, mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > Within the USA, there is some level of > common communion between the anglicans and the lutherans. As long as we're making corrections, let me note that 'the lutherans' here should be 'some lutherans'. In the USA we have several different church bodies that call themselves 'lutheran'. The most widely known are the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which was formed a few years ago in a merger, and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS). The ELCA is generally regarded among Lutherans as 'liberal', and the LC-MS as 'conservative'. Despite these labels one can find conservative, orthodox christians, and less doctrinal types in either one. Whatever 'level of communion' exists between Anglicans and Lutherans on an official level would have to do with the ELCA, which is very much a part of the modern ecumenical trend. Besides the ELCA and LCMS which both number in the millions of souls, we also have the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)(about 400,000), the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)(50,000?), and the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC)(?). One might classify these church bodies as 'orthodox' as a loose comparison to 'reformed', 'conservative', and 'orthodox' Jews. I belong to the WELS. These churches used to be in full fellowship with the LC-MS, until about 1960, when it became clear that the LC-MS was going to tolerate historical criticism of the Bible. When the WELS exercised patience, and did not immediately break fellowship with the LC-MS, a small group of congregations broke off from the WELS and formed the CLC. A couple of years later, as it became clear that patience was being exercised in vain, the WELS and ELS broke fellowship with the LCMS. Subsequently the LCMS elected a conservative president, who tried to steer the LC-MS back to orthodoxy, but the main result of this has been 28 years of much-publicized strife in the LCMS. So much for a brief sketch of the state of Lutheranism in the USA. In the WELS we believe that you have either full fellowship on the basis of full doctrinal agreement, or none at all. The idea of a 'level of communion' makes no sense to us. If this seems cold and unloving to some, that is to be regretted. However it is more important to us to witness to the truth taught in the Bible, than to show false, deceitful, and misleading love by giving outward approval of someone's error. As the Lord said to Ezekiel: "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them a warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself." (Ezekiel 3:17-19) Also as Paul wrote in Romans 16:17,18: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they decieve the minds of naive people." And as Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, Article X: "We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a clear-cut confession of faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the enemies in such indifferent things [Adiaphora], as the apostle Paul writes, 'For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery' (Gal 5:11). 'Do not be mismated with unbelievers, for what fellowship has light with darkness?' (II Cor 6:14) 'To them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for you' (Gal 2:5) In such a case it is no longer a question of indifferent things, but a matter which has to do with the truth of the Gospel, Christian liberty, and the sanctioning of public idolatry, as well as preventing offense to the weak in faith. In all these things we have no concessions to make, but we should witness an unequivocal confession and suffer in consequence what God sends us and what he lets the enemies inflict on us." By these quotes I hope to have demonstrated (briefly) that according to the Scriptures, fellowship requires full doctrinal agreement. In addition, this is a very Lutheran doctrine. As a matter of experience, I would like to add my opinion that the WELS' practice regarding fellowship has really helped to spare us much of the strife that has hurt the LCMS, and is now afflicting the Southern Baptists. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "The Church shall never perish! Her dear Lord, to defend, to guide, sustain, and cherish, Is with her to the end. Tho' there be those that hate her, False sons within her pale, Against both foe and traitor She ever will prevail. "Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, 'How long?' And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song." --from "The Church's One Foundation" by Samuel Stone, 1866 My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (10/04/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.31.53.1990.14627@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Cathy Johnston wrote: > > So, for example, a Greek family who are members of a uniate Church but > live in an isolated village with only a Greek Orthodox parish would be > allowed (indeed obligated) to go to Mass at the Orthodox parish and > receive Communion, although they would be expected to worship in a > uniate parish whenever possible. > >The Church has never allowed this in the Latin rite in the past, much >less obliged it. It's called "communicatio in sacris" (Communion in >sacred things) in Latin rite canon law, and used to carry an >excommunication. > >I admit to unfamiliarity with Eastern canon law, but highly doubt that >something traditionally meriting an excommunication in the West is >obliged in the East. > >Joe Buehler Ok, let's start with a description of the rules... { begin quote } RELATIONS WITH THE BRETHREN OF THE SEPARATED CHURCHES { to cut down on my work and your boredom, I've not typed in sections 24, 25, 28 & 29... :-) Footnotes are original to the text. } 26. A mutual sharing in sacred things (_communicatio_ _in_ _sacris_), which runs counter to the unity of the Church, or which involves formal adhesion to error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and of indifferentism, is forbidden by the law of God. [31] However, with regard to our Eastern brethren, pastoral experience shows that various circumstances affecting individuals can and ought to be taken into account, where the unity of the Church is not harmed nor are there dangers to be guarded against, but where the need of salvation and the spiritual good of souls are prime considerations. Therefore, the Catholic Church, by reason of circumstances of time, place and persons, has often followed and still follows a less rigorous course of action, offering to all the means of salvation and a