A final comment: The Difference between Schütz (David) and Schütz (Roger)

Reflecting on the two previous posts, I want to add a final statement that most clearly clears up the confusion I was feeling in regard to Cardinal Kasper's comments about Brother Roger.

The difference between Roger Schütz and David Schütz with regard to communion with the Catholic Church (I am limiting myself here - the most obvious difference between Br Roger and myself is that he was a saint, and I am a long way from achieving that goal) is that he did not believe that he was called to enter into full formal communion with the Bishop of Rome. The main reason for this appears to have been that he believed formal unity with Rome would have worked against his personal vocation to promote Christian unity.

I, on the other hand, did feel that God was calling me to enter formal communion with the Catholic Church. My own committment to ecumenism was (and is) no less than Brother Roger's. In my own conscience, formal communion with the See of Peter is the only way in which I believe I can be true to that my vocation to promote Christian unity.

Unfortunately, that means that at the same time I have had to embrace the pain of ruptured communion with the "the faith of my origins" - pain that goes to the very heart of my personal life with family and friends. It is my profound prayer and hope that within "the mystery of the Catholic faith" this communion will one day be fully restored.