What is "communion with Rome"?

[xavierakx]

Many particular churches are in communion with Rome.

What do we understand by the term “Rome” ? Is it the office of Pope, or something else.

A related question is, in some Vatican documents we have the term, “Roman Catholic Church” <ref 1>. What is “Roman Catholic Church” referring to, if Church was very cautious to not to use the word “Roman Catholic” in Council documents <ref 2>.

References

1. Vatican document -

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html

1. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[followingtheway]

In the communion with Pope and the Vatican, accepts Papal authority, is under Papal jurisdiction. Is under the Pope…any Church on this list

Western/Latin Rite

• Roman Catholic Church (I think Charismatic Catholics, fit into this category)

Eastern Rite

• Armenian Catholic Church
• Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
• Bulgarian Catholic Church
• Chaldean Catholic Church
• Coptic Catholic Church
• Croatian Greek Catholic Church
• Ethiopian Catholic Church
• Georgian Catholic Church
• Greek Catholic Church
• Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
• Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
• Macedonian Catholic Church
• Maronite Catholic Church
• Melkite Catholic Church
• Romanian Catholic Church
• Russian Catholic Church
• Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the “Byzantine Catholic Church” in the United States)
• Slovak Greek Catholic Church
• Syrian Catholic Church
• Syro-Malabar Church
• Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
• Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

 

[I_Thirst]

In the communion with Pope and the Vatican, accepts Papal authority, is under Papal jurisdiction. Is under the Pope…any Church on this list

Western/Latin Rite

• Roman Catholic Church (I think Charismatic Catholics, fit into this category)

Charismatic Catholics are not a rite (or a church) of the Catholic Church. Maybe “movement” is more fitting?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Charismatic Catholics are not a rite (or a church) of the Catholic Church. Maybe “movement” is more fitting?

Charismatic Catholics are, indeed, a “movement” in the Church, as are the “traditional” Catholics.

And just to be clear, Eastern Catholics are not “under” the Pope (at least not in the same way as Roman Catholics), but in communion with him. We are “under” our Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch (if the sui iuris Church is fortunate enough to have a Patriarch). The Patriarch - and through him his Church - is in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals. At least that’s the official position of the Melkites (the position to which I adhere).

 

[mardukm]

Many particular churches are in communion with Rome.

What do we understand by the term “Rome” ? Is it the office of Pope, or something else.

“Rome” is the Church of Rome, which is represented and ruled by the bishop of Rome. According to the most ancient ecclesiological principles (exemplified by St. Ignatius of Antioch), a local Church cannot be considered apart from her bishop.

To be in communion with Rome is to be in communion with the Church of Rome and her bishop. It is a recognition of the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome/her bishop. and the necessity of being in doctrinal communion with her.

It does not mean being “under” Rome. The bishop of Rome is bound by the same authority as any other bishop - Sacred Tradition.

A related question is, in some Vatican documents we have the term, “Roman Catholic Church” <ref 1>. What is “Roman Catholic Church” referring to, if Church was very cautious to not to use the word “Roman Catholic” in Council documents <ref 2>.

References

1. Vatican document -

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html

1. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

I am under the impression that “Roman Catholic Church” was used in the Vatican document because the Eastern Orthodox representatives were engaged in discussions with representatives from the Latin Catholic Church.

Don’t forget that it is the peculiar perspective of the Latin (i.e., Roman) Catholic Church with which the Eastern Orthodox have a doctrinal bone to pick.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

Charismatic Catholics are, indeed, a “movement” in the Church, as are the “traditional” Catholics.

And just to be clear, Eastern Catholics are not “under” the Pope (at least not in the same way as Roman Catholics), but in communion with him. We are “under” our Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch (if the sui iuris Church is fortunate enough to have a Patriarch). The Patriarch - and through him his Church - is in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals. At least that’s the official position of the Melkites (the position to which I adhere).

I agree with everything you say, but I do have a question on the term “first among equals.”

I certainly do believe that ALL bishops are equals ontologically. The episcopate possess (1) the power of orders and (2) the power fo jurisdiction. The power of orders is greater than the power of jurisdiction, and the highest expression of the power of orders is found in the office of bishop. So as far as the power of orders is concerned, no bishop is above another.

