Jump to content

Talk:Full communion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

How about comming up with a list of Full Communion Bodies to insert in the article.

Here is a tiny start

Please use the List of Christian denominations to make lists of Christian denominations. And, for readability's sake, please sign your posts with three or four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Mkmcconn 16:12, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A perplexing question

[edit]
  • Given:
  1. The Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India is in full communion with the Anglican Communion.
  2. Part of the Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
  3. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
  4. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is in full communion with the Moravian Church.
    • Is the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India in full communion with the Moravian Church?--Pharos 06:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

answer:

a friend of mine was explaining this to me. One church might be in full comunion with two churches that are not in full comunion with each other. So in theory you could "jump" from one to the other to the other, but not directly. I know it's kind of weird but that's the way they work. Cjrs 79 08:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In mathematical language, one would say that the relationship of full communion is not transitive. Michael Hardy 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First and Last mentioned?

[edit]

There is a list. Then discussion of the first and last. Not clear - is it the first x entries or just the first one. Ditto re last - one or all-bar-the-first?

The Catholic Communion

[edit]

The Catholic Communion is the name of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church whose head is the Holy Father (Pope). The 23 (or 24, I can't remember exactly) sui juris Churches that make up this communion all have their own traditional rites and ways of expressing their Catholic faith are Catholic, but aren't Roman. Hence why Catholic Communion is used and not the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is NOT the Roman Catholic Church but they are not Eastern Orthodox and they are in Communion with the Successor of St. Peter.

Anonymous user

"The Catholic Communion is the name of ..." Please give even one instance in which the Church whose visible head is the Holy Father, the Pope, has called itself "The Catholic Communion". There are thousands, doubtless tens of thousands or even more, of documents in which it refers to itself as "The Catholic Church", including the Decree of the Second Vatican Council on the Catholic Eastern Churches. There are hundreds, indeed almost certainly thousands, of documents, especially those it has issued in its dialogues with other Christian Churches, in which it accepts the name "The Roman Catholic Church". There seems to be no document in which it calls itself "The Catholic Communion". How then can this be the name of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church whose visible head is the Holy Father, the Pope?

It might be helpful to read the Roman Catholic Church article.

Lima 14:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: SYRO-MALABAR CHURCH IN THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION. The Catholic Church is one all over the world with the same faith and the same sacraments as well as the same ... www.thesyromalabarchurch.org/communion.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Also see... http://vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=CATHOLIC+COMMUNION&x=25&y=10

Here we have a transcript of a speech given by the late John Paul the Great himself using the phrase Catholic communion to describe all the sui juris churches in communion with Rome.

5. In harmony with the tradition handed down from the earliest centuries, the Patriarchal Churches have a unique place in the Catholic communion. One need only think that in these Churches the highest authority for any action, including the right to elect Bishops within the borders of the patriarchal territory, is constituted by the Patriarchs with their Synods, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontif to intervene “in singulis casibus” (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 9).

From: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca_en.html

Anonymous user

Thanks. And congratulations on your research.

Lima 19:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of full communion not NPOV

[edit]

This article should be NPOV, particularly in its assessment of the different perspectives on full communion. While it may be true that the Porvoo model is somewhat less than the Roman model in certain regards, don't expect the Porvoo churches to agree with that assessment. The Canadian example of the Anglican/Evangelical Lutheran full communion agreement is pertinent here. The two churches state very clearly that the full communion that they enter into is the fullness of visible unity, as they understand Christ's prayer in Jn 17. They do not say that this full communion is the final state of their relations. In the fullness of time, their relatuionship will undoubtedly change and may very well lead to organic unity. However, they are clear that full communion and organic unity are not synonymous. Perhaps this article would benefit from beginning with the World Council of Churches' Toronto Statement of 1950. A definition of full communion is offered there that describes what is part of, and not part of, full communion. It also distinguishes it from "intercommunion." Another area to consider would be the WCC's Canberra Statement on Unity from 1991. The reflection on "koinonia" helps to understand the character of full communion. Njesson 15 December 2005

Indeed. One of the details of Porvoo model is of exclusive episcopal boundaries. So the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish churches/seamen's missions in south-east London are nominally subject to the Bishop of Southwark, not Nordic bishops. That rule does not seem to apply to Eastern Catholics whose various territories ovelap. --Henrygb 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

[edit]

The article includes the text:

The United Church of Christ and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches are in talks for either full communion or merger, and several Independent Catholic groups have indicated interest and willingness to enter into full communion with such a body if concerns about the Historic Episcopate and the Eucharist can be addressed.

I am an UCC member and I consider myself to be reasonably informed about denominational affairs, and I have not heard boo about anything of this sort. Does anyone have a reference? aliceinlampyland 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Financial/practical effects?

