Protestant Communion?

[pablope]

In
Melkite Bp John explains it this way.

“In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.” According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.”

For full context

The document you referred to, and in particular the section that follows, (link also provided) is that distinction between Catholic and catholic that Bp John talks about.

“This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).”
some aspects of the church understood as communion

footnote (76) Cf. supra, nn. 5 and 14. from
QUARTUS SUPRA - Papal Encyclicals Online

Let add some here:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
A rupture can be positively demonstrated in two ways: by dissidence or by innovation.

a. First, by dissidence, separation, schism. But at the moment when two Churches separate, each claims to be the true Church of Christ, and each accuses the other of dissidence. Is there any mark enabling us to recognize which of the two is the Church of Christ and which the dissident?

Or rather this criterion may stand in need of more exact definition. For the universality which carries weight here is, as Vincent of Lerins says, that “of the true disciples, the true adorers, of Christ”, or, to use the Gospel image, of the true sheep of Christ. Will they be recognizable by some sign distinguishing the true faithful from the false? Undoubtedly they will, granted that Christ confided His sheep to Peter, that He set Peter over His Church, and commanded him to confirm his brethren in the faith. The true faithful will be found amongst the faithful gathered round Peter; the true universality will be that of which Peter is the centre; where Peter is, there will be the Church.[1117] The criterion of universality will then attain that strictness which the progress of our time makes desirable. And thus the argument from universality taken as a sign of apostolicity will receive its final touch from the Gospel prophecies concerning Peter; the quod ubique, quod ab omnibus is given its last precision by the quod ab Ecclesia romana. In this way the via apostolicitatis leads into the via primatus. And we may see a sign of it in the fact that St. Augustine, who had so often appealed to the universality of the true faith against the heretics, was himself, after St. Ambrose’s example, expressly to invoke the authority of Rome against the Pelagians: the resolutions of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, he says, “have been sent on to the Apostolic See. Decisions have come from thence. The cause is ended. May it please God to end the error.”[1118]

To sum up, the two signs which serve to reveal a breach with the Christian religion, to wit, dissidence and innovation, gradually become explicit and precise in a single sign, more immediately apprehensible—separation from the Roman Church. The clearest and strictest criterion of genuine apostolicity is communion with Peter. But even before bringing the argument from apostolicity to this last degree of definitiveness, even before giving their final precision to the notions of universality and antiquity it brings into play, it could be successfully employed to recognize the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. The Fathers early made use of it; and in the last century it was several years before admitting the Roman primacy that Newman remarked that the Anglican Church, lacking universality, had all the appearance of a sect.

 

[steve_b]

Let add some here:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
A rupture can be positively demonstrated in two ways: by dissidence or by innovation.

a. First, by dissidence, separation, schism. But at the moment when two Churches separate, each claims to be the true Church of Christ, and each accuses the other of dissidence. Is there any mark enabling us to recognize which of the two is the Church of Christ and which the dissident?

Or rather this criterion may stand in need of more exact definition. For the universality which carries weight here is, as Vincent of Lerins says, that “of the true disciples, the true adorers, of Christ”, or, to use the Gospel image, of the true sheep of Christ. Will they be recognizable by some sign distinguishing the true faithful from the false? Undoubtedly they will, granted that Christ confided His sheep to Peter, that He set Peter over His Church, and commanded him to confirm his brethren in the faith. The true faithful will be found amongst the faithful gathered round Peter; the true universality will be that of which Peter is the centre; where Peter is, there will be the Church.[1117] The criterion of universality will then attain that strictness which the progress of our time makes desirable. And thus the argument from universality taken as a sign of apostolicity will receive its final touch from the Gospel prophecies concerning Peter; the quod ubique, quod ab omnibus is given its last precision by the quod ab Ecclesia romana. In this way the via apostolicitatis leads into the via primatus. And we may see a sign of it in the fact that St. Augustine, who had so often appealed to the universality of the true faith against the heretics, was himself, after St. Ambrose’s example, expressly to invoke the authority of Rome against the Pelagians: the resolutions of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, he says, “have been sent on to the Apostolic See. Decisions have come from thence. The cause is ended. May it please God to end the error.”[1118]

To sum up, the two signs which serve to reveal a breach with the Christian religion, to wit, dissidence and innovation, gradually become explicit and precise in a single sign, more immediately apprehensible—separation from the Roman Church. The clearest and strictest criterion of genuine apostolicity is communion with Peter. But even before bringing the argument from apostolicity to this last degree of definitiveness, even before giving their final precision to the notions of universality and antiquity it brings into play, it could be successfully employed to recognize the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. The Fathers early made use of it; and in the last century it was several years before admitting the Roman primacy that Newman remarked that the Anglican Church, lacking universality, had all the appearance of a sect.

