When it is stated that one is in Communion with the Church, what exactly does that mean? Does that simply mean embracing the one true Catholic Faith, and by so doing being in communion with all the other members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and all this under the one visible head, the Pope, with Our Lord Jesus Christ being the Invisible Head? Are there any documents that I can read that can give greater clarity on this?
I think that there are currently two ways in which the phrase applies. And, it differs among clerics and among the laity. Among clerics, the maximum is required for its manifestation, and among the laity, the minimum is required for its manifestation. Among clerics, communion is manifest when the clerics involved that comprise in this case "the church" all receive holy communion at the same holy sacrifice. And, practically speaking, this happens by way of the hierarchical structure. Among the laity, I think communion manifests by way of assistance at mass. In times past, when catechumens were dismissed after the gospel, this was more obvious, and may have been an occasion that could qualify both cleric and lay, but now with the mass as it is, I think there are two levels at which the phrase applies. And, from the fact that the sedevacantists forbid assistance at una cum TLM masses by labeling it a mortal sin, one can see in my opinion that assistance is a qualifier, that I think most obviously would apply to the laity, as opposed to clerics. And, among the schismatic orthodox, they place great emphasis on clerical communion, which is a great difficulty for them more often than not. It is expected of clerics to communicate at every mass, where it is not expected that laity communicate at every mass. In sum, in my opinion, at its core, this is how communion with/in the church is manifest. In a church that is visible, this is how it becomes we might say a notorious fact. We profess in the creed belief in things visible and invisible. As far as the invisible goes, communion would be known only to God. As a result, the common phrase and concept of "communion with the church" for all practical purposes would regard the visible.
Blue Violet,
There may be documents, but the general understanding is that to be in communion with "the Church" is to accept the authority --on a literal level-- of Rome -- the leadership structure there. It means technical assent to the titular papacy on at least a minimum level of authority. It does not mean, necessarily, enthusiasm for that papacy, the See, or its utterances. It means subjecting oneself to the governance of the current church personnel and decisions which directly affect a priest's or bishop's responsibilities and permissions.
Thus, when a diocesan bishop orders a priest operating within his diocese to do X or Y (celebrate Masses under somewhat or greatly restricted conditions), the priest "in communion with Rome" will do it, even if unhappily. But this operational obedience can be fairly limited, in that the See, at least until recently, has not specified that a priest submit to the documents most frequently used by the mainstream church to guide the faithful. A priest needn't use modern documents at all, nor say one N.O.M., or refer to one modern canonized saint, or use the N.O. liturgical calendar, but can still be "in communion with Rome" with regard to his functioning within a diocesan structure. And usually that means when any external limits are put on that functioning.
I don't know of any documents, but I always understood it as meaning that we are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Many leaves, one tree kind of thing. Part of the Un-bloody Sacrifice (the Mass), albeit in a small and imperfect way, and thusly all interconnected with Christ and each other. But I am no theologian, so what do I know? ;)
Instead of defaulting to a "in communion with Rome" understanding, which in our time is contradictory and inferior in my opinion, look at it from the standard we place on its opposite, which would be a communicatio in sacris standard. Then, apply that to our "in communion with Rome" standard, and see if we can even satisfy it.
For example, ecclesia dei is in communion with Rome, and Rome is in communion with the hippie beach mass priests. But, the ecclesia dei clerics would never communicate at a hippie beach mass, nor would the hippie beach priests ever communicate at a TLM mass. The ecclesia dei laity would never assist at a hippie beach mass, nor would the hippie beach laity ever assist at a TLM mass. Yes, you are to remain in your rite, but I wouldn't hesitate for a second to assist at a valid and licit catholic rite that is not my own, such as a byzantine rite and so on.
But, that is not the case between the extraordinary form and the ordinary forms. There is a great divide between the two, that allegiance to a divided man in rome isn't going to satisfy. As a result, communion with Rome, and genuine church communion are two different things.
Regarding communicatio in sacris : 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'. The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith.
So, flip that on its head, and apply it to a standard of what communion in the church means. It would mean that assistance at mass, and reception of holy communion are the "outward acts". And, these are outward acts that the ecclesia dei and the hippie modernists cannot satisfy. But, these same groups are "in communion with Rome". As a result, "in communion with Rome" is currently an inferior understanding of "communion". And, that is probably the reason why the freemasons have targeted the papacy. They recognize that we have been indoctrinated regarding the papacy, and they can take advantage of us as a result. The papacy is not the only catholic game in town.
(Thank you all for your comments and sorry for taking a while; been pretty busy)
Phillip,
You seem to be viewing communion with the Church in a very practical way in your first comment. It's very interesting. However, doesn't communion with the Church mean more than just offering and receiving the same Sacrifice (And is the TLM and the NOM the same Sacrifice?) in the case of priests and assisting at Mass for the laity? According to the Baltimore Catechism # 4, being one in the Church refers to governance first and doctrine second. Miriam refers to the first sense of communion in her comment. However, it would seem to be a big problem if communion in the Church were only a matter of obedience to the Church Hierarchy and not to doctrine as well. What happens if there are those who accept the governance of the Church, but reject Her doctrines?
Miriam,
The last comment of your first paragraph and the second to last sentence of your second paragraph are interesting as well and have got me thinking as well. Where would these statements put the Society of St. Pius X? I greatly support the SSPX. However, I want to know that if your sentences are true, would that make the SSPX in communion with the Church or not? And what about the FSSP? SSPV? CMRI?
Quote from: Melkor on March 20, 2021, 02:39:48 PM
I don't know of any documents, but I always understood it as meaning that we are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Many leaves, one tree kind of thing. Part of the Un-bloody Sacrifice (the Mass), albeit in a small and imperfect way, and thusly all interconnected with Christ and each other. But I am no theologian, so what do I know? ;)
Yes, I've always understood it to mean that as well. It's very beautiful, isn't it?
