If "communication" with Catholics who live outside the ivory towers is Benedict's intent, he would do better to state his meaning bluntly and directly, instead of with such subtlety and coyness that it requires Fr Brian Harrison and Karl Keating to explain it to the rest of us. In the Church Militant, troops follow a leader, not a philosopher-king.
If a great shaking-out is indeed coming, let the rules of engagement be stated clearly.
I completely agree. How in Heaven's name is it a good thing to make the Church faithful bend over backwards to understand the full import of the Pope's words? And then to never really know if we "got it"?
I'll take Father Harrison's take on this one. Let's assume that he's right. Didn't the seamless garment argument get effectively gored by the fact that the very phrase was not used by the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae? Sure, it would be reassuring to see the sacking of Cardinal Mahoney and Cardinal Kasper, but wouldn't it be equally as delicious to watch them pass into utter insignificance, as two trees falling in the forest when no one is there to record it?
Chris,
No, it wouldn't. Because it wouldn't happen that way. Kasper and Mahony are not tree stumps. They are powerful men with access to great resources -- they, and their fellow ecumenicists, are, in fact, the clerical establishment of the so-called first world, a world which under their leadership is rapidly devolving to the status of a backwater mission. In the absence of a leader who speaks clearly and forcefully, other mediators and interpreters and "authoritative" spokesmen will rush to fill the void. Benedict's elegant distinctions and subtle omissions will be lost in clouds of rhetoric. Sound familiar? Try "Post Vatican II -- The Sequel".
"Pascendi Dominici Gregis", "Humani Generis", and the magnificent "Syllabus of Errors"! No collegial rope-a-dope there.
I agree strongly with you here, Ralph.
And more, Fr. Harrison's jesuitical (in the bad sense of the word) interpretation is absurd. The pope did not say "theological thought" or "theological structure" -- he said theology and theology is inseparable from doctrine.
How can one have an acceptable "Calvinist theology" of the Eucharist, of the Church, of the Communion and intercession of Saints...?
Inseparable from doctrine, but nevertheless distinct from doctrine.
Ralph,
Right/write on brother!!
Thank you for this articles, Dr.Blosser.
Sometimes, Jordan.
But how can one explain, v.g., Trasubstantiation, which IS a doctrine without recourse to traditional Catholic theology?
Thank you, Ralph and "New Catholic". I do take your point, but I'm trying to give His Holiness the vote of confidence I think he deserves. In reference to the "theology" question, it should be noted that there is the theology of Augustine, of Thomas (if you have to ask which one, oh well), of other great Catholic scholars and saints. There is even the work of St. Maximillian Kolbe. All of them are authetically Catholic. Calvin, Silly beaks and cohort aren't, at least by any sensible measure.
What I mean is: we do not have to read into detail EVERY word of the pope, to check that all words he says are undoubtedly orthodox or at least MUST have some kind of hidden traditional meaning, which can only be understood by the Harrisonian-Keatingian method of interpretation.
Vatican I freed us from that assumption.
And the pope himself was very stark in his most interesting speech so far, the one to the clergy of Val D'Aosta: "the Pope is not an oracle".
The Harrisonian-Keatingian method would thus interpret the Denial of St. Peter:
"You are Galilee and hang out with that Man, don't you?" "- NO."
Harrison-Keating: actually, what the pope meant was "No, I am not the Son of Man: He is!"
--
"You are with Jesus of Nazareth, aren't you?" "- NO!"
Harrison-Keating: actually, the Pope meant "I told you: Jesus of Nazareth IS the Messiah"
--
"Come here, aren't you one of the Nazarene's followers?" "-NO!"
Harrison-Keating: actually, the Pope was ascertaining the Petrine Primacy.
--
"from Galilee"... You get it, right? I had to type fast.
Chris notes:
"In reference to the "theology" question, it should be noted that there is the theology of Augustine, of Thomas (if you have to ask which one, oh well), of other great Catholic scholars and saints. There is even the work of St. Maximillian Kolbe."
Somerville replies: http://www.theosophical.org/theo...00/exclusivism/
"University-trained churchgoers tend to be less enthusiastic about their faith than were their predecessors. They distrust the ancient scriptures, created by men with little knowledge of science and cosmology or the size and age of the universe, reflecting an archaic worldview that does not speak to our contemporary concerns and understanding."