However, as regards the power of jurisdiction, this particular power is not equal. The extent and nature of the prerogatives of head bishops is greater than other bishops. For example, only the Metropolitan has the prerogative to represent the entire Metropolitan See, and no other bishop in the Metropolitan See has that prerogative. Only the Metropolitan has the prerogative to convene or adjourn a Synod. Only the Metropolitan has the prerogative to confirm newly elected bishops. Etc. Etc. A similar range of prerogatives attaches to each head bishop at higher levels (patriarch, major archbishop, catholicos, Pope). Of course, none of these prerogatives can be used to “lord it over others,” according to Christ’s own divine exhortation. In the Church, the principle of headship can only ever be used in conjunction with the principle of collegiality.

So on the level of jurisdiction, I would (personally) not say that all bishops are equal.

Nor would I say that head bishops have unique and personal prerogatives ABOVE his brother bishops.

I would say that head bishops have unique and personal prerogatives AMONG his brother bishops.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[xavierakx]

To be in communion with Rome is to be in communion with the Church of Rome and her bishop. It is a recognition of the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome/her bishop. and the necessity of being in doctrinal communion with her.

Is Church of Rome, the same as Diocese of Rome ?

 

[A_G]

Is Church of Rome, the same as Diocese of Rome ?

The Diocese of Rome, is the Diocese of the city of Rome and the Pope is the bishop of the Diocese.

The “Church of Rome” is a term that some people have used to describe the either the Roman Catholic Church itself, OR the Diocese of Rome…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

What do we understand by the term “Rome” ? Is it the office of Pope, or something else.

‘Rome’ can mean a number of things. It is used loosely rather than having a precise definition. It could mean the Office of the Supreme (a.k.a. Roman) Pontiff. It might mean the Roman Curia: the group of departments and offices that assist the Pope in the government of the universal church. It might refer to the Apostolic (a.k.a. Holy) See. The other term you mention, “Roman Catholic”, is usually used to refer to the Latin Catholic Church. I would suggest that “in communion with Rome” means:

1. 
   *]subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff;
   *]in communion with the Holy See; and,
   *]in communion with the other Catholic churches.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew,

‘Rome’ can mean a number of things. It is used loosely rather than having a precise definition. It could mean the Office of the Supreme (a.k.a. Roman) Pontiff. It might mean the Roman Curia: the group of departments and offices that assist the Pope in the government of the universal church. It might refer to the Apostolic (a.k.a. Holy) See. The other term you mention, “Roman Catholic”, is usually used to refer to the Latin Catholic Church. I would suggest that “in communion with Rome” means:

1. 
   *]subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff;
   *]in communion with the Holy See; and,
   *]in communion with the other Catholic churches.

1. 
   These are all good definitions. But I would like to explain some nuances to these definitions according to my understanding as an Oriental Catholic.
   
   Being “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff” may (actually, most likely) not mean the same to a Roman Catholic as it does to a non-Latin Catholic. We look at the term “Roman Pontiff” and we see ideally not a private person, but a public person who represents the Church with the primary responsibility to protect the Orthodox Faith and to preserve the unity of the Faith. We understand “Roman Pontiff” to be the office instituted by Christ for the upbuilding of the Church. If, according even to St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, a pope is found to be tearing down the Church, we are obligated to oppose and correct him (through our bishops, of course). Thus, we are “subject to the Roman Pontiff” only insofar as he is fulfilling his office as Christ intended. To be “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff” is in effect to be subject to the authority he represents - Sacred Tradition and Christ’s own command for unity, which we expect the holder of that office to protect and uphold. If he is not fulfilling that divinely appointed role, I daresay no one is “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
   
   “In communion with the Holy See” is a touchy subject, as it includes the bureacracy of the Curia, which does not always have the best interests of the non-Latin Churches at heart. The problem (IMO) is that bishops who have neither the responsibility, the universal awareness, nor the graces of the office of the papacy are given jobs with those expectations. History has shown that as regards the non-Latin Churches, curial officials have many times been at odds with the papacy. A short time ago, a curial official tried to prevent the transfer of an Eastern bishop to North America, an action that was within the prerogative of the sui juris Church. To make a long story short, the curial official’s actions came to naught (the sui juris Church resisted him, he had no authority to do it in the first place, and rumors had it that the Pope sent him a private remonstrance). There will always be a danger of such things with the Curia. There is only one head bishop of the Church universal, and the Curia seems filled with a multitude of these who don’t know what they’re doing in relation to the non-Latin Churches.
   
