Talk:Full communion

message: How about comming up with a list of Full Communion Bodies to insert in the article.
Here is a tiny start
*UCC
*The Papacy
*CCG(for Unitarians)
*URC
*OOC
*EOC
: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *Given:
#The Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India is in full communion with the Anglican Communion.
#Part of the Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
#The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
#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)
replies: text: In mathematical language, one would say that the relationship of full communion is not transitive.  Michael Hardy 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A perplexing question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Catholic Communion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of full communion not NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tarheelz/Lima disagreement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead needs rewrite 

message: Should this article be merged with Church union, or the other way around? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. Why would you think they should? Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202223910/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306113628/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407052252/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215111210/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816040600/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151103164736/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://traditionalanglicancommunion.org/CollegeofBishops0301212.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726135447/http://www.newmartyr.org.uk/branch.html to http://www.newmartyr.org.uk/branch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Branches vs Denominations? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm looking for help from some regular editors here, to review some old edits by blocked sock  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)
replies: text: Pinging top editors at this article, to see if you have any thoughts on this, as well as  who have been active on related articles in ways I trust. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old edits by blocked sock