Talk:Roman Catholic Communion

Just out of idle curiosity, where does the name "Catholic Communion" come from? As a lifelong, practicing Roman Catholic, it's not a term I've ever heard. The Church refers to herself as a whole as "the Universal [i.e., Catholic] Church," with the individual sui juris Churches having more specific names (e.g., Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, &c.). Traditionally the name of the Universal Church might be considered "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," from the Nicene Creed. I notice that reference to the "Catholic Communion" is being inserted into other articles, but I reiterate that we should first clearly establish where this name comes from. Is this a Wikipedia invention? If so, it should be clearly stated in the page. Publius 04:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the whole communion calls itself the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" or the "Universal Church." However, so does, officially, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, the Coptic Church, the Lutheran churches, the Methodist churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and so forth. See the bottom of Talk:Catholicism for more of this discussion.

The name is not quite a Wikipedia invention. It is used in non-Catholic theological circles to identify all the churches in full juridical communion with Rome without having to say "The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches" all the time. After seeing it used in a few instances, as well as seeing the communion of Anglican churches being titled Anglican Communion in this encyclopedia, I decided to use similar terminology in this article, as using just "Roman Catholic Church" is inadequate and the titles "Catholic Church" and "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" are claimed by almost every Christian denomination.

Someone should, though, put in some of the communion's ecclesiology, which claims that it is indeed the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although this I think is already done in Catholicism. Anyway, that's the reasoning behind the title. Pmadrid 06:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning on establishing a separate page for the Universal Church per se as opposed to the hodgpodge page “Catholicism,” which discusses a large number of issues. Unfortunately, I cannot really agree that “Catholic Communion” is the appropriate measure; it is not a term in actual use beyond certain limited sources, and does not accurately reflect the manner in which people actually discuss the subject. Especially, I disagree with the insertion of the term into other articles as though it were an actual technical term.

It was and remains my contention that an entity as complex and socially/historically significant as the Catholic Church deserves its own entry in any serious encyclopedia, independent of other related subjects; it is a disservice to relegate her to merely one subject considered by the article “Catholicism.” I submit that the appropriate step is to make “Catholic Church” the article for the Universal Church and “Catholicism” the article for discussing the concept of Christian universality, with appropriate annotations made to both.

As noted, there are other denominations which consider themselves part of the Catholic Church but are not part of the Ecclesiastical federation over which the Pope presides. However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia once noted, most churches like to think of themselves individually as Christ’s orthodox, catholic, and apostolic church – but it is simply not workable to acknowledge each of those claims when speaking about them in general, because the names rapidly cease to clearly and specifically identify one particular church.

By general convention, the term “Orthodox Church” refers to the Ecclesiastical federation over which the Ecumenical Patriarch presides – but this certainly does not mean that no other churches claim to be orthodox! In just the same manner, the term “Catholic Church” is generally understood to mean the Pope’s Ecclesiastical federation. When people want to read about that church in the encyclopedia, that is what they will most probably look for.

A search for “Catholic Communion” on Google returns about 492,000 results; most of these results, however, refer to the Sacrament of Eucharist, not to the Universal Church. “Catholic Church” returns 4,030,000 results, some eight times more results. I move that the article on the Universal Church per se be (including both its hierarchical constitution and its doctrines) “Catholic Church” with an appropriate preface noting other usages and directing toward “Catholicism” as a discussion of Ecclesiastical universality (and limited to that -- doctrinal beliefs of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches belong on the Universal Church's page).

Note also that the articles on the individual sui juris Churches should not unnecessarily duplicate information more appropriate to the Universal Church’s article. Special attention should be given such that the Universal Church’s page does not become a quasi-duplicate of “Roman Catholic Church.” Publius 19:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Publius, I totally agree with you on the name being a Catholic myself. Unfortunately, I don't think given the contentious nature of this subject that changing this article's title to "Catholic Church" is going to work. It'll be reverted in two days, and mainly because we Catholics believe that we are the Universal Church, whereas the rest of Christianity believes that we are a mere subset of that church.

I chose "Catholic Communion" because of that. The only reason I started inserting it into articles was that those articles linked to Roman Catholic Church when their subject matter applied to all the churches. If you would like to rename this article as "Catholic Church," be my guest, because that's what I originally wanted to have: an article on the communion of churches led by the Pope which among its members, non-Christians, and the media is refered to as the "Catholic Church" and which you and I believe is the Universal Church. This was my compromise to get such an article in here.