   “In communion with the other Catholic Churches” is the most easily acceptable definition to non-Latin Catholics. It is important to point out that the term “Roman” in the first millenium was not a reference to the Church of Rome herself, but to the heritage of the Church universal from Imperial Rome (i.e., the marriage of Church and State). Hence, Constantinople called itself “the New Rome” and even Moscow liked to pretend that it was “the Third Rome.” Many non-Latin Orthodox Catholics even in the second millenium referred to themselves as “Roman” — but, again, it was not in reference to the Church of Rome, but rather to the Roman heritage of the Church universal. So “Roman” in general and Traditional usage does indeed refer to the Church universal. I am not sure when it came to be attached specifically to the Church of Rome. I’ve heard that its specific attachment to the Church of Rome was originally a polemic device used by Anglicans. If true, and this is now its common usage, then non-Latin Catholics are just being true to Tradition by not accepting the designation “Roman Catholics.”
   
   Blessings,
   Marduk

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Dear brother Matthew,

These are all good definitions. But I would like to explain some nuances to these definitions according to my understanding as an Oriental Catholic.

Being “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff” may (actually, most likely) not mean the same to a Roman Catholic as it does to a non-Latin Catholic. We look at the term “Roman Pontiff” and we see ideally not a private person, but a public person who represents the Church with the primary responsibility to protect the Orthodox Faith and to preserve the unity of the Faith. We understand “Roman Pontiff” to be the office instituted by Christ for the upbuilding of the Church. If, according even to St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, a pope is found to be tearing down the Church, we are obligated to oppose and correct him (through our bishops, of course). Thus, we are “subject to the Roman Pontiff” only insofar as he is fulfilling his office as Christ intended. To be “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff” is in effect to be subject to the authority he represents - Sacred Tradition and Christ’s own command for unity, which we expect the holder of that office to protect and uphold. If he is not fulfilling that divinely appointed role, I daresay no one is “subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

“In communion with the Holy See” is a touchy subject, as it includes the bureacracy of the Curia, which does not always have the best interests of the non-Latin Churches at heart. The problem (IMO) is that bishops who have neither the responsibility, the universal awareness, nor the graces of the office of the papacy are given jobs with those expectations. History has shown that as regards the non-Latin Churches, curial officials have many times been at odds with the papacy. A short time ago, a curial official tried to prevent the transfer of an Eastern bishop to North America, an action that was within the prerogative of the sui juris Church. To make a long story short, the curial official’s actions came to naught (the sui juris Church resisted him, he had no authority to do it in the first place, and rumors had it that the Pope sent him a private remonstrance). There will always be a danger of such things with the Curia. There is only one head bishop of the Church universal, and the Curia seems filled with a multitude of these who don’t know what they’re doing in relation to the non-Latin Churches.

“In communion with the other Catholic Churches” is the most easily acceptable definition to non-Latin Catholics. It is important to point out that the term “Roman” in the first millenium was not a reference to the Church of Rome herself, but to the heritage of the Church universal from Imperial Rome (i.e., the marriage of Church and State). Hence, Constantinople called itself “the New Rome” and even Moscow liked to pretend that it was “the Third Rome.” Many non-Latin Orthodox Catholics even in the second millenium referred to themselves as “Roman” — but, again, it was not in reference to the Church of Rome, but rather to the Roman heritage of the Church universal. So “Roman” in general and Traditional usage does indeed refer to the Church universal. I am not sure when it came to be attached specifically to the Church of Rome. I’ve heard that its specific attachment to the Church of Rome was originally a polemic device used by Anglicans. If true, and this is now its common usage, then non-Latin Catholics are just being true to Tradition by not accepting the designation “Roman Catholics.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for your wise musings. I do not object to these comments. Rather than solely showing ways in which my descriptions might be inappropriate it may have been more constructive to offer alternatives as well.