If they reject a doctrine they are in the state of mortal sin and are a heretic. Which means they are no longer part of the Mystical Body, and are not in communion with the Church, and cannot be until they recant and repent of their error.
Quote from: Blue Violet on March 26, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
Miriam refers to the first sense of communion in her comment. However, it would seem to be a big problem if communion in the Church were only a matter of obedience to the Church Hierarchy and not to doctrine as well. What happens if there are those who accept the governance of the Church, but reject Her doctrines?
This is a never-ending debate among sedevacantists and some others, who see some of the trad apostolates as two-faced in that regard. But I do not. Rather, I observe The See to be two-faced, since The See is the one to set down requirements for being In Communion With Rome. For Rome to accept the legal documents of the trad apostolates -- accept their ordinances, their liturgical priorities (which by definition EXCLUDE the current dominant practiced Mass rite of the Church, including within the geography of Rome itself), their constitutions, their catechesis, and their informal repudiation of the entire thought-world of modernistic V2 and its nefarious accoutrements, it is contradictory on the part of Rome, who is in charge of approving these apostolates on the very terms the apostolates extends.
It's Rome who does the wink/wink.
QuoteMiriam,
The last comment of your first paragraph and the second to last sentence of your second paragraph are interesting as well and have got me thinking as well. Where would these statements put the Society of St. Pius X? I greatly support the SSPX. However, I want to know that if your sentences are true, would that make the SSPX in communion with the Church or not? And what about the FSSP? SSPV? CMRI?
I am not a canon lawyer, but I have read in more than one location, I think, that SSPX is now considered in communion. I'm sure the FSSP and ICKSP are. I know one priest of the SSPV, and from everything he says from the pulpit, and the permissions he had from his superiors to continue with Masses during lockdowns, etc., I'm pretty sure that the SSPV does not consider itself in communion, and frankly they are glad of it. They consider the V2/post-V2 church to be, in their words, "a different religion," and, specifically, "Protestant."
I thought the CMRI also considered itself (happily) not in communion, but I am no more qualified to expound on their canonical status than on that of the SSPX.
Blue Violet - I emphasize communion as I have because the holy sacrifice is the pinnacle of our religion. It would only make sense that it could not only satisfy such a concept, but most perfectly present it. Not only does it satisfy the outward acts I mention, but it also satisfies governance, and doctrine. For, if you are attending a mass, that mass has a priest. And, a priest implies a bishop, and a bishop implies authority/governance that leads all the way to the papacy. A priest is the bare minimum/essential aspect of governance. Likewise, we recite the creed/emphasize the creed, which is the maximum aspect of doctrine. It contains all that we must believe, as opposed to a bare minumum like rejecting the devil, the devil's pomps, and the devil's works as catholics do at baptism. That is the bare minimum demand. The maximum demand it would seem is the creed regarding the doctrinal. For, we must recite the creed in order to be confirmed. Our doctrinal demand at mass is the maximum. So, again, we have minimums and maximums in a fourfold sense. I only mentioned twofold as I initially did because you emphasized a phrase communion in the church as opposed to the commonly used "communion with Rome" phrase. This led me to believe that you were perhaps wondering about a different aspect of it, which is not in my opinion mentioned enough or at all. Because, communion with Rome is fairly straight forward, and unfortunately over emphasized.
So, you have the priest, which is the minimum for governance, who has to accomplish the maximum outward act, which is communion. Then, you have the creed, which is the maximum aspect of doctrine, which the faithful participate in, while only being required to accomplish the minimum outward act, which is assistance at the liturgy.
Quote from: Miriam_M on March 26, 2021, 03:39:02 PM
Quote from: Blue Violet on March 26, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
Miriam refers to the first sense of communion in her comment. However, it would seem to be a big problem if communion in the Church were only a matter of obedience to the Church Hierarchy and not to doctrine as well. What happens if there are those who accept the governance of the Church, but reject Her doctrines?
This is a never-ending debate among sedevacantists and some others, who see some of the trad apostolates as two-faced in that regard. But I do not. Rather, I observe The See to be two-faced, since The See is the one to set down requirements for being In Communion With Rome. For Rome to accept the legal documents of the trad apostolates -- accept their ordinances, their liturgical priorities (which by definition EXCLUDE the current dominant practiced Mass rite of the Church, including within the geography of Rome itself), their constitutions, their catechesis, and their informal repudiation of the entire thought-world of modernistic V2 and its nefarious accoutrements, it is contradictory on the part of Rome, who is in charge of approving these apostolates on the very terms the apostolates extends.
It's Rome who does the wink/wink.
QuoteMiriam,
The last comment of your first paragraph and the second to last sentence of your second paragraph are interesting as well and have got me thinking as well. Where would these statements put the Society of St. Pius X? I greatly support the SSPX. However, I want to know that if your sentences are true, would that make the SSPX in communion with the Church or not? And what about the FSSP? SSPV? CMRI?
I am not a canon lawyer, but I have read in more than one location, I think, that SSPX is now considered in communion. I'm sure the FSSP and ICKSP are. I know one priest of the SSPV, and from everything he says from the pulpit, and the permissions he had from his superiors to continue with Masses during lockdowns, etc., I'm pretty sure that the SSPV does not consider itself in communion, and frankly they are glad of it. They consider the V2/post-V2 church to be, in their words, "a different religion," and, specifically, "Protestant."
I thought the CMRI also considered itself (happily) not in communion, but I am no more qualified to expound on their canonical status than on that of the SSPX.
Ok, then. Thank you. So I can ask a canon lawyer about these things? Do you personally know of a canon lawyer who I can speak to?