Yesterday, I wrote on this blog about my effort to be catholic though I am not Catholic. It turned into an interesting conversation and I am thankful for the participation of all those who had something to say. I want to continue from another angle.
Through the discussion it was made evident that non-Catholics are considered to be something called “ecclesiastical communities”. I found this phrase a bit odd since it seems to indicated Protestant/Reformed/Anglican, et al., are legitimate “churches”, yet different (subordinate) to the Catholic church. Esteban Vazquez noted that this is because we do not have the authority of an episcopate, therefore holy orders, therefore actual standing as a church because we are not under a bishop (does this apply to Anglicans or are Anglican episcopates legitimate?). This made me wonder what the actual downside would be for a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian.
When I asked this question Nick Norelli suggested that it is likely we are considered heretical. This bothered me since I had heard that Vatican II pulled back such language. As I read through Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (here), it was a bit vague. There is a section of chapter III titled “Separated Churches and Ecclesiastical Communities in the West” which would apply to all of us Christians who derive from the Reformation in one way or another. The document does not make a general statement regarding all of these churches for the following reason:
“However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.”
Rather, the document list several areas of commonality that can serve as a starting place for dialog: (1) the confession of Jesus Christ as God; (2) the Trinity; (3) love and reverence of the Sacred Scriptures; (4) baptism; (5) our taking of communion; and (6) other pieties such as hearing and obeying the Word, prayer, et al. If these things are in place the move toward “eccumenical action” can occur. I couldn’t determine whether or not this means simply that Catholics have common ground with which to bring the rest of us back to Rome or if the common ground meant the reality of some sort of fellowship, as is.
So, in gist, what does it mean, from the perspectives of Catholics (and we could even include Orthodox if they would like to speak to this), for the rest of us to be “ecclesiastical communities”? What is the actual downside to this standing in your opinion? Do we not participate in the fullness of salvation in some sort of way? Do you foresee eschatological consequences for our perceived separation? Your feedback is welcome.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
It is here I would recommend the reading of the great Russian Orthodox Churchman, Georges Florovsky. He was a leader of the great Ecumenical Movement in the 20th century. And personal friends with Karl Barth also.
It doesn’t necessarily mean heretical, just schismatic. This means that we’re “saved” (if baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but with a few extra years in Purgatory since we aren’t in “full” communion with the Pope. Think Donatist controversy.
@Ryan: Would purgatory be God’s corrective measure against our schism or a means of bringing us back into some sort of postmortem fellowship?
Purgatory by nature is a corrective of sin. So, if schism is sin, then purgatory would be a corrective for it. I don’t know if a Roman Catholic would word it as I did. I threw purgatory in there to emphasize the “sinfulness” of schism so as not to portray it as a “I’m still in so it doesn’t matter if I’m not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church” (though personally I’m banking on my Trinitarian baptism–just in case). We have communion with the RCC because of our Trinitarian baptism brings us into communion with God. Fr. Neuhaus explains it better in a lecture given in the 1997 Francis A. Schaeffer Lectures “What is the True Church” (http://www.resourcesforlifeonline.com/series/84/; lectures 7 and 8).
Hope that answers your question.
@Ryan: Thanks for the response. I will take a look at that lecture.
Brian> If you were under the impression that the Roman church has pulled back from the language of heresy and schism since the Second Vatican Council, then you are sorely mistaken! However, it must be remembered that such language is essentially juridical, and that its main use is in the province of Canon Law.
Here are some relevant excerpts from the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law that put the matter in broader context:
Regarding the Anglicans, the Roman church views them as an “ecclesial community” since in their judgment they do not have valid orders, and therefore no legitimate episcopacy or Eucharist. They do assert, however, that we Orthodox have both an legitimate episcopacy and valid sacraments, and further that we believe no heresies, but per Canon 751 above we are regarded as schismatics. Other communions viewed in the similar light are the Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholic Church.
Esteban,
One of the great problems with Roman Catholicism however, is that they often live well below their own juridical jurisprudence, sadly! This is my backyard as raised and somewhat educated Irish Roman Catholic.
@Esteban: It does seem that some of us non-Catholics (I hate the word Protestant and Reformed has a different connotation these days than with what I want to affiliate) were under the impression that Vatican II made things more chummy. It seems like it is more of a open door for Catholics to find ways to reengage us in order to bring us back, rather than outright condemnation.
Brian,
This is good insight as to Vatican II! Rome always sees themselves as ‘the Top of the Rock’. But also Orthodoxy too, but at least in a non authoritarian way (to their people). Their’s is with and expressed by dogmatic theology. The real only “authority”! (Of course in the Church)
Esteban,
I think you are wrong about the RC take on Anglicans. From my understanding any minister from an ecclesiastical denomination that has ministers, bishops and archbishops, such as the Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox will be freely accepted into the RC church as a priest of the RC church.
There are many married Roman Catholic priests who are able to be in that position because they crossed the Tiber from such a denomination.
Brian; its my understanding that the RC church thinks in the same way as the Orthodox do. That is they think they are the true church and therefore they cannot accept us as being an integral part of the true church. Hence Rome’s vision is to embrace all as prodigals accepting us back home..and therefore they are interested in bringing us back home and not fully accepting us as we are.
Craig,
It may appear that Rome takes other churchmen quickly into the priesthood, from other churches, but this is not really an easy or quick road. Each man is given both moral and theological scrutiny! And often many have to take at least months of further Catholic training, even education, etc. It is sometimes easier for Anglicans (one on one, not the new rite), at the education level. And then there are those who enter the many different orders. They are all different in their requirements and demands. Indeed Rome was taking married Anglican priests back in the 80’s. I had a few friends who went over, but strangely they have either left or gone back to Anglicanism. As I understand it, almost never are this married priests allowed at the parish level. They are chaplains, school/college priests, used as the Roman Church sees fit, etc.
Hi Robert.
I agree its not just a quick acceptance; that there are hurdles to overcome. The point I am making is that they will do so for ministers coming out of an ecclesiastical denomination, where they won’t for ministers coming out of other non ecclesiastical denominations.
I know of an Australian married priest whose role is to substitute for parish priests when they take their sabbaticals…. though normally in the more rural areas.
I enjoy the fellowship; but wont cross myself. I enjoy the Orthodox and RC prayers, a lot of their theology and take what I think is good and wholesome and leave what I don’t.
Hey Craig,
Yes are no doubt right there, Rome does not care for non-ecclesiastical ministry. It is really no ministry to them. I could have gone back to Rome rather easy (or tired), as both an Anglican and former (really baptised/confirmed Catholic). I was even asked to think about it last year. But, the papal doctrines are hard for me now. Though, I respect much of the RCC! And I like Ratzinger or Pope Benedict. But it would be Orthodoxy now for me, if I went anywhere! But at me age, and my wife’s condition, it would have to be God’s providence?
*tried
Fr Robert> But who doesn’t! 🙂
Brian> Indeed, but this should not be surprising: any other goal on the part of the Roman church would be run counter to their ecclesiology, and would in fact require them to renounce it.
Craig> You are confusing the matter of the personal suitability of a former Protestant (with apologies to Brian!) minister for the Roman Catholic priesthood with the validity of his orders. While many former ministers who convert to Roman Catholicism are indeed now priests in that church, this is not so because they had valid orders before; rather, they are ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop after they have joined that church as laymen. The exception here, again, is with Orthodox, Old Catholic, PNCC, and other “schismatic” clergy, who are received as clergymen in their rank because they are understood to have valid orders. With respect to Anglican orders in particular, cf. the 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae, which definitively declares all Anglican ordinations to be utterly null and void.