If a Protestant by virtue of religious background as a Protestant and baptism, possibly without Catholic ancestors for hundreds of years, would be asc

[Vico]

Well, Rome has since accepted the Pentarchy. I’ve read it in official documents and/or Bulls of the Holy See.

And my Bishop of the St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Parma accepts me. Ultimately, however, one view will win. Until the Holy See settles the matter once and for all, I will not be ultimately-categorized a Latin by requesting any transfer or dispensation in the present from Latin Bishops. Such could jeopardize my proper ascription to the UGCC in the future.

Who knows? Maybe through me the mission of Greek Catholics to Protestants (as Orthodox Christians) at last will be recognized, and we will be brought into one another’s unity.

Don’t forget the regional synod called the Episcopal Conference, which exists in a territory. For the US, this is the USCCB which includes the eastern catholic Bishops in Region XV. They coordinate.

http://www.usccb.org/about/usccb-mission.cfm
http://www.usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/
http://www.usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/all-eparchies.cfm

 

[0104]

CCC 818 However, one cannot be charged with the sin of separation those who at present are BORN into these communities ( that resulted from such separation) and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers…All who have been JUSTIFIED by faith in BAPTISM are ( Incorporated ) into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called CHRISTIANS, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

I know the Eastern Orthodox are the closest to the Roman Catholics because they have all the Sacraments. A Roman Catholic can receive the Eucharist at and Eastern Orthodox Mass because we have both, 7 Sacraments. The only thing that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox disagree on is the filioque ( Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ) which is in the Nicene Creed. And the attority of the Pope.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Thanks for the information!! I appreciate it!! I’m sure that, given the excellent job the Pope has done reconciling Byzantine and Latin Canon Law he might be willing to clarify the matter… As long as the request is excited and joyful and optimistic about the future and opportunities
(I think I was blocked from posting or commenting for a half-day, lol… I probably needed that. I was getting kind of obsessed with this thread. But I was going to post what I just said above when I found out that I couldn’t post.)

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the information!! I appreciate it!! I’m sure that, given the excellent job the Pope has done reconciling Byzantine and Latin Canon Law he might be willing to clarify the matter… As long as the request is excited and joyful and optimistic about the future and opportunities
(I think I was blocked from posting or commenting for a half-day, lol… I probably needed that. I was getting kind of obsessed with this thread. But I was going to post what I just said above when I found out that I couldn’t post.)

Not sure what you mean. The matter is clarified, and that was done in the 1992 rescript allowing the Latin canons the same rule as the eastern in that the bishops of a common territory can allow transfer without going to the Congregation for Eastern Churches.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Okay… wait a minute… I thought we moved beyond the language of a ‘transfer’ here… or at least were going to leave it to the Church in the future… seeing as the matter is too complex to properly and justly be known by applying the Law except over the span of hundreds of years. Those Laws might not even have existed at the time of my ancestors who were Catholic… The fact of the matter is that “Rite” is purely conventional (I’m not saying it isn’t beautiful and doesn’t reveal the Glory of God… only that it ought not be applied to people like it were in their genetic code…)

A reason why it needs to be clarified to a greater extent than it is now… We as non-Roman Catholics are going to need to brace ourselves and have ways to meet seminary educational requirements for married converts from Protestantism very soon…

 

[Vico]

Okay… wait a minute… I thought we moved beyond the language of a ‘transfer’ here… or at least were going to leave it to the Church.

Transfer to and reception into full communion to a sui iuris church, for adults, is based upon the same general idea of ascription based upon the minister of baptism. For an adult that has not been validly baptized, the selection can be any.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Right. And how do I know if there was ever a break in my baptismal ‘history’ since the 1700s… How could I know? And if there was or wasn’t I would be obligated to meet either Latin or Ukrainian Obligations depending. When will you just acknowledge that this is purely conventional and that God’s Grace covers it?

I’m sure there were people who moved from Rome to Byzantium after the Rites were differentiated, and that they never documented a change of Rites. And I bet some of them have descendents through the male line. Are these descendants not every ounce Byzantine?