I infer from no. 1 that you object more to the phrase “subject to the authority …” rather than the concept. It is my words with which you disagree as opposed to what they were meant to convey. I believe, that like me, you accept that all Catholics, Eastern, Latin, and Oriental, are in some way subject to or under the authority of the Bishop of Rome as head of all the Catholic churches. Just in the same way we are each subject to or under the authority of the primate of our particular Catholic church (in my case, the Bishop of Rome again), and the bishop of the local church of which we are a member.

I used the idea of being in communion with the Holy See in a similar manner to which I referred to the Pope. May be that would have been better omitted. It may be a tautology. I use the Holy See as a term to mean the central government of the Church. As a Latin Catholic perhaps I give that collection of institutions too much responsibility with regards to the East. I am sure that the Roman Curia are mostly concerned with Latin matters and that they may give cause for concern in the East. I did believe though that it was the central government for the entire Catholic Church as opposed to just the Latin one.

It pleases me that we are, at least, agreed upon being in communion with each other. I see the word ‘Roman’ in what I believe to be its contemporary use, viz.: referring to Latin Catholics. I personally prefer to be described as a Latin because of its polemical use by Anglicans. I live in a country where it is difficult not to be aware of the Anglican church. It would probably be advisable not to give my opinion of our bishops regarding their relationship to the Anglican hierarchy.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In the UGCC today, the only place where the Pope would be noticeable in any context would be in the liturgical commemorations.

Our Patriarch and his synod do the governing and the appointing - Rome would be notified, of course . . . in due time!

And we would notify the other EC and Orthodox Churches too.

“In communion” means that we are two Churches united by faith and the sacraments. It is a real communion where the authority of the Pope is there for him to use if our church government might ever break down.

“In communion” also implies an equality of Churches where the Pope of Rome is the “Elder” but who presides in loving service rather than within an paradigm of autocratic authoritarianism.

Alex

 

[malphono]

“In communion” means that we are two Churches united by faith and the sacraments. It is a real communion where the authority of the Pope is there for him to use if our church government might ever break down.

“In communion” also implies an equality of Churches where the Pope of Rome is the “Elder” but who presides in loving service rather than within an paradigm of autocratic authoritarianism.

I’m often accused of wishful thinking and, with all due respect, Alex, it seems to me that I’m not alone.

The unfortunate fact is that the “authority” of Rome is there for her to use as she deems fit. (Whether it’s a legitimate use of that “authority” is another matter entirely.) Admittedly, with PP Benedict XVI it’s less likely to be abused, but it certainly has been under previous administrations.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

In the UGCC today, the only place where the Pope would be noticeable in any context would be in the liturgical commemorations.

Our Patriarch and his synod do the governing and the appointing - Rome would be notified, of course . . . in due time!

What is “in due time”? Am I mistaken in my understanding that the Pope must assent to appointments.

“In communion” means that we are two Churches united by faith and the sacraments.

By “two Churches” do you mean the UGCC and the Latin Catholic Church. I do not understand your comments. Are we not a communion of 23 churches?

“In communion” also implies an equality of Churches where the Pope of Rome is the “Elder” but who presides in loving service rather than within an paradigm of autocratic authoritarianism.

Obviously, we Latins are too legalistic and bound to talk about authority than service. Are you saying in this context that the Bishop of Rome is head of the Latin Church and if an Eastern church was someway in error he would step in to correct them. Alternatively, are you saying the Bishop of Rome is the primate over all 23 Catholic churches but primarily concerned with the Latin Church and is involved with the Eastern Catholic churches should he perceive the need or by invited by a synod to intervene.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew,

What is “in due time”? Am I mistaken in my understanding that the Pope must assent to appointments.

The “papal assent” is only required for bishops elevated from the presbyterate. Appointments of bishops to vacant sees does not require papal assent. The Holy See is informed, probably only as a matter of official record, and, as brother Alex pointed out, all the other patriarchal sees are informed as well.

Obviously, we Latins are too legalistic and bound to talk about authority than service.

I do not understand why you are being defensive. Someone asked what the term “communion with Rome” means to us. We are giving it. Why are you imposing an ulterior motive to a mere explanation?

Are you saying in this context that the Bishop of Rome is head of the Latin Church and if an Eastern church was someway in error he would step in to correct them.

I’m speaking for myself, here, not brother Alex. I believe this to be the case. It is also the case that if the Bishop of Rome was in error, his brother bishops should step in to correct him.