[edit]

Please forgive me, but my mind has a secular tendency, and when I read that various churches are in full communion with one another, especially small churches with the Roman Catholic, what I don't understand is whether this implies any, well, "real world" agreements, such as the transfer of money or property, a legally enforceable chain of command, right to use each others' resources, etc. Or are these agreements simply theological concordances? 70.15.116.59 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image of a commercial or financial company is inapplicable to the Roman Catholic Church. The various entities within the Church own their own property. The properties of the United States dioceses do not belong either in canon law or in civil law to the Pope - he isn't that rich! They do not with their resources help other entities within the Church because of a strictly legal obligation, but they are urged to do so for moral reasons. Full communion, as indicated in the article, is a matter of completeness of bonds of "faith, sacraments and pastoral governance". What chain of command there is concerns only these matters, not ownership of property. That chain of command is, in a sense, not really legally enforceable, since the only penalties that the Church can apply are spiritual ones, the most extreme being excommunication. But of course the various entities within the Church can decide to enter into contracts with each other that are legally enforceable in civil law.
I am sure there are other editors who can explain the situation more clearly than I can. Lima 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less correct. The Eastern Catholic Churches have title to their own property. Majoreditor (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarheelz/Lima disagreement

[edit]

Tarheelz wants this included. But all cases of dialogue between churches have the ultimate aim of reaching full communion. I think it altogether inappropriate to mention as relevant to this article the talks between the Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council. They are not yet precisely about establishing full communion. Should we add also the talks between the Catholic Church and all the other groups mentioned here? They include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, Lutherans, Reformed, Evangelicals, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals ... And should we add also the dialogues between, for instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church and various Western groups? I don't think so. Lima (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrians?

[edit]

Considering that the Assyrian Church of the East practices open communion (albeit with certain provisions), how does it understand full communion? If the Roman Catholic Church was willing to reunite with the Assyrian Church of the East only a few years ago, was it an issue related to full communion which prevented this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.28.186 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open communion means admitting to reception of the Eucharist people who are not in full communion with the church celebrating the Eucharist. They are thus quite distinct notions.
The Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East described the meeting at which it was signed as only "a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored". It declared agreement on one aspect of Christ and of his mother about which the two sides had seemed to be at variance, but it also stated that full communion will require "unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored." Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs rewrite

[edit]

The lead section needs to be rewritten. First of all, it's supposed to be a summary of material already in the body of an article, not have material that exists nowhere else. Secondly, due to this fact, in a non-controversial article normally there needn't be any footnotes in the lead section, because the main body of the article will already contain the detailed descriptions from which the summary was drawn, along with references (and if it doesn't have references already, the body is the default place to put them). Thirdly, the lead appears to be attempting (not very well, imho) to give a detailed definition, but it's kind of a mish-mash of overly jargony and doesn't reflect the body nor does it give a clear definition of the article topic, as it should.

The article body should have a Definition section as the first section, which can go into detail about how the definition(s) may differ from one denomination to another. The lead first sentence should then give a shortened version of the definition section, followed by a few additional paragraphs summarizing the material in the remainder of the article, such as full and partial, effects on intercommunion, the Eastern churches, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's way past time for this and no one has weighed in, so I'm going to start in on it. Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Should this article be merged with Church union, or the other way around? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Why would you think they should? Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Full communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

[edit]

This article is categorised as Category:Lists of Christian denominations not because this reflects an essential property of the article, but in any case an accidental - it does contain a listing. Just as is the case with a few other categorised articles. Rather uncontroversial. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your categorisation of this article in "Lists of Christian denominations" (and your redo after reversion) is a mistake, chiefly because it is not a defining characteristic of the term Full communion. For the beginning of this discussion and further details, see this discussion. Please revert your categorisation. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chicbyaccident, please have a look at the Wikipedia policy governing categorisation, specifically, WP:CATDEFINING. It says: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having," and goes on in more detail. You can think of this as the "is-a" property.
As an example of a valid defining characteristic, consider the concept "Christian term[inology]". Since many reliable sources define "full communion" in the context of articles about Christian ideas and terms,[1][2][3] one can reliably say that " 'Full communion' is a Christian term ". Because it is, it's entirely appropriate to add "Full communion" to the category Christian terminology, and I'm sure we both agree on that point.
The guideline WP:NONDEF repeats some of the verbiage of the primary guideline, and adds: "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided," and goes on to give examples of defining characteristics. The statement, " 'full communion' is a List of Christian denominations " is false, because 'full communion' is not a list, and is not a Christian denomination either. That's why "Full communion" does not belong in this category.
Can you please remove the article from Category:Lists of Christian denominations, or post a link to a Wikipedia guideline or policy which you believe supports its inclusion? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article contains a section "List of Catholic churches in full communion", among other sections with equivalent content. Should we erase this content, and thus this article categorised as containing such list(s)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, I think. This article is not a list of Christian denominations, it's an article about the topic of "Full communion", of which different Christian denominations may have different views. Use the "IS-A" test: look at the "Gandhi" article, for example, which has lots of categories. Although there is a lot in the article about Indian politics and Indian protests, naturally enough, since Gandhi was intimately involved in the politics of India and with Indian protests, but would you say that Gandhi "IS A" Politics of India? No, he's a person, not "a politics"; therefore, the article is not in the Category:Politics of India. However, Gandhi *is a* Anti-poverty advocate, he *is a* Assassinated Indian politican, he *is a* Gujarati language writer, he *is a* Indian pacifist, and so on, for a dozen or so more categories. Therefore, the article belongs in those categories.
It's the exact same thing here. Would you say that Full communion *is a* List of Christian denominations? I think you would agree that it is not, just like in the example above. That's why Full communion doesn't belong in that category. But that is merely an illustrative parallel example, and the real reason comes from the WP:CATDEF guideline itself, which I've mentioned several times as the governing principle here, but which you haven't addressed. If you still believe that Full communion belongs in that category, please tell me what guideline supports your view. Because I just don't see it. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be going around in circles, so I've sought additional opinions from members of WikiProject Categories. Hopefully, they'll be able to shed some light on this. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from uninvolved editor. I'm here because of the request placed by Mathglot on the WP:WikiProject Categories page. Mathglot's description of the logic behind the "defining characteristic" is compelling. But there is also a direct argument that comes straight from the rules set forth in WP:CAT -- the "Special considerations" sub-section is quite direct in telling us that "Lists of ..." categories should be populated only by List articles. And the argument that we can treat something as a List article just because it contains a list can not possibly be correct. If it were correct, then it would apply to virtually every biography of an author (because they usually contain a bibliographic listing of books written by the author), every biography of a musician (so long as it contains a discography, which most of them do), and many, many articles about populated places (which often contain lists of schools, places of interest, etc.). The rule under WP:CAT#Special considerations don't call for any exceptions, let alone an exception that could be applied to such a massive number of articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assistance. I believe that the rule that NewYorkActuary is referring to is bullet 2 under WP:CAT#Special conventions: "These ['Lists of...'] categories should only contain list pages." Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ecclesiology
  2. Christian ecumenism
  3. Christian terminology