Brother, this isn’t genetics. It’s to preserve a heritage to be sure, but that only goes so far, especially if one’s ancestors have left a particular Church for hundreds of years to go join “the Church of the Bible,” whatever that means… probably meaning something Eastern anyways.

Again, this is not genetics. What about the Apostles? We’d all be Melkite or whatever if that were the case. There is one Baptism. Rite is only connected to Baptism because the Church Law… which was written long afterwards (as far as I know and what seems likely to be the case), even long after my ancestors (genetic and ecclesial) left the visible Catholic Church in its Churches… (it’d be interesting to see if there were Church Laws pertaining to the Maronites and Italio-Byzantines in this… but even if there were it would be unlikely to affect anything given how arbitrary this is… and is virtually entirely post-Schism with Canons not addressing such complex cases as we do today. If they did, they would excuse me and count me a member of the Church I came into the full-unity and into a Rite into Church in by virtue of Chrismation since I am without Catholic ancestor for over a century at least. None of my family that I know is fully Catholic besides myself.)

Okay, we don’t know the official teaching of the Church yet because the Church hasn’t defined this matter yet, and using reasonable deduction it can’t be discerned acceptably for reason and morals, but Church History itself reveals the truth of the matter by necessity… And so I accept what informed reason naturally concludes before I accept what may simply be a Latinized (and not canonically-defined, so it could be wrong as many Latin theologians have been on a number of matters) misunderstanding of the nature of the Church.

 

[NotMyOwn]

A whole point of this post is that baptism and ancestry is not a sufficient measure of Church sui juris in matters pertaining to Protestants hundreds of years after the Reformation. They by their will, and publicly, left the Roman Church and its Rites behind, and were lost to its membership and its ritual life definitively, by the free act of the will consummated over the span of lifetimes. Membership in a Church sui juris is obliterated in the case of such a situation completely and utterly. And their rejection of the Latin Rite changed the course of future generations who have never been Latin at all. (This accords with the organic (Orthodox) understanding of canonicity, and is one which will one day be accepted and ratified by the Holy See by virtue of the necessity of the Catholic Church becoming Orthodox and the Orthodox Church becoming Catholic for Reunion. Future defines past reality and how it is to be properly understood, and the Catholic Church through the Holy See has defined the Ecumenical Approach and the work that must be taken for Reunion.)

Latin Laws cannot apply to those whom have never been under it, having never been a member of the Latin Church, nor one’s parents nor grandparents. Ukraine and Russia become different nations over about the same time period as since my ancestors ceased membership in the Roman Church.

…
The reason I accept this and hold to this so strongly is because of Hope. And it is not a hope for my own sake, but for the future of the Church. If the Holy See were to define the matter differently, I would accept the teaching and submit to the authority of the Church wholly and entirely, and would request a transfer to the Byzantine Rite in a prompt manner after a period of discernment (as the Church developing a law that affects my situation might force me to rethink some things… and I don’t know where I’ll be in however many years or how close I’ll be to Byzantine Catholic Churches.)

 

[Vico]

…

Okay, we don’t know the official teaching of the Church yet …

You don’t need to know if there was a break. The canons are for now, infant or adult, not forever into the past. Canon laws and practices have changed over time. One rule for infants, another for adults, another for marriages and children under fourteen, and canons allowing transfers and for exceptions.

I don’t know what you mean by God grace covers it. It is not a moral issue.

Yes we know the teaching of the Catholic church on the sacramental disciplines, which were determined by the Holy See with the eastern and Latin bishops together when the canon law was constructed.