Alternatively, are you saying the Bishop of Rome is the primate over all 23 Catholic churches

I would agree with this, with the specific understanding that a “primate” is a head bishop. The relationship of a head bishop to his plenary jurisdiction is different from the relationship of a bishop to his local jurisdiction. A bishop’s relationship to his local jurisdiction is monarchial, whereas a head bishop’s relationship to his plenary jurisdiction is presidential (i.e., not monarchial).

but primarily concerned with the Latin Church

As head bishop of the Church universal, his concern is for the entire Church, not just the Latin Church.

and is involved with the Eastern Catholic churches should he perceive the need

Yes, with the specific understanding that the “needs” are informed by what is established by Sacred Tradition. The Pope, according to V1 and our Canons only has the authority to RESPOND to the needs of the local Churches. He does not have the authority to determine those needs according to his own whim and fancy. According to Vatican 1, his authority can only support and defend the authority of the local orthodox bishop, not stand in its way.

or by invited by a synod to intervene.

Yes. But it should also be pointed out that ANY bishop has the prerogative to appeal to the Pope. Of course, there is a canonical manner of doing this. Any local bishop needs to exhaust the means available to him in his own sui juris Church first. He cannot disrespect Church order or the authorities in his own sui juris Church (i.e., his head bishop and Synod) and go directly to Rome to address his grievances or needs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The “papal assent” is only required for bishops elevated from the presbyterate. Appointments of bishops to vacant sees does not require papal assent. The Holy See is informed, probably only as a matter of official record, and, as brother Alex pointed out, all the other patriarchal sees are informed as well.

My misunderstanding. I learnt that difference recently. It takes longer these days for my aging brain to form memories.

I do not understand why you are being defensive.

I’m not

Why are you imposing an ulterior motive to a mere explanation?

I’m not. We may have our wires crossed. I honestly meant what I said. I always try to show the greatest respect for the Eastern churches. The Latin Church is too legalistic and we Latins do often tend to use legalisms. This is reaffirmed for me when I read the often different terms used by eastern and western Catholics on posts here at CAF. If you found what I said was me being on the defensive I can assure you that you misunderstood my intent.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Matthew,

The “papal assent” is only required for bishops elevated from the presbyterate. Appointments of bishops to vacant sees does not require papal assent. The Holy See is informed, probably only as a matter of official record, and, as brother Alex pointed out, all the other patriarchal sees are informed as well.

I do not understand why you are being defensive. Someone asked what the term “communion with Rome” means to us. We are giving it. Why are you imposing an ulterior motive to a mere explanation?

I’m speaking for myself, here, not brother Alex. I believe this to be the case. It is also the case that if the Bishop of Rome was in error, his brother bishops should step in to correct him.

I would agree with this, with the specific understanding that a “primate” is a head bishop. The relationship of a head bishop to his plenary jurisdiction is different from the relationship of a bishop to his local jurisdiction. A bishop’s relationship to his local jurisdiction is monarchial, whereas a head bishop’s relationship to his plenary jurisdiction is presidential (i.e., not monarchial).

As head bishop of the Church universal, his concern is for the entire Church, not just the Latin Church.

Yes, with the specific understanding that the “needs” are informed by what is established by Sacred Tradition. The Pope, according to V1 and our Canons only has the authority to RESPOND to the needs of the local Churches. He does not have the authority to determine those needs according to his own whim and fancy. According to Vatican 1, his authority can only support and defend the authority of the local orthodox bishop, not stand in its way.

Yes. But it should also be pointed out that ANY bishop has the prerogative to appeal to the Pope. Of course, there is a canonical manner of doing this. Any local bishop needs to exhaust the means available to him in his own sui juris Church first. He cannot disrespect Church order or the authorities in his own sui juris Church (i.e., his head bishop and Synod) and go directly to Rome to address his grievances or needs.

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree completely with Brother Marduk and have nothing to add!

Alex

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I agree completely with Brother Marduk and have nothing to add!

Alex

OK, I have no problem with that. You won’t be seeing me here in the Eastern Catholicism forum any more. I now intend to concentrate my activities on CAF to my own proper Catholic church and maybe, as I do occasionally, to the non-Catholic churches. The ECCs will remain in my prayers, especially this month as requested by our Holy Father Benedict PP XVI.