witness to charity among Christians, through the common sharing in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and things. In view of this, "lest we be an obstacle to the salvation of men through the harshness of our judgment," [32] and in order to further union with the Eastern Churches separated from us, the holy council has laid down the following lines of action: 27. In view of the principles just noted, Eastern Christians who are separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they are rightly disposed and make such request of their own accord, may be given the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Annointing of the Sick. Moreover, Catholics also may ask for those same sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose church there are valid sacraments, as often as necessity or true spiritual benefit recommends such action, and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. [33] [31] This doctrine is also held in the separated Churches. [32] St. Basil the Great, _Cononical_ _Letter_ _to_ _Amphilochius_, PG 32, 669 B. [33] As foundation for this moderation of the law are considered the following: (a) validity of the sacraments; (b) good faith and good disposition; (c) the necessity of eternal salvation; (d) the absence of one's own priest; (e) the exclusion both of the dangers to be avoided and of formal adhesion to error. DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC EASTERN CHURCHES Vatican II, _Orientalium_ _Ecclesiarum_, 21 November, 1964. { end quote } I think Joe misinterprets my paranthetical comment about obligation. A very fundamental characterization of Catholicism and of Catholics is a relationship with the Sacraments and the Eucharist in particular. What I was trying to set up in my example is a clear choice: for a Catholic to participate in the (valid) Eucharist of a separated Eastern church, or to be cut off from the Eucharist for long periods of time (months or years.) I'm assuming in my example that this participation in the Eucharist of a separated church is allowed under the qualifications set up here -- what I'm arguing is that the *nature* of being Catholic obliges a Catholic to celebrate the Sacraments. Clearly, individuals in these difficult circum- stances of "time, place and persons" are dispensed from *formal* obligations of worship -- but the formal obligations of worship are really there for the clueless. If you are Catholic, then this kind of circumstance is not some convenient excuse to "get out of" an obligation. It is a spiritual hardship, and a hardship precisely because the circumstances do not change your nature, and your nature as a Catholic still obliges you to the Sacra- ments. Which goes back to the original point I was trying to make -- to separate the narrow technicality of the phrase "in Communion with Rome" from the much broader implication of Catholicism as a state of being, of which "in Communion with the Eucharist" is probably a pretty good summation. ********** On a more personal note, this posting is perhaps a farewell. On Saturday, Oct. 6, I'm getting married, and my very-soon-to-be-husband's job will take us to Pittsburgh immediately post-honeymoon. Not knowing what the future will bring as far as net.access, this will be the last posting from me for a while, and perhaps forever. I've really enjoyed the year I've spent reading s.r.c. -- it's been thought-provoking and fun, and only occasionally infuriating :-) -- thank you all. Y'all are in my prayers. Yours in Christ, cathy :-) old: Cathy Johnston cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (This account could continue to exist for quite awhile -- until accidentally deleted, or a new regime outlaws guest accounts and then gets around to getting rid of them.) (cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet is the same account for bitnet users.) new: Cathy Fasano c/o Chris Fasano, fasano@tabakin.phyast.pitt.edu fasano@anlphy.phy.anl.gov fasano@anlphy.bitnet
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/21/90)
David Wagner writes: >As long as we're making corrections, let me note that 'the lutherans' >here should be 'some lutherans'. Agreed; the agreements cover only the ELCA. >In the WELS we believe that you have either full fellowship on the basis >of full doctrinal agreement, or none at all. The idea of a 'level of >communion' makes no sense to us. If this seems cold and unloving to some, >that is to be regretted. Doctrinal purity is all well and good, if it be so pure. AND if all agree to it. I dispute the reality of both the purity and the agreement. >However it is more important to us to witness to the truth taught in the >Bible, than to show false, deceitful, and misleading love by giving outward >approval of someone's error. That is not what Jesus taught. Also, I dispute the notion that intercommunion *necessarily* means approval. Anglican churches, as a rule, invite ALL baptized to partake of communion, regardless of denomination (within limits, but they are extremely wide). This represents no apporval at all other than that of the validity of baptism-- and if Wisconsin and Missouri care to dissent to this on the basis of doctrinal differences, they have just declared their own baptisms invalid: after all, their chain of baptisms passes through Rome, as with the other protestants. Even the agreement between the PECUSA and the ELCA represents only limited approval. By anglicans standards, ECLA ordinations are not "valid" because Lutheran "bishops" do not really fulfill the proper functions (not to mention apostolic succession). In spite of this "error", we have communion with them. The intransigence of certain bodies is not necessary. It is a policy decision. Likewise, Anglican freedom is also a policy decision. Frankly, I'll take charity over certainty, if only because the latter is a phantom. >By these quotes I hope to have demonstrated (briefly) that according to >the Scriptures, fellowship requires full doctrinal agreement. In addition, >this is a very Lutheran doctrine. Well, I disagree with your interpretation. In the anglican churches we make a distinction between essential points and lesser points, a distinction which I do not see ruled out by any of the scriptures cited. Indeed, the kind of universal language implied by the Concord is conspicuously lacking from the biblical passages. And (should anyone doubt it it) I am not particularly impressed by the Lutheran character of such intransigence. Rome and Constantinople are similarly intransigent (at least officially). -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."