By the way, the idea here was for the "Whole Church" page to have the common elements and constitution of the churches and then to have specific history and info in the particular church's pages. I certainly don't want to duplicate Roman Catholic Church but at the same time the subjects in that page which apply to all the churches should go in the "Whole Church" page, i.e. doctrine, sacraments, universal government, etc.

But yeah, if you think that calling this article "Catholic Church" will go over with the rest of the community, have at it. I won't stop you. Pmadrid 12:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Remove this article

Pmadrid (who calls himself a Catholic, but not a Roman Catholic) says that, in some non-Catholic theological circles, “Catholic communion” is used in the narrow sense he attaches to it. An inadequate reason for insisting that those who see the phrase as misleading should accept it.

Comparison with “Anglican communion” is inapt. Having no figure corresponding to the Pope, Anglican Churches do not see themselves as a single Church.

The (Roman) Catholic Church does see itself as a single Church, and also decidedly as a communion, two of the most essential aspects of its constitution. It is a communion, in a single Church, not only of particular/autonomous Churches or rites, but also of particular or local Churches (dioceses of whatever rite) and of individual Catholics (of whatever rite).

The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council considers the Church (the Church of those in full communion with the successor of Peter) as a communion of particular/autonomous Churches or rites in section 13 alone; but much more often as a communion of particular or local Churches (dioceses), headed by individual bishops (sections 8, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25).

The Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of the Church understood as communion (28 May 1992) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also does not see the Catholic Church (which it neither limits to the Latin Church nor extends beyond those in full communion with the Bishop of Rome) as a communion merely of particular/autonomous Churches or rites. Part II (“Universal Church and Particular Churches”) opens by considering the Church as a communion of particular or local Churches (dioceses), each of them “entrusted to a bishop“.

Section 9 of the same letter contains the following text: "One must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are 'part of the one Church of Christ', have a special relationship of 'mutual interiority' with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church 'the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active'. For this reason, 'the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches'."

It is not worthwhile commenting on the various inexact statements in the article, such as the alleged existence of “Apostolic Delegates” in the sense indicated. The article in itself is misleading. It should be removed. The subject it deals with is much more adequately and accurately treated in the article Roman Catholic Church.

Lima 04:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was never my intention to try to make the Roman Catholic Church seem to be a "federation" of churches. Initially, in the Roman Catholic Church article, that was the terminology used, and I replaced it due to your reasons illustrated above. I have always held the belief that the particular churches are truly one church, and I agree in retrospect that this seperate article is confusing people. Your comments and criticisms concerning the comparison with the "Anglican Communion" are well-received and a mistake on my part.

However, most of this article is taken directly from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, promulgated by John Paul II in 1990, and is factual. There are "Apostolic Delegates" for sui juris churches without a metropolitan according to canon 175 of that code. The governmental structure set forth in this article is taken almost word-for-word from that text as well. The assumptions I make concerning the Latin Church are reasonable considering that the Pope is also Patriarch of the West and the Latin Church along with the other Patriarchal Churches have similar structures in place.

To igore this part of the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church is to assert a naive understanding of canon law and the ecclesiological reality of the church. The information contained in this article is necessary for an accurate depiction of Roman Catholicism. I will not delete. I will merge. Pmadrid 03:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After considering various arguments and exploring the matter myself, I am posting a request to have this article merged with Roman Catholic Church. This article was an attempt to explain the existence of sui juris churches within the Roman Catholic Church. While there are indeed five rites (with one containing three subrites), there are under canon law twenty-four particular churches praticing these rites, and at the time of creating this article there was no page which explained this concept at all.

Now that the Roman Catholic Church article is less Latin-based, I would like to merge the contents of this article with that one, deleting this one. Using the Roman Catholic Church as the title for the church which the Pope leads in retrospect makes much more sense. However, Wikipedia could probably use an article on the Latin Rite or the Latin Catholic Church at some point in the future.

For the time being, I am going to change the title of the patriarchal Roman Church from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Latin Catholic Church" and put up a request for merging. Pmadrid 02:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canon 175 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says: “These Churches (i.e. autonomous Churches that are neither patriarchal, nor major-archiepiscopal, nor metropolitan) depend directly from the Apostolic See; as for the rights and obligations dealt with in canon 159, 3-8, these are exercised by a Hierarch whom the Apostolic See delegates.” Canon 159 concerns a Metropolitan’s relations with the eparchies (other than his own) that are linked with him. It is natural to entrust to an outside Hierarch these few limited rights and obligations of oversight; but the governance of these single-eparchy (in practice) autonomous Churches is in the hands of the Eparch himself.