 

[Vico]

A whole point of this post is that baptism and ancestry is not a sufficient measure of Church sui juris in matters pertaining to Protestants hundreds of years after the Reformation. They by their will, and publicly, left the Roman Church and its Rites behind, and were lost to its membership and its ritual life definitively, by the free act of the will consummated over the span of lifetimes. Membership in a Church sui juris is obliterated in the case of such a situation completely and utterly. And their rejection of the Latin Rite changed the course of future generations who have never been Latin at all. (This accords with the organic (Orthodox) understanding of canonicity, and is one which will one day be accepted and ratified by the Holy See by virtue of the necessity of the Catholic Church becoming Orthodox and the Orthodox Church becoming Catholic for Reunion. Future defines past reality and how it is to be properly understood, and the Catholic Church through the Holy See has defined the Ecumenical Approach and the work that must be taken for Reunion.)

Latin Laws cannot apply to those whom have never been under it, having never been a member of the Latin Church, nor one’s parents nor grandparents. Ukraine and Russia become different nations over about the same time period as since my ancestors ceased membership in the Roman Church.

…
The reason I accept this and hold to this so strongly is because of Hope. And it is not a hope for my own sake, but for the future of the Church. If the Holy See were to define the matter differently, I would accept the teaching and submit to the authority of the Church wholly and entirely, and would request a transfer to the Byzantine Rite in a prompt manner after a period of discernment (as the Church developing a law that affects my situation might force me to rethink some things… and I don’t know where I’ll be in however many years or how close I’ll be to Byzantine Catholic Churches.)

The Church could change the canons as has been done so many times before, and there have been many since the current canon law to both CIC and CCEO, some of which are:

• Rescript of transfer (CIC) (1992)
• Ad tuendam fidem (1998)
• Omnium en mentem (2009)
• Quærit semper (2011)
• Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (2015)
• Mitis et misericors Iesus (2015)
• De concordia inter Codices (2016)
• Come una madre amorevole (2016)
• Magnum Principium (2017)

A person becomes a Christian through baptism and that can be through an individual, or a minister of an ecclesial community, of a sister church, or of a Catholic church sui iuris (or baptism of desire or of blood). Once baptized in a Catholic Church, one is perpetually a member of it, even though defecting. The next generation could break that trend as an adult. Any valid baptism would still establish membership in the Church of Christ however. Sometimes though, certain communities that name themselves Christian do not have valid baptism.

 

[phil19034]

I would really like for the Holy See to comment on this. They will if it becomes more of a thing. If there’s more Protestants coming into the Church into the Greek Rite… which there will if I am

Do you have a stat / source for this? Because personally, I just don’t think this is true.

I think it’s true for some, but not for most. The Eastern Rites are far more liturgic than the current Roman Missal. Most mainline Protestants have a service that is similar to Roman Mass, while evangelicals typically are not ritualistic at all.

So my guess is that most converts from Protestantism are not attracted to Eastern Catholic Rites. The ones attracted to Eastern Orthdoxy often still have an issue with the Pope, which is why they don’t go Catholic. However, when they finally get over the Pope, I would argue that most Protestants join the Latin Church because it’s the most familiar to them, unless they fall in love with another rite.

I would also argue that we stand a better chance of attracting more Protestants with more Anglican Use parishes vs Eastern Rite parishes.

But regardless, I think Protestants are free to join whatever rite they want to. After all, they are not bound by Canon Law.

 

[NotMyOwn]

I don’t know everything, but could could answer this in addition:
“I’m sure there were people who moved from Rome to Byzantium after the Rites were differentiated, and that they never documented a change of Rites. And I bet some of them have descendents through the male line. Are these descendants not every ounce Byzantine?”

At the moment… and this isn’t your fault, it’s the environment and external factors that are not your fault… I feel like many Protestants wanting to come into the Catholic Church in an Eastern Rite talking with you if you spoke as you do now would just give up and become Orthodox… I’m saying this as someone who used to be Protestant. …

One of the most damaging things that can be done to the Eastern Catholic Churches… denying something so beautiful and powerful as converts from devoted Christian communities wholehearted admittance into our churches… no conditions added than expected from others… except to continue to be as devoted as they were before and continue to grow in that.

The Church has called for a New Evangelization. A Reset. Not an extension of the Old, but a Fresh Start. Grounded in the Critical Dogmas of the Faith, I’m living in step with that. Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you, but I feel like I’ve hit a brick wall.

