Actually, no, not the PNCC according to their statement. They accept him as a Bishop of Rome, the first amongst equals, but not as infallible and not as the “leader” or head of the earthly church.
So wait… are you saying the PNCC is in communion with Rome with these beliefs? or are they like the SSPX?
It appears they are in communion with Rome.
from their beliefs page: easterndiocesepncc.org/Beliefs_and_Principals.html
Therefore, we reject the innovations of the First Vatican Council that on July 18, 1870 promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome, which contradict the Faith of the ancient Church and which destroy its ancient canonical constitution by attributing to the Pope the plenitude of ecclesiastical powers over all dioceses and over all the faithful. By denial of his primatial jurisdiction we do not wish to deny the historic primacy which several Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the ancient Church have attributed to the Bishop of Rome by recognizing him as the Primus inter pares (first among equals).
We also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 in defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction to the Tradition of the first centuries.
We further reject the dogmatization of the Catholic teaching of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pius XII in 1950 as being in defiance of the Holy Scriptures.
Nope they are not in Communion with Rome. Just saw that after viewing wikipedia and their webpage. They are seeking communion but are not in communion with the holy see. I hope that helps clarify your standpoint a bit. You can look at their beliefs and know that they are not in communion with Rome
Sorry, terminology problems; they are recognized by the Catholic church as having valid sacraments, and if you are a member of the PNCC you can commune with the Catholic church; as in receive Eucharist. So, if I’m a member of the PNCC I can commune at a Catholic parish, but not if I hold the same view.
In short my confusion still remains; if I’m confirmed in the PNCC I can commune at a Catholic parish. So, what IS the difference between an individual and a whole church? Is it “only” because the leaders have come to some type of understanding?
No the RCC only allows them to commune if there is no other way for them to receive communion at their kind of church. Those who are apart of the valid Eucharistic Churches can intercommune IF AND ONLY IF they have no other option to receive.
An easy answer to a lot of this confusion is to say that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) are Sacramental religions.
I understand that, but so are several other churches within Christianity. It is still a confusion to those outside the more liturgical system about who is and is not allowed to commune together and why (we know the technical reasons). Celebrating the Lord’s Supper is meant to show forth the Body of Christ as a joint congregation (as well as the elements). It still stands that I can have exactly the same set of beliefs from one day to the next and if I’m allowed to commune is not about beliefs, but rather which organizational church I belong to.
I’m just sharing why it is “strange” to some of us outside the liturgical system. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather see more inter-communion rather than less. I just tend to think the individual in Christianity is just as important as a congregation, if that person is truly a believer.
In essence I guess the main answer is, “it is what it is.”
Appears to be so.
Dialogue with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, with the approval of the Holy See, led in 1996 to an arrangement that Laurence J. Orzell has called “limited inter-communion”. What this means is that the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the sacraments of the PNCC, making applicable to its members the provisions of canon 844 §§2–3 of the Code of Canon Law. This canon allows Catholics who are unable to approach a Catholic minister to receive, under certain conditions, the sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from “non-Catholic ministers ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid”, and declares it licit for Catholic priests to administer the same three sacraments to members of churches which the Holy See judges to be in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as the Eastern Churches, if they ask for the sacraments of their own accord and are properly disposed. Obstacles to full communion include different understandings regarding the role of the Pope, the level of involvement of the laity in church governance and the PNCC reception of some former Roman Catholic clergy, most of whom subsequently married.
PNCC seeks communion with Rome. their agreement is an outward sign from 96.
What this means is that the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the sacraments of the PNCC, making applicable to its members the provisions of canon 844 §§2–3 of the Code of Canon Law. …
- Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
In short, the way I read it and summarize this is the Orthodox church acts as a sort of measuring stick, for if they are seen as valid, then others like them are also see to be valid in their own right (or ‘rite’ lol). The only way an individual apart from a church is granted the same communion right is under extraordinary circumstances.
You have to remember that for Catholics (as well as Orthodox Christians and other similar traditions), it is absolutely essential that a baptized Christian be a member of a local Church. A local Church, to our understanding, is not simply any group of believers, but rather a community of believers united at the Eucharistic table under the presidency of a bishop in apostolic succession. This doctrine was already laid out by St. Ignatius of Antioch around the year 107 (just several years after Revelation had been penned by St. John - St. Ignatius was in fact mentored by the Apostle John):
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)
Perhaps this will help you understand why only those who celebrate a valid Eucharist under a true bishop can be admitted to the Lord’s table. Protestant Christians are true Christians by virtue of their faith and baptism, but you are lacking this key element. As Christians you are imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church, but you are not incorporated into a local Church. Scripture tells us that the early believers were devoted to the teaching of the apostles and to the breaking of bread (the Eucharist) - under their successors, the Bishops, this continues to be true for Catholics. (Acts 2:42)
I believe the title of the thread is misleading. There is no intercommunion between Rome and any of the other Churches not in formal communion with Rome. There are, however, what are known as PASTORAL PROVISIONS, wherein during extenuating circumstances and under certain conditions, the Catholic Church allows members of other Churches (as well as Protestant ecclesial communities) to receive the Eucharist, and vice-versa.
I don’t believe there would be a “vice-versa” with protestant churches, even sacramental ones such as Lutherans and Anglicans because of the issue of valid orders. Would there be any circumstance where a Catholic could receive with CC approval, a Lutheran Eucharist?
You are right, brother. Sorry for the slip.:o
That’s a good point, the PNCC aren’t protestant (unlike Lutherans and Anglicans who are “catholic *and *protestant” … or “catholic and Protestant” :)).
My understanding of the canon as quoted by GaryTaylor above is that extenuating circumstances are needed for a member of the CC to receive communion from a PNCC priest, but no such extenuating circumstances are needed for a member of the PNCC to receive communion from a CC priest (that is the scenario Kliska was citing). Have I got it wrong?
That would be for the PNCC to say … but unfortunately I don’t recall what, if anything, they have said about it.
Sorry, yes of course, but I meant from the CC’s point of view.
Mardukm suggested above that:
“There are, however, what are known as PASTORAL PROVISIONS, wherein during extenuating circumstances and under certain conditions, the Catholic Church allows members of other Churches (as well as Protestant ecclesial communities) to receive the Eucharist, and vice-versa.”
but the canon does not suggest that the CC requires to recognise extenuating circumstances in order for its priests to give communion to PNCC members (the situation Kliska was describing) as I understand it.