An Apostolic Delegate is a quite different figure. See canon 364 of the Code of Canon Law for his functions. He differs from an Apostolic Nuncio only in not being accredited to a government and so not having the functions outlined in canon 365 of the same Code.

Lima 09:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we are having translation/interpretation issues.

Canons 174-176 deal with the other sui juris churches. Canon 174 contemplates a Hierarch who presides over the church sui juris, viz:

A Church sui juris, which is neither patriarchal, major episcopal nor metropolitan is entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it according to the norm of common law and particular law established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 175 then enumerates the rights and privileges of both the church and the hierarch, viz:

These Churches immediately depend on the Apostolic See; however, the hierarch exercises the rights and obligations mentioned in can. 159, nn. 3--8, as a delegate of the Apostolic See.

That was from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches as compiled by the Canon Law Society of America. The Latin seems to correspond, though I admit this is my first semester of Latin studies, so I am no expert. Here's the Latin from both:

174-Ecclesia sui juris, quae neque est patriarchalis nec archiepiscopalis major nec metropolitana, concreditur Hierarchae, qui ei praeest ad normam juris communis et juris particularis a Romano Pontifice statui.

175-Hae Ecclesia immediate a Sede Apostolica dependent; jura et obligationes vero, de quibus in can. 159, nn. 3--8, Hierarcha a Sede Apostolica delegatus exercet.

We can probably guess that Hierarcha is first declension, especially considering that it is used in the dative in 174 and its form Hierarchae corresponds with first declension dative singular. So, Hierarcha would either be ablative or nominative. I agree with you that it is the subject of exercet, so "hierarch exercies" is an appropriate reading. Delegatus, though, is the perfect participle of delego, delegare: "to assign". Thus, delegatus expresses a condition of already having been assigned. A more accurate reading of the sentence is "The Hierarch, having been assigned by the Apostolic See, exercises the rights and obligations in can. 159 nn. 3--8."

The point, though, is that the Hierarch is the same person in both canons. There is no mention of another hierarch, just the same one from the previous canon. In the single eparch churches, the eparch is the delegate of the Apostolic See. The Latin does use delegatus when refering to him, which is different from legatus. Legati are dealt with in canons 362-367 of the Codex Juris Canonici, and I am well aware of the functions of legates and nuncios. Perhaps his official title isn't "Apostolic Delegate," but since the code gives no other title besides "hierarch" (which is "high priest" in Greek, aka bishop), I felt justified in using it.

I'm certain my reading is correct. What edition of the code are you using? Perhaps we have translation errors somewhere. Pmadrid 11:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have only the original Latin text of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. I made a rapid, not word-for-word, but fully accurate translation.

You are right: “Hierarcha” in canon 175 is nominative case, the subject of “exercet”. But the hierarch in question is not the one mentioned in canon 174.

Canon 175 deals with exceptions to canon 174. Note the word “verum”. The translation you are using renders this word correctly by “however”. Look up canon 159, and you will see it deals, not with the authority the hierarch of each eparchy has over his eparchy, but instead with the oversight that the metropolitan exercises over the other bishops of his autonomous Church and their eparchies. If this is not immediately obvious to you, just ask yourself how, if the hierarch of canons 174 and 175 is the same, he is to carry out a canonical visitation of the eparchy, should the eparchial bishop fail to do it (canon 159, 5).

Canon 175 provides for the appointment of another hierarch to exercise the necessary external oversight of the work of the hierarch who is in fact in charge of an unattached eparchy, as stated in canon 174 (“praeest”, presides over). This other hierarch is designated, assigned, delegated by the Apostolic See.

(By “unattached eparchy” I mean one that is dependent, not on any metropolitan, major archbishop or patriarch, but instead directly on the see of the Apostle Peter.)

By the way, I am grateful for the message Neutrality sent to me to indicate that I should use four, not five, tildes to sign and date my messages.

Lima 18:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see a necessary indication of a different hierarch in the canons. 174 says the hierarch presides over the church. 175 says the hierarch, who by the way is appointed by the Holy See, exercises some of the rights and duties of a metropolitan. The perfect participle delegatus indicates this. If it was talking about a second hierarch, instead of the hierarch alraeady indicated in 174, they would have used a different qualifier.