 

[NotMyOwn]

I speak as the son of a leading Southern Baptist elder of a megachurch. I’ve served on numbers of mission trips, been to (amazing) church camps since I was little (like Fuge), been trained at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, been around and taught by missionaries my whole life—I almost went to Southern Seminary. You’d be surprised about what exactly Protestants want.

We’re talking about people who are looking for more… not looking for more of the same, or what their denominations dismantled a long time ago. A fresh view is necessary. Eastern Soteriology provides the theological framework for the integration of many of those who are currently Protestants into the Church. In the West, we can have whatever we want whenever we want. A lifestyle of fasting is just the kind of radical Christ-following that many are dying for. And antiquity? Rich theology revealed in effective ways? Many are tired of watered-down theology. The Byzantine Tradition doesn’t give such to the people but extends them the richness of the Faith as has the power to draw and enrapture evangelicals.

“To You O Lord.” The Byzantine Tradition, Liturgy and Theology, answers the “why?” and the “how” with regards to the intercession of the Saints, and presents it in an enrapturing and Mystical Way that somehow still keeps Christ as the focus. It may be high-liturgical… but it doesn’t feel stuffy… so it might as well not be. Reverence: Good. Stuffy: Bad. The Byzantine Tradition is super-organic… It’s almost hipster. It never goes out of style.

Protestants love our systems, and Sts. Damascene, Palamas, and Symeon the New Theologian hit the theological and experiential palate very nicely. Evangelicalism is essentially mysticism and it has trouble balancing that with its Western love of systematic theology. And the Eastern Tradition presents the Mystagogy of the Faith as beautiful as it deserves… It helps those from Protestant backgrounds integrate their theological understanding into their experience to make them more Holy… to “conform them to the image of the Son”, “from one degree of glory to another.”

In addition… the ecclesial strucuture of synods is more familiar for one… for those who have an Elder System of Governance. The possibility of married clergy is biblical, which makes the evangelical heart sing… and the mystical theology of the priest’s wife is a very nice touch … The whole relational thing, having a spiritual father and there being a beautiful way that reveals itself and works.

Theosis being personal… experiencing God personally.

Have you seen the Three Circles Gospel Presentation?? Look it up!! Tell me it isn’t Eastern!

(And this only a little bit of it! I see what you’re saying, but it doesn’t reflect a mindfulness of at least the particular kind of Protestants I come from.)

(Oh, and confessing to Christ in the Confessional is nice from a certain perspective… and using the whole body… it’s so biblical and authentic… giving all things to God, which He is infinitely worthy of.)

 

[NotMyOwn]

I’m only saying so much because I am recently Chrismated and I’m so in love with my Tradition and Church (I basically married it, so obviously I love it. I look forward to spending the rest of my life in it, and ordering my family with sight to—God-willing—many generations to come according to it), and because I honestly don’t think you realize how awesome the Byzantine Tradition is to some from Prot. backgrounds.

It was through the Liturgy of St. John Chrisostom at an Antiochian Orthodox Church that I came to believe that Mary remained a Virgin during and after giving birth… It was too beautiful not to be true, and its clear reason was that it most glorifies God, and given that God makes all things work together for good… God choosing this realty out of all others… it just makes sense that God would choose to work in such a beautiful and magnificent way… Mary, the redemption of the tears of Eve… The hymns of the Byzantine Tradition are designed to be theologically-rich. People like myself crave that. And there are a lot of us in evangelical Protestantism, who for a variety of reasons just haven’t heard of or considered Byzantine Catholicism as a possibility for them.

