Could you wordsmith our last Press release?
From the USCCB: Polish National, Catholic Dialogue Focuses on Clergy Transfers between Churches
WASHINGTON—”The challenges of clergy transfers between churches stood as a key topic at the annual Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic dialogue, this year at the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) Center in Scranton, Pennsylvania, September 28-29. Bishop Edward U. Kmiec of Buffalo and Bishop Anthony Mikovsky of the Central diocese of the PNCC co-chaired the meeting.
Members held a lengthy discussion on proposed recommendations about difficulties that arise