Thanks for that addition.

 

[Elizium23]

No, you haven’t. I have asked you a specific question. Is it really that difficult for you to answer specific questions? Allow me to ask it again, and please answer that specific question, not all others:

How can the Catholic Church be both truly present and truly absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”? How is that not a violation of the law of non-contradiction?

The Catholic Church is present in a limited way for all validly baptized humans, because there is only ONE Church. But non-Catholic Christians are not “truly Catholic” and the Catholic Church is not “truly present” for them in any prosaic sense of the term. The Catholic Church is the sole and final arbiter of what is and is not Catholic. Therefore she reserves this label to her visible members and the boundaries of that are defined by full communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Orthodox claim Catholicity but it is only true in the lowercase sense of the word. Try asking an Orthodox believer if Catholics are Orthodox and they will tell you the same thing, that Catholics claim Orthodoxy but, they may not admit that it is even true in the lowercase sense for us. Catholics have a more nuanced and generous ecumenism than most any other closely related Church or ecclesial community.

The True Presence of the Eucharist is a separate matter. Christ is truly present whenever a valid priest successfully confects the Eucharist, and all that is required is valid minister, valid intent, valid matter, valid form. It does not require a valid Church, other than the fact that the priest must be descended in proper apostolic succession.

 

[KjetilK]

The Catholic Church is present in a limited way for all validly baptized humans, because there is only ONE Church. But non-Catholic Christians are not “truly Catholic” and the Catholic Church is not “truly present” for them in any prosaic sense of the term. The Catholic Church is the sole and final arbiter of what is and is not Catholic. Therefore she reserves this label to her visible members and the boundaries of that are defined by full communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Orthodox claim Catholicity but it is only true in the lowercase sense of the word. Try asking an Orthodox believer if Catholics are Orthodox and they will tell you the same thing, that Catholics claim Orthodoxy but, they may not admit that it is even true in the lowercase sense for us. Catholics have a more nuanced and generous ecumenism than most any other closely related Church or ecclesial community.

The True Presence of the Eucharist is a separate matter. Christ is truly present whenever a valid priest successfully confects the Eucharist, and all that is required is valid minister, valid intent, valid matter, valid form. It does not require a valid Church, other than the fact that the priest must be descended in proper apostolic succession.

First, the use of lower case is a Germanic trait, and it is quite irrelevant.

Second, Communionis notio, §17, states that “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present.” Are you saying that there are TWO Catholic churches - one who is present in “every valid celebration of the Eucharist,” including that of the Orthodox churches out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, and one who is present only in those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

 

[pete_29]

No, you haven’t. I have asked you a specific question. Is it really that difficult for you to answer specific questions? Allow me to ask it again, and please answer that specific question, not all others:

How can the Catholic Church be both truly present and truly absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”? How is that not a violation of the law of non-contradiction?

How can Jesus be man and God? How can He die on the Cross and still be alive? The answer to all three questions is the same. The power of God.

 

[KjetilK]

How can Jesus be man and God? How can He die on the Cross and still be alive? The answer to all three questions is the same. The power of God.

Are you saying that the Incarnation was self-contradictory? If so, I must inform you that according to Roman Catholic belief, you hold heresy.

 

[MaryT777]

Are you saying that the Incarnation was self-contradictory? If so, I must inform you that according to Roman Catholic belief, you hold heresy.

You misunderstood the Post.

It seems as if you are just here to “pick a fight” at this point with Catholics. Why?

Mary.

 

[KjetilK]

You misunderstood the Post.

It seems as if you are just here to “pick a fight” at this point with Catholics. Why?

You are asking me to answer a loaded question. I am not here to ‘pick a fight.’ I asked a simple question. How else was I to understand Pete’s question?