The National Church model versus Ostpolitik
Bishop Hodur strongly advanced the idea of the National Church model (really no different than the Orthodox model – the local bishop with his clergy and people around the Holy Eucharist represents the fullness of the Church). Among the reasons for this advocacy was Bishop Hodur’s knowledge and experience of the Polish Church’s struggles. Real world experience showed that the good of the local Church was often secondary to the political machinations of the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican bureaucracy.
Hillary White (thanks to the Young Fogey for the links) has two articles that explore the Vatican’s betrayal of local Church leaders, particularly Cardinals Mindszenty and Beran. The Wikipedia article on the Vatican’s “Ostpolitik” refers to the phenonena as an invention of Paul VI. In fact it is a policy that has been entrenched in the Vatican for centuries. Poland was betrayed numerous times
Read Church of Traitors and Church of Traitors, Part II. The telling lines from Part II:
Casaroli continues,
…
“We opted for negotiations, because we didn’t know how long those regimes would last, and in the meantime we had a moral obligation to insure that the Church had priests, that the faithful could receive the Eucharist and go to Confession. If we lost the hierarchical institution, we would lose the Church…”
Now, this is interesting, because I have known some priests who were underground in Soviet bloc countries and their stories are illustrative. Had the Vatican supported their efforts, would the Faith have died or flourished? Would the Church have been “lost” as Casaroli said? Hard to say at this distance in time.
But from what I have been told, the Church was flourishing. And one of my informants was a Slovak priest who was ordained secretly in Czechoslovakia, one of the countries that Casaroli described as a “hardline” state in which the Church would have “died out” without his “careful step-by-step diplomacy”.
The difference, perhaps between men like Casaroli in the Vatican and the men actually baptising and marrying and saying Mass in secret in these countries was that the latter knew and accepted the possibility of martyrdom. It seems that Casaroli and his popes rejected that possibility utterly and were more interested in creating comforts, a typical Novusordoist goal.
I wonder, who bore true witness to the faith, who stood on the side of God’s politics? In my book it was the local Church, those who knew the situation on ground, the evils of the communist system, the violence and selfishness of its leaders, and who nevertheless chose to face the consequences of witness to the faith. As Tertullian wrote: The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.
No argument, really, except I think it important to point out a couple of things: if “papalism” is the characteristic Roman ecclesiological distortion, its opposite, with which the Orthodox struggle, is “phyletism”. Further, the (correct) notion that “the local bishop with his clergy and people around the Holy Eucharist represents the fullness of the Church” is not quite the same as the “national Church model” in that national Churches are themselves communions of local Churches.
The solution? Apostolic Canon 34 intentionally applied at all levels (including that of the local Church in terms of governing the relationship between the bishop and the presbyterate).
Also, I would be interested in your take on the Polish RC experience in the Cold War years.
Here are two counter-arguments. As you know I have a different view of Hodur: the things you like about the PNCC are thanks to the conservatism of most of its members and in spite of him, not because of him. Another point you know I make in my blog is Stalin hated the Roman Catholic Church (in the form of the Ukrainian Catholic Church for example) because he couldn’t take it over. But the Communists did manage to beat the local Orthodox into submission (but – back to your point – with no local corruption of the liturgy for example; the people rejected that).
Fr. Greg,
I agree. I guess it would be said that a national Church is its Metropolitan and his brother bishops. I think the PNCC has instituted this well in the authority of each bishop in his diocese and the authority of the Prime Bishop as the Metropolitan — very Orthodox in my take.
On the issue of nation, Bishop Hodur focused on a Church that offered its gifts in accordance with God’s gifts to each nation, each being particular. In his writing the national ethos isn’t the singular expression of the whole Church but a means by which the whole Church is built. Bishop Hodur said it best:
Scripture frequently cites God as the God of every nation, the call to every nation, proclamation and baptism of every nation etc. I think he found a way to tie Church and nation without a degradation into phyletism.
On the R.C. Church in Poland, I think the Card. WyszyŁ„ski suffered greatly during the post WWII civil war and in later Stalinist periods. Eventually a rapprochement settled in. Unfortunately, as we have seen over the past year or so, there were significant strains of collaboration among bishops and priests. Based on the articles I cited I wonder what would have happened had the Polish Church become a more suffering Church. I guess the case of Fr. PopieŁuszko is just one example of the potential results.
Fogey,
Perhaps the suffering Ukrainian Catholic Church is the best example of a Church that went fully underground. After the fall of communism it emerged pretty well in-tact. As I recall you may have mentioned this in several posts. I don’t particularly think it was because they were Roman affiliated, or received any particular support from Rome, but rather because they stood together as the national Church in the face of great prosecution. From here:
On the Bishop Hodur issue, and this is not directed at you but more of a general commentary…
One thing I’ve come to realize about Bishop Hodur is that rumors about what he said and believed, a sort of alternative history transmitted by detractors, people with an agenda, or those who haven’t studied him, seems to overtake his very clear writing and the reality of the Church he organized. It is a sort of ‘by their fruits’ but we will ignore the fruits of what he did.
One other point, Bishop Hodur is not the Christ. I think that some on-line pundits suspect that they can raise a ruckus with PNCC members by throwing him under the bus. Properly understood he was as subject to being wrong as the next man. He was equally possessed of unique talents and blessings by which our Lord used him as a vehicle for the organization of the Church.
Fogey: You have been quite fair in not going in either of those directions and I fully understand your points of disagreement. If I said that I believed everything the XYZ Church put forward I would have no valid reason for being outside its flock. What is great is that these dialogs help in some way to dispel myths and focus on the reality of the Church.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
But Stalin drove the Ukrainian Catholics underground for the reason I gave.