I join with those who decline to tease the meaning out of the Pope's words here. "Jesuitical" is the nicest thing you could say about Fr. Harrison's interpretation.
The sedevacantists are screaming about precisely this statement now, saying "SEE! We told you he was a heretic."
My problem is that I don't see what the counter-argument is. (And what's expressed here is clearly too weak.)
Benedict would be better served if he addressed the likes of Crossan:
From: Will the Real Jesus Stand Up?
A Debate Between William Lane Craig
> > and John Dominic Crossan
> > By: Ron Maness
> > edited by
> > Paul Copan
> > Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998, 179 pages
Crossan noted:
> >
> > "When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with
> > integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and
> > factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's
> > womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I
must
> > admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the
> > truth; you have a lie." I don't think that can be said any
longer,
> > for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others'
faith
> > is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of
> > Christianity" (page 39).
Convergent,
It's funny because Benedict has done his homework on the infancy narratives. Rene Laurentin in his great book Truth of Christmas mentions him. Fr. Laurentin's book is probably the best I have read on the infancy narrative. Jean Danielou also has a small book on that issue. Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) has argued, and quite nicely, that there is no virgin birth outside of Christianity. Anyway, I would suggest people actually hear or read the Craig/Crossan debate. Here is a little sample:
Craig: This distinction between statements of faith and statements of fact that you make troubles me. I would like to know, for you, what about the statement that ‘God exists’? Is that a statement of faith or fact?
Crossan: It’s a statement of faith for all those who make it.
Craig: So on your view, then, factually speaking, it is not true that God exists.
.....
Crossan: Wait a minute! We only know God as God has revealed God to us; that’s all we could ever know in any religion.
Craig: During the Jurassic age, when there were no human beings, did God exist?
Crossan: Meaningless question.
(http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/
rediscover1.html)
LOL!!! Crossan got kinda stuck huh?
Also, if you listen to the whole debate, Craig makes his case while Crossan simply speaks to the choir with no interaction with Craig's 4 arguments.
Convergent, again, you don't really have anything here. You're 10 steps behind. That's why the Church doesn't address much of Crossan's arguments. It's because she is beyond the fashions of today.
Apolonio,
"Beyond the fashions of today?" Hmmm, like the billions we are paying to abused alter boys"?
And then there are the problems with "original" sin, immaculate conceptions, and "prophets" without prophecies i.e. Future is our gift. God does not know it and neither did Isiah et al if they existed at all. (see the discussion at http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2/
0401torah.asp )
Have you read any of Crossan's books lately?
I wonder if Benedict has?
"Sometimes, Jordan."
No, always -- Catholic theology is always distinct from Catholic doctrine, but never separable from it. Kind of like the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
"But how can one explain, v.g., Transubstantiation, which IS a doctrine without recourse to traditional Catholic theology?"
That's a good illustration of the point I made -- the doctrine of transubstantiation and the theology that explains are distinct things, but cannot be separated from each other, not without depriving the doctrine of its proper meaning.
"What I mean is: we do not have to read into detail EVERY word of the pope, to check that all words he says are undoubtedly orthodox or at least MUST have some kind of hidden traditional meaning, which can only be understood by the Harrisonian-Keatingian method of interpretation.
"Vatican I freed us from that assumption."
But Vatican I did not free us from the moral obligation to start with the assumption that a Pope's words are orthodox unless you can prove otherwise. It's only charitable to do so. To apply your standard, we'd simply have no recourse but to conclude that, say, Honorius taught Monotheletism. Benedict XVI's public words here may not be what we'd like them to have been, or even what they perhaps should have been, but that's a far cry from St. Peter's private, personal denial of Christ.
Jordan, the Pope was just being nice to Protestants -- also to some Orthodox who were at the meeting, but it was Germany and he had to be nice.
That does not mean that he does not believe in what he said or that what he said is heterodox (it may be -- the denial of Peter was not exactly private...), but that what he said is what he said. It does not make him less of a pope, as the Denial did not make St. Peter less of a Rock: it's just what he said.
Chris,
Understood, and no real argument. I never said that I rejected Fr Harrison's interpretation. I only said that it would be better for the Pope to state the case bluntly and unambiguously, and rely less on deliberate subtlety, sly deference, and rhetorical filigree. The fact that he does not leads to suspicions of heterodoxy, and worse.