I would be inclined to say, though, that if indeed the hierarch is different from the eparchial bishop (you have a very good point about how in the world the eparch is going to do a canonical visitiation), I would still say that the hierarch is the same hierarch in 174 and 175. This would mean, though, that neither the hierarch in 174 nor the hierarch in 175 is the eparch. I think this would be an acceptable interpretation: there's already an eparch or eparchs in that church and then the Holy See appoints a hierarch, who presides over the church sui juris, not the eparchy/eparchies, and functions as a quasi-metropolitan.

If what you say is correct and the eparch and hierarch are different persons, then the reading should still assume that the hierarch is the same person in 174 and 175.Pmadrid 21:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the use of verum is for the previous clause, i.e. "The church depends immediately on the Apostolic See; however, the hierarch exercises metropolitical rights" as opposed to "The hierarch presides over the church ... However, the church depends on the apostolic see ..." I would need a reason to assume that the vero in canon 175 is supposed to be differentiating that clause from 174 and not the immediately preceding clause. The semicolon makes it clear that it is for the immediately preceeding clause. Are you seeing something that I am not? Pmadrid 21:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for posting three times in a row, but here's another question. Let's assume for the present that we are both partially right: the eparch and the hierarch are different persons and the hierarch in 174 and the hierarch in 175 are the same person. What should we call the hierarch? As I've said before, hierarch is too general to be acceptable here. Perhaps I went too far with Apostolic Delegate. Should I use instead "quasi-metropolitan"? I am open to suggestions. Pmadrid 21:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If “Hierarcha a Sede Apostolica delegatus” meant “a/the hierarch, who by the way is delegated by the Holy See”, the phrase “a Sede Apostolica delegatus” would be marked off with commas. As it stands, the phrase “a Sede Apostolica delegatus” defines the hierarch in question. The English translation you are using is regrettably inaccurate.

Over whom does the delegated hierarch of canon 175 exercise rights and duties of a metropolitan? Surely over the presiding hierarch of canons 174 and 176. So they are not the same person.

Consider canon 159 again. The presiding hierarch does not need delegation in order to have the right and duty to be on the watch that faith and ecclesiastical discipline are kept with care (canon 159, 4) within his own eparchy. But an outside hierarch does need to be delegated, if he is to have that right and duty for the eparchy of the presiding hierarch.

The presiding hierarch, though dependent directly on the Apostolic See (and not on any metropolitan, major archbishop or patriarch), is still subject to supervision by a delegated hierarch. Hence the “however”. (Sorry for mistyping “verum” for “vero” earlier.)

Lima 22:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about typing mistakes. We all do that, and I knew what you meant.

I see where you are coming from. I'm no longer going by the English version as I realized it was inaccurate. However, I realize now that it still might be a bias on my attempt at translation. Here's the text of 175 again:

Hae Ecclesia immediate a Sede Apostolica dependent; jura et obligationes vero, de quibus in can. 159, nn. 3--8, Hierarcha a Sede Apostolica delegatus exercet.

Since delegatus is a perfect participle modifying Hierarcha, then the canon could read "The hierarch having been delegated by the Apostolic See exercises ..." It also could read "a Hierarch delegated by the apostolic see exercises ..." I saw that it could be translated the first way and thus affirmed the English translation, but in retrospect, if I had been translating the Latin first, I probably would have done it the second way like you did. If they were trying to say that the same hierarch is delegated by the Holy See, they would have done that in 174, but they didn't. This way makes much more sense in context. Thanks for pointing that out and helping me realize the mistake.

So, what we have now is this:

• An unattached sui juris church is headed by a hierarch.
• An outside hierarch appointed by the Holy See does some things for the unattached sui juris church that a metropolitan would normally do.

I'm guessing that hierarch here is the Eastern equivalent of prelate, which would suggest that some of these sui juris churches may not be full eparchies. Is this a valid assumption?

I will update the article accordingly. Thanks. Pmadrid 00:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not studied the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches enough to state the following decidedly, but I do believe that “Hierarcha” in that Code corresponds to “Ordinarius” in the (Latin) Code of Canon Law.