so perhaps we can conclude that this discussion need not continue further. yoyo (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chau Thien Phan. "Ecumenism 101: Glossary, Abbs, Stats". Retrieved April 13, 2017.
  2. ^ "Lutheranism 101". Holy Trinity Lutheran Church. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
  3. ^ Wall, John N. (January 2000). A Dictionary for Episcopalians. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 55. ISBN 978-1-56101-178-0. Retrieved April 13, 2017.

History

[edit]

The article completely fails to give any understanding of the relevant history, including the process by which the notion of, and conversation about, its topic – full communion between two churches – have come about. However, and as a start, I see that one user has referred on this talk page to the World Council of Churches' Toronto Statement of 1950 and Canberra Statement of 1991, more details of which might help a little to fill this gap.

I also feel that the article's POV is unnecessarily skewed towards those of the US and the Roman Catholic church, with just passing mention of European, Canadian and Eastern churches, but nothing substantive about many significant African, Asian, Latin American and Australasian churches. yoyo (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Full communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branches vs Denominations?

[edit]

I wonder if 'Branches' could be added to the lead sentence with 'denominations'? I had changed a link for the word 'communion' to here from 'Communion (religion)', in article 'Christianity', (in sentence, "The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches broke communion with each other in the East–West Schism of 1054."), because that sentence seems to be talking about communion between (or not between) Branches of Christianity, and 'Communion (religion)' seemed to be speaking solely or mostly about relations between individuals, and this article seems to speak more broadly. So, adding 'Branches' with 'denominations' in the lead sentence would continue that (correct?) broader definition? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old edits by blocked sock

[edit]

I'm looking for help from some regular editors here, to review some old edits by blocked sock Bealtainemí (talk · contribs) going back to 2017. I've reverted one edit of theirs that was pretty clearly unwarranted, which removed the only definition in the "Definition" section, leaving only its citation, and which replaced it with unsourced material of their own, conveniently and misleadingly locating it just before the left over citation which had nothing to do with the added material. So that one edit is reverted/fixed, now.

But there's more. Here's one edit, for example: 782505599 of 09:46, 27 May 2017. I'm not quite sure if this is legit, semi-legit, or more nonsense, sticking material in front of existing citations, that isn't really sourced by anything. In this edit, they removed content about Anglican views of communion sourced to www.episcopalchurch.org and anglicansonline.org, and replaced it with some bullet points and other new content which appears to be sourced to the same, www.episcopalchurch.org citation. Perhaps there's some value there, but it's not clear, and in any case, there was no explanation for the removal of the previous sourced content (empty edit summary). Their pattern seems to be: remove stuff they don't like without explanation, keep only the citations, then stick in new stuff (original research? valid content?) right in front of the old citations.

They have a total of a dozen edits at the article. Could use someone with more insight into the various denominations, and more recent involvement in the article, to take a look at this. Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging top editors@Vaquero100 and Akhenaten0: at this article, to see if you have any thoughts on this, as well as @Roscelese, Anupam, and Protoclete: who have been active on related articles in ways I trust. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_communion&oldid=1207325928"