We should not have to wonder if the Pope's statements are orthodox.
"the denial of Peter was not exactly private..."
It was not a formal, public teaching -- it was a private, personal action on St. Peter's part. That's what I meant by saying his denial was private.
I agree that it would be far preferable if Pope's didn't say such things about ecumenism -- or would phrase them in a clearer, more direct fashion.
With respect to Peter's denial- As per Crossan, (From his The Historic Jesus)--
"271-. Peter's Three Denials: (1a) Mark 14:54,66-72 = Matt 26:58,69-75 = Luke 22:54b-62, (1b) Gos. Naz. 19, (1c) John 18:15-18,25-27" i.e. a negative rating, it is not historic.
"25-. Peter's Betrayal Foretold. (1) P. Vienna G. 2325; (2a) Mark 14:26-31 = Matt 26:30-35; (2b) John 13:36-38; (3) Luke 22:31-34; (4) Barn. 5:12" i.e a negative rating, it is not historic.
Yeah, whatever. And per Jordan Potter and the Potter Seminar, St. Peter's three denials and St. Peter's betrayal foretold are all historical. I'd say my personal opinion carries as much force as the personal opinions of Crossan and his pseudoscholars with their colored beads.
Hey Jordan,
Have you read Crossan's books? Or written any published critiques of said books?
Benedict not only needs to clean "house" but also needs get to the Jesus of history. There are simply too many very educated people questioning the Gospels and their veracity. We cannot base our Faith anymore on embellished stories.
We need the facts and as Megan Z. notes above: "How in Heaven's name is it a good thing to make the Church faithful bend over backwards to understand the full import of the Pope's words? And then to never really know if we "got it"?
Ha, this Crossan fellow is hilarious!
Crossan's statements: "The Historic Jesus = nothing else" i.e. a negative rating, it is not historic; i.e. Crossan does not exist.
New Catholic,
As with Jordan, I ask have you read any of Crossan's books and published a critique of said books?
Convergent's insistent question demands a parable as an answer.
---
Many decades ago, in a predominantly rural European country, a couple of not very bright friends were walking down a path and almost stepped on cow excrement.
-Wow, I almost stepped on this piece of "cow excrement" [actually, another word was used]
-No, this is not "cow excrement".
-Isn't it? Are you sure?
-Well, let's get close to it to be sure that it smells like "cow excrement".
Both got close to the bovine stool and smelled it.
-Well, it certainly smells like "cow excrement".
-I'm not sure... Let's taste it.
So each got a sample of the bovine fecal matter and tasted it.
-Well, it certainly tastes like "cow excrement".
-Yes, you were right all along. It is "cow excrement". Thank heavens we did not step on it!
-Yeap!
---
Well, I do not have to taste Crossan to say what he is. Sometimes a mere glance and a few pages are more than enough.
"As with Jordan, I ask have you read any of Crossan's books and published a critique of said books?"
Yes, I've read some of Crossan's writings, and no, I've not published any critiques of his writings. I'm pretty sure that others far more qualified than I have done so, however. Have you looked up and read any critiques of Crossan's books?
New Catholic,
Hmmm, dung compared to religious thinking? Should we make added comparisons like Augustine's original sin guilt trip we have been on for the last 1500 years or so. Ahh, free at last from that dung hill !!!!
And what pages/piles of Crossan dung turned up your nose? For an easy check on Crossan's attestation method, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan1.rtf, http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan2.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan3.rtf for a summary. This should save you some money. After reading these references, you might at least acknowledge that Crossan has done his homework.
Jordan,
Luke Timothy Johnson critiqued some of Crossan's books and the Jesus Seminar in his The Real Jesus. And yes indeed I read it. Dr. Johnson tried to counter Crossan's attestion method but in my opinion failed. If you want to buy a copy see:
. The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels -- by Luke Timothy Johnson; Paperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $11.20 -- Used & new from: $3.95
Another longer critique of Johnson's book:
"Though Johnson insists that he is a quiet scholar reluctant to engage in public polemic, his entrance into this battle is anything but reticent. He launches an attack on presentation of recent historical Jesus research in the popular press directed more at the Jesus Seminar (a group of scholars that has been at the forefront of such research for more than a decade) than at the press itself (pictured as manipulated rather than manipulator). Behind Johnson's dismissive attitude toward the media and his ad hominem attack on Seminar founder Robert Funk lurk three serious questions for readers familiar with the work of Seminar participants, including Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and Burton Mack. The first concerns the place of scholarly debate on issues of public interest; the second, the limitations of history and historical method; and the third, the interrelationship of faith, history, and institution. Despite Johnson's protestations, scholarly work is most often a war of words, a battle of interpretations--and whether in classrooms, scholarly journals, or the popular press, scholars (like preachers) know that massaging the medium is more than half the battle. Steve Schroeder--."