With regard to your query about entities that are not full eparchies, I would distinguish. There are certainly Eastern-rite particular Churches, in the local sense, that are not full eparchies: the exarchates, which doubtless hope to grow in numbers of clergy and faithful, so as to be raised to eparchies. But you ask about “sui iuris” Churches, and I do not think that an exarchate would qualify as an autonomous Church, since it is headed by a titular bishop, as are Latin-rite apostolic vicariates.

By the way, I have just discovered that I need to make a distinction about something I myself have written, probably more than once. The 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches did not in fact introduce the term “sui iuris” in reference to particular Churches in the sense you are specially interested in, since the term already appeared in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canons 111 and 112). What the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches introduced was the term “Ecclesia sui iuris”, without further qualification; the Code of Canon Law had “Ecclesia ritualis sui iuris”. Some Wikipedia articles may need correction on this point.

Lima 06:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A thought has just struck me: shouldn’t you merge this article, not with the article on the Roman Catholic Church, but with the(?) article on the Eastern Catholic Churches, since that’s the topic it concentrates on?

Lima 06:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The majority of this article would go either in sui juris or Eastern Rite or both, as we probably don't want to bog down Roman Catholic Church. However, as it is an important part of the juridical structure of the RCC, I'd at least mention it in the RCC article. To what extent I'd include material from here, I am not certain. If I go about putting the majority of the governmental content in Eastern Rite, then I would in turn put the specific Latin Rite governmental structure in Latin Rite, keeping the RCC article confined to the supreme government. Pmadrid 00:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the concepts ecclesia sui juris and ecclesia ritualis sui juris are different. I know there is a difference between sui juris and Rite: while both are particular churches Rite has no juridical structure save that Rites have component sui juris churches.

Making Rite equivalent to ecclesia ritualis sui juris, however, is a problem: it would imply that a Rite is a juridic person since it would thus have been expressly recognized as a sui juris church (can 27 CCEO) and sui juris churches have automatic personality (can 921 part 2 CCEO & canon 114 CJC). However, there is no juridic structure designated in either code for any of the Rites as a whole (save for the Latin Rite Church). Could I sue ecclesially the Church of the Byzantine Rite? If so, who would represent them, the Melkite Patriarch? Who are the legislators of the Byzantine Rite, and how do they assemble and promulgate laws? This is more problematic with the Church of the Antiochean Rite. If I could sue it, which of the patriarchs of Antioch would represent the Rite as a whole?

I think since Rite is treated as a tradition canonically (can 28 CCEO), Rites as aggregates of persons are not the subject of rights and duties under canon law, just the tradition is (sui juris churches have a duty to preserve and follow their Rite (can. 39 & 40 CCEO)). Perhaps a Rite is more akin to a moral person like the Church as a whole and the Holy See (can. 113 CJC, but perhaps not of "divine origin" like those are). Thus, I would guess ecclesia ritualis sui juris is just another way of saying ecclesia sui juris, with perhaps emphasizing the transfer between Rites which that passage in the CJC contemplates. Pmadrid 03:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

“Ecclesia sui iuris”, “Ecclesia ritualis sui iuris”, “particular Church” (in this sense), “rite” (in this sense) are all names for the same reality. Before the Second Vatican Council, the only term in common use was “rite”; the Council used “particular Church” not only of local Churches, but also of rites (in this sense); the 1983 Code of Canon Law avoided ambiguity by coming up with the term “Ecclesia ritualis sui iuris” to refer to what the 1917 Code called “ritus” (canon 98 of that earlier Code); then the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches decided that “Ecclesia sui iuris” was sufficient.

The word “rite” can, of course, refer to more than one reality. “The Latin rite” can mean the Latin Catholic Church, or it can mean one of the liturgical rites of the Latin Catholic Church. So too, “the Ukrainian rite” can mean the Ukrainian Catholic Church, or it can mean the form of the Byzantine (liturgical) rite used by the Ukrainian Catholic Church. On the other hand, “the Byzantine rite” (singular) is univocal: it can only mean a liturgical rite, since there is no such thing as the Byzantine autonomous Church, autonomous ritual Church, particular Church (as distinct from local Churches), or whatever other term people may come up with for that kind of entity.

Law texts must endeavour to avoid ambiguity. That is why the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches chose to use the term “ritus” in only one sense (extending it outside the liturgical field), and for the other sense to employ the term “Ecclesia sui iuris”. That does not mean that the word “rite” may never be used, outside that Code, in this latter sense, a sense in which it has in fact been used by, for instance, the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Second Vatican Council.

Lima 21:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)