We want...

Fr. Hopko's views are probably the ones of greatest interest at the present, given the Holy Father's ecumenical efforts, as well as those of such figures as Cdl. Husar and (the Melkite) Patriarch Gregory.

One idea floated long ago by Cdl. Ratzinger is whether it might be beneficial for the Pope to establish one or more "patriarchal areas" within the Western Church and devolve much of the legal power exercised by the Roman Pontiff upon them; this would make them structures similar to the Catholic Eastern Churches with their own authority over law, liturgy, and the selection of bishops. The suggestion attracts some Orthodox interest.

It's been a long time since B16 has raised the idea, so he may have come to doubt its suitability at present. If such a venture should be undertaken, I hope it would be done first with one of the healthier parts of the Church: e.g., that in Latin America.

I wonder how the US bishops would like being ecclesiastically subject to, say, a Patriarch of Sao Paulo or of Mexico?

I would agree with RC that Fr. Hopko's position, (which is a clear statement of the Eastern Orthodox position) is one which should be given consideration: the Orthodox have been in existence since apostolic times; they have what the RC Church readily admits is the fullness of the sacraments/mysteries and the apostolic tradition; and they are likely to continue to exist as Churches until the Parousia, which is more than what can be said for either the mainline Protestants or the Liberal Catholics, who at present appear to be going the way of the Arians and the Dodo.

Your appearance of equating the Orthodox with the mainline Protestants or liberal Catholics does neither the Orthodox nor yourself justice. Please reconsider this stance.

My problem was all the "conciliar" issues were lumped together in the article. The sad fact is that it's tough to talk about governance changes in the Catholic church without some whacko thinking that their siamese cat ought to help pick the next pope. While some ideas are valuable, a great many are just cynical attempts to grab power or change doctrine.

Dear JS:

Thank you for your clarification. My apologies for miscontruing your intent. It is interesting to note that the Orthodox are distancing themselves from speaking in such "ecumenical" groups, if only to distance themselves from such totemic cat or dog worshipers who masquerade as "Christian" prelates and ministers. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

By the bye, great blog.

The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to "evangelize" the pagan world.

Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the "Conference on Faith and Order." In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined.

Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It was through this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.

Pope Pius XI then provided the excellent Catholic guidance he did in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, (ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY) an encyclical which, for obvious reasons, is seldom quoted these days. Pope Pius XII also sounded the alarm to this error in his great 1950 encyclical Humani Generis (TREATING CERTAIN FALSE OPINIONS THAT THREATEN TO RUIN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH).

So, then I ask, with Vatican II and its decree on Ecumenism, and all the Pope's thereafter making Ecumenism their primary objective even more important than conversions and keeping their own flock in order, is the church and her popes not teaching apostacy, defecting from the faith (is the church still "Apostolic" and "One"?, and are they and the church itself guily of something unspeakable and UN Catholic leading their flock to believe in something that is so uncatholic and something the church stood against for centuries, as something that should now be embraced?

I advise all to take a good hard look at the teachings of what is pastoral, infallible, and docrinal, and when teachings of the church are not valid, and Ecumenism is number 1. A Pope or a council can not under any circumstance reteach church doctrine that a previous Pope has already made clear either in council, Bull, and Letter.

If these statements were made 100 years ago, 99% of the church would be censured

Jack -

Back again?

My original point: "ecumenical movement" can be problematic because some folks think everything from doctrine to discipline is negotiable.

Ecumenism equaling "doctrine up for negotiation" has never been the Catholic position.

Your "everything's going to hell in a handbasket" sermonizing is getting tiresome. Particular problematic are your statements like "with Vatican II and its decree on Ecumenism, and all the Pope's thereafter making Ecumenism their primary objective even more important than conversions and keeping their own flock in order, is the church and her popes not teaching apostacy, defecting from the faith"

You offer neither evidence nor proof. I'm sure you can't prove that ecumenism has been the "primary objective" of all the Pope's since Vatican II.

So why do keep bashing the Church? Are you unhappy that Marty Haugen tunes get more play than Gregorian Chant? Are you wishing there was a Latin Mass within driving distance?

If that's the case - say so.

But stop, for the love of God, stop with the unprovable accusations.

JS

I am not bashing the church, please understand that, and I can prove much of what I say.

But yes-I do wish there were more TLM's and pre-1962 Masses and I bet if that ever happens, most of the "anger" you feel in my and thousands others would probably subside as we really do love our church, as we love you also JS

As long as we can all "do mission" together, that's what matters...