Sorry, you'll have to remind me again -- why exactly do you continue to see yourself as a Catholic?
I've got problems with the "angle of attack" Luke Timothy Johnson takes in his criticisms of Crossan and the Jesus Seminar (for instance, I disagree with aspects of his philosophy of history), but he nevertheless is committed to the Catholic faith and understands that there is no Catholicism without the Incarnation and the Resurrection -- and he, unlike Crossan, seems to understand that there are questions that historical inquiry will never be able to answer. Crossan, sadly, does not see any problem with rejecting the doctrines of the Incarnation and Resurrection.
As for Crossan's "attestation method," it's a house of cards -- he speculates about when and how various early Christian and pseudo-Christian sources came to be written, and then draws conclusions from his chronological speculations. If his speculations are false, of course, his conclusions are false. (It's well known that Crossan put far more stock in the spurious Gnostic Gospel of Thomas than most scholars are inclined to.) And even if his chronological speculations are true, he may still not be correctly reconstructing how those writings came to be.
Convergent,
Do you think you are the only one who reads Crossan? I've read some of his stuff. In fact, Professor Gibson has mentioned his theories in my class and even she, who considers the Jesus Seminar conservative, says it's a bad reconstruction.
Yes, Crossan can make all the Marcan priority emphasis he can make and how much we must rely on Q and the Gospel of Peter, but the fact is, it does not make sense in a second-temple Judaism context for a man proclaiming the "kingdom of God" if he is only speaking of inclusiveness. John Meier even argues that the canonical gospels are the only valuable sources we have for the historical Jesus:
"In the face of this uncritical romping through the apocrypha, I would urge a return to sobriety. It is a reasonable conclusion of historical-critical research — and not a ploy of apologetics — that the four canonical gospels are the only lengthy continuous sources for the historical Jesus that have come down to us." (http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/
Comm11.htm)
E.P. Sanders' has also remarked that Jesus' vision was theological. Wright, Witherington, etc say the same thing. As for your idiotic god who doesn't know the future, it contradicts Jesus' view:
"What about Jesus himself? The parallels between Jesus and other Jewish prophets, both biblical and post-biblical, are numerous and vital. I shall mention only one point, the topic that the Gospels single out as the major theme of his message: He taught that the kingdom of God was at hand. This depends on a very Jewish idea, that God controls history and that it has a goal. This is one of the main theological ideas in the Bible and one that was fully shared by first-century Jews. Jesus, like his hearers, was deeply rooted in study of the Bible. The belief that God controls history makes one interpret the world in a way that is very distinctive. It is quite different from the view that history is not going anywhere, or that the only operative force is chance."--E.P. Sanders
Again, I'll go head to head with you on the historical Jesus. Bring your best fideistic (meaningless) Crossanisms and I'll refute it easily.
Finally, as far as the "abused altar boys," are concerned, that's what we get when we introduce bad moral theology. But hey, according to Crossan, faith saves right? I mean, everything is about faith in religion according to him. In fact, the statement that God exists is a statement of faith. So if a priest's faith includes molesting boys, and that he thinks it is somehow God's will, then why do you condemn it? In your worldview, it should be acceptable.
And also, Benedict has a good article on biblical criticism online as well.
Not only do I have to try hard to keep my eyes from rolling when I consider Crossan's esteem for the Gospel of Thomas, but I'm also unimpressed with his rash use of the dubious "Secret Gospel of Mark," which he asserts is earlier and presumably more reliable than the Gospel of St. Mark that the Holy Spirit inspired.
http://www.christian-thinktank.c...m/
qbadmark.html
Apolonio and Jordan,
Ahh, protectors of your Faith, a faith which is based in my opinion on the whims of Pontius Pilate!! My Catholicism is based on words and examples not embellished stories written to counter Roman and Greek gods and caesars.
Send me copies of your books that detail a point by point critique of Crossan's books. Your arguments are with Crossan et al not me.
And Jordan, if the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospels why are there so many differences in the stories? Differences I might add that are the reason for the Crossans of the world to review and write critiques on said differences.
And Apolonio, Wow, your "bad moral theology" rationale for priests abusing altar boys is very odd. What "bad moral theology" are you referring too? Allowing homosexuals and pedophiles into the priesthood is simply "significantly stupid" and has nothing to do with theology.
"My Catholicism is based on words and examples not embellished stories written to counter Roman and Greek gods and caesars."
And my Catholicism is based on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and mediated through the infallible magisterium of the Church.
"Your arguments are with Crossan et al not me."
Hey, you're the one who keeps going on about how Crossan's notions are superior to the teachings of the Church. Why then wouldn't we express to you what we believe to be the flaws in Crossan's speculations?
"And Jordan, if the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospels why are there so many differences in the stories?"
Your question doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, "If God created the universe, why are there so many different animal and plant species on earth?" Why wouldn't there be? There are any number of reasons why God would want the Church to have a fourfold Gospel. As Christians have been saying for nearly 2,000 years, the diversity of approaches and emphases in the Gospels is not necessarily a sign that the Gospels are mostly or entirely fictitious. It's fundamentalistic thinking to require the Gospels to tell a plain, straightforward story without contours and unevenness -- life just isn't like that.
Convergent:
Let me take you in another less colorful direction than Jordan's analogy.
I don't believe you exist. That fact neither makes you exist, nor makes you cease to exist. I choose to believe that you don't exist. So what if there are other people who accept that you exist and that, in all likelihood if I got off my soap box, asked you for your address and got in my car could probably help me arrive at your address. I'm convinced that you don't exist. Enough myths. Too many educated people I read don't believe that you exist and that all the stories of you are quaint embellishments of one kind or another of psychosis.
End of example.
Does any of the example I have set up change who you are? Of course not. It merely makes me guilty of a silly, prejudicial skepticism.
Physician, heal thyself.
Ben Witherington III's "The Jesus Quest" does a fine job of demonstrating how far out on the fringe Crossan and the Seminar sit. Also--please sit down--the late Fr. Raymond Brown was a pretty fierce critic of Crossan as well.
Sorry the discussion got off track and centered on Crossan and the silly Jesus Seminar. I've heard it said, including by someone well informed in the liturgics community, that one of the driving forces behind a successful agreement between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism on the role of the BVM in the life of the church (issued in May and awaiting official approval by both bodies) was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself. Any thoughts?
While doing research on the "ecumenism of return" question, I came across an insightful letter of Fr. Thomas Kocik, published in the Nov. 1998 issue of the journal First Things. He was commenting on an article regarding the possibility of Catholic-Lutheran corporate reunion. Father Kocik states:
"[T]he restoration of full ecclesial communion does not require melding the separated churches into a megachurch. The Catholic Church is a communion of distinct churches—indeed, a communion of communions—having a diversity of liturgical rites, canonical disciplines, spiritual and theological traditions (within the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy), and even (to some degree) systems of outward organization. Theoretically, then, establishing full communion between Catholics and Lutherans need not entail 'Lutheranism being swallowed completely into the "hierarchical structure" of the Roman Catholic Church.'
"On this point it is crucial to clarify terms. Lutherans need not enter the Roman Catholic Church, if by 'Roman' is meant, not the Catholic Church in general, but the particular church of Rome (as distinct from, say, the Maronite Church in union with Rome). Lutherans could in theory remain a distinct entity within the family of sister churches that comprises the Catholic Church whose center is Rome. But, as Pope John Paul II reaffirmed in Ut Unum Sint, Catholic ecumenism cannot settle for any kind of reunion that does not entail hierarchical communion with the Roman See. For Catholics, the principle of 'reunion without absorption' is acceptable, provided it includes visible unity with Peter’s successor. In his book Called to Communion, Cardinal Ratzinger points out that 'both neighborly solicitude and living relation with Rome pertain to the catholicity of a bishop [and, a fortiori, of his church] as ways of giving and receiving in the great communion of the one Church.'
"With that important qualifier, the question remains: Once full agreement in doctrine between Lutherans and Catholics has been reached and intercommunion becomes possible, should Lutherans (or any of the Reformation churches, for that matter) retain a corporate identity at all? Is the Lutheran communion, like the Eastern-rite Catholic churches, sufficiently distinct in its rites, its spirituality, its discipline, and its articulation of the gospel to warrant remaining a distinct body within the one Church? Incorporating Lutherans into the Roman church seems sensible to me, given our common (i.e., Western) cultural, theological, and liturgical patrimony, as well as the adaptability of the modern Roman rite to particular 'usages' (e.g. Anglican and Zairean).
"The name of the ecumenical game, so to speak, may indeed be 'remaining churches while becoming one Church'. I merely question the advisability of this approach in every instance, especially with regard to the separated Western bodies. Absorption ought not always be reg
Oops! The last few words of my previous post were dropped. The final sentence (from Fr. Kocik's letter) should read: "Absorption ought not always be regarded as a dirty word."
Thanks for posting Fr. Kocik's letter, Father -- and welcome to Dr. Blosser's weblog; I've only been visiting here for a few months, and hadn't noticed any comments from you before, though I may have missed something.
I remember Fr. Kocik's letter from First Things, and I agree with his observaton that reunion with Rome need not entail absorption. However, that principle may not be applicable to most Protestant denominations. Unlike the various Churches and Rites in communion with the Holy See, Protestants lack a hierarchy and a valid apostolic succession. One of the fundamental principles of Protestantism is "private judgment," so that in a practical sense, a Protestant church or congregation is a religiously-based social club or association, not a "Church" in the proper defintion and understanding fo the term "Church." Thus, the Catholic Church rightly distinguishes between true "Churches" and "ecclesial communities." A genuine ecumenism -- one aimed at facilitating the end of the schisms that have riven Christendom -- is especially difficult with Protestant groups, because even if you can get the leaders to agree to reunite with Rome, a good chunk of their members will inevitably disagree, split off, and found a new Protestant denomination. This great tendency for disunity and chaos has been present with Protestantism from the very start. In contrast, true Churches do not show as great a tendency for schism -- obviously it happens, but nowhere near as frequently as it does with Protestants. Thus, my view is that the Church needs to focus her ecumenism on ending the Eastern Schism, and let Protestant disunity take a back seat -- because Protestant reunion is mostly going to be accomplished on a case-by-case basis, one Protestant at a time. Corporate reunion of Protestant denominations just isn't going to happen -- if we're especially blessed, we'll have one or two congregations join the Church at a time, but mostly I think it's going to be an individual at a time, or a family at a time.
Mr. Potter,
My friend (and diocesan confrere) Father Driscoll tells me he posted an excerpt of my First Things letter from way back, on the "ecumenism of return." I read your reply and I agree that "corporate reunion" is an ambitious prospect. As you say, reunion with Protestants (given their disunity) is more likely a congregation-by-congregation, or family-by-family, enterprise. I only wonder if the same is true of Orthodoxy. I mean, what would "corporate reunion" with, say, the Greek or Ukrainian Orthodox Church mean, concretely? Which Greek Orthodox Church? Which Ukrainian Church?
But to get back to the Protestants, I agree that reunion (say, with the Lutherans) should mean precisely reabsorption into the Roman or Western patriarchate of the Catholic Church; that, after all, is whence they issued.
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
You're welcome!
You have a very good point there, Father -- disunity among Eastern Churches makes ecumenism difficult enough. How much more difficult, then, is ecumenism with the Protestants?
When the Eastern schismatics are in schism not only from Rome but from one another, I suppose the only thing we can do is try to address each Eastern Church, including the rival splinters (Aren't there three Ukrainian Orthodox Churches now? Yikes!). That may offend each of the rivals, but I know we can only commit our efforts towards reunion into God's hands and pray that He prospers them in His good time.
I agree with you that, say, the Lutherans, and probably all Protestant denominations, ought to be reabsorbed, if possible, into the Latin Rite or Western patriarchate. I have difficulty conceiving how we'd possibly go about establishing autonomous ex-Protestant rites, and it seems to me that the special gifts of the Protestants are best fitted to the service of the Western Church and the Western world in general.
Commenting by HaloScan