“Come let us worship and fall down before the very Christ, our King and our God.” Coming from a Calvinist background having my mind blown a lot in theology… let me tell you, any thing that takes the place of my former religious expression (though I might not have called it that…) better be able to do the same thing and better. The Catholic Faith revealed in the Byzantine Tradition does. And that justifies the order and ritual… because it’s just transmitting and coding out minds with a lot of information very effectively. That makes it understandable, and even ideal, even exactly what God deserves… That He might be worshiped as He truly is, as He is rightfully due given how worthy He is…

Also, many from Prot. backgrounds love God greatly, know their theology intellectually, and yet are struggling with numerous addictions and struggles. The Byzantine Tradition speaks to that, and provides a way through to holiness by experience and knowledge and disciplines honed over thousands of years by holy men and women on attaining holiness… and I think the way the Greek Patristic Tradition approaches that is likely to pull many Prots… My own life is testimony to that. I’m here to be holy, like Christ. Really holy. Not only appear like it to God… I want to be healed and whole… not covered up. And in the East, namely in namely in Byzantine and Alexandrian Traditions (I don’t know much about the others) Theology is approached that way.

Also… You do realize that Protestants don’t study Latin anymore, right? Prot. Seminarians reading anything in ancient languages aren’t reading the Latin Fathers, let me tell you that much! No reason to. It has nothing to do with us. They study Greek and Hebrew.

Oh… and Psalmody is biblical, and Prots. and ex-Prots love that too. The Byzantine Liturgy and Tradition is so saturated with Scripture and the truths in Scripture… It’s basically everywhere, and feels endless… I could grow in this forever.

 

[Vico]

… Are these descendants not every ounce Byzantine?” …

Not sure what you mean by hitting a brick wall.

No, not everyone one would be Byzantine by virtue of being baptized as an infant.

The ancient practice is that everyone living in a particular jurisdiction of a bishop would be baptized by that bishop (or his representative) and so be a member of that church. So the ancient sees (territories) are significant and Rome is the ecumenical church outside those territories. The Latin Catholic church has a particular responsibility for global evangilization and mission activities are under the direction of the Holy See, even though implemented through various sui iuris churches.

So The New Evangelization, is presenting the Gospel “to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization.” [Pope Benedict XVI, “Homily of First Vespers on the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul,”] However proselytism is unacceptable.

It is the responsibility of the clergy to comply with the canon laws with regard to sacramental discipline, and those disciplines are determined by the Church. Now, the clergy are directed by canon law no to induce, for those that are already Catholic (eastern canon law CCEO):

Canon 31 - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

And for adults (eastern canon law CCEO):

Canon 30 - Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

And for those coming into full communion (eastern canon law CCEO):

Canon 35 - Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

For clarity, the sui iurus church is given in (easter canon law CCEO):

Canon 27 - A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

 

[phil19034]

I’m not saying that you are wrong about the beauty of the Eastern traditions and I’m not saying that there are not Protestants that are attracted to Byzantine liturgy and theology. There are and it’s wonderful.

I’m simply taking exception with your claim that most Protestants who convert prefer the Byzantine. Without proof, I simply don’t think it’s true for cultural reasons.

I do agree 100% that Eastern Catholic Churches have a role in the New Evangelization and I take great joy in any Protestant who joins an Eastern Church (even an Orthodox one).

I simply don’t agree with your idea that most Protestants would prefer the Eastern Church. I know many do, but I question idea that most would - again due to cultural reasons.

God Bless

 

[Vico]

…
But regardless, I think Protestants are free to join whatever rite they want to. After all, they are not bound by Canon Law.

Since they are coming into full communion with the Catholic church, the canon law indicates the default church and the right to ask for a non-default church:

Eastern canon law CCEO:

Cannon 32 §2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.
Canon 35 - Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

A rescript in 1992 gives the same approval to the Latin canon law (CIC) as (CCEO) Can. 32. §2.

 

[NotMyOwn]

Now that was cheeky.

Ah, here you go…

Something a while back
“Baptism is a Mystery which, like conversion to God, transcends Rite by its very nature… and so it is not a surprise that there are those baptized whose Rite would have to be later assumed. The Law teaches of Baptism that a Baptism is Valid, whether performed by a Representative of the Church or not. In these cases, like Christians of the early days of the Church, before such a thing as Rite truly existed… find that their Rite is later to be assigned. If St. Paul was of any particular Rite, then why is it that Churches that they founded ended up developing to be different Rites? Protestantism was more than schism, it was a break from Rite and Tradition, historical identities, altogether. So Protestants are incomplete… Rite-less though validly baptized. It is truly a tragedy to lack such an identity… a greater tragedy still to lack valid Sacraments save Baptism. But redemption is possible. And it can and is intended to happen to even greater good for the Church and solve key challenges that the Church faces here and abroad.
———
Dear Father Mark,

I have read and attentively and systematically studied the binding and relevant Canon Laws, within and without the CCEO, pertaining to this, and I have not read anything—unless grossly and wrongfully applied to Protestants contrary to the very purpose and design of the Law—that would result in such a thing as you have been led to believe.

Baptism is more fundamental than Rite, and the validity of baptism speaks nothing of Rite. Baptism precedes Rite, both historically, and evangelically. One can be, and all Protestants are (if they are validly baptized into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit without Catholic parents), validly baptized, and yet lacking in Rite. I was Baptized, but most certainly not into any existing Rite in the Catholic Church, and many are in a similar situation.

The current laws are not sufficient to argue that a Protestant without Catholic parents is automatically Latin Rite, but it is sufficient to argue the reverse, that a Protestant has no Rite until brought into Full Communion and membership in the Church into a specific Rite.

If there is confusion in the matter appeal to the appropriate Vatican College directly for clarification.

Your freedoms and liberties as a Eastern Church planter have been greatly and unfairly restricted, and it is the brokenness of the past that has resulted in this. It is with joy that I approach this. Though with a burden upon my heart, seeing as so many—even within the hierarchy of the Church are misled as to something so basic and fundamental… and essential to the future growth of the Church, and the Churches mission of engaging people in America and around the world.”

This Father later spoke to the Bishop and agreed. (Of course there’s more than parentage involved in ascription in cases of baptism… This was months ago before our conversation, and I wasn’t going to modify that which I had in quotations to better fit this conversation since that would be misleading.)

 

[NotMyOwn]

Yeah, nah, of course not. I do still think it would be enough to be a significant boost to the Eastern Catholic Churches though, given how few of us there are in most places.

 

[NotMyOwn]

They have no currently legitimate Rite. It was in light of this that the Church instituted the Anglican Ordinate, so that they could comply with this decree while still being faithful to their heritage, but many–mainly low-liturgical evangelicals–don’t want their communities turned into Catholic Churches, which would undermine the work of their ministries by completely altering its nature and mission. Instead ofevangelization, the function, structure, and activities of these communities would have to be shifted towards sacramentalization. I argue that these low liturgical Protestants, upon discovering that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are true, are obligated to preserve their heritage and evangelization and worship (without corrupting or attempting to alter or take away or add to the Liturgical or Devotional life of the Church they come into) and service activities as much as they can do properly as Catholics, while also coming into and meeting the obligations of a legitimate Church Rite.

I may in my theory and ideas be going beyond that which can adequately be deduced… But you yourself, beloved brother, are reading too much into the existing laws, which are not written for this case. You’re acting with the sort of attitude with the Canon Law Protestants have with Scripture, that it is sufficient for everything now without the help of context or the Church to interpret it. Retaining their own Rite… so if they’re Anglican… Anglican Ordinate… if they’re Orthodox… Byzantine (Eastern) or Alexandrian (Oriental). If they’re Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or Methodist? What then??? Pretending and stretching the Law to cover more cases than it actually does and is intended for is an abuse of the Law. And it is a Holy Law, and so how serious is that abuse!!!

Your attitude is not only contrary to the letter, the spirit, and the soul of the Law, but is very harmful for the Church’s Mission of Evangelization!!!

(This disagreement on the matter is very much why we need the Holy See to speak very specifically on the matter of Protestants coming into the Church.)

Your understanding of Church Law is no different than human law… when, in fact, Church Law is of a greater kind than purely human law —not only in authority! But also in kind! Such that extending existing laws over blank spaces cannot meet the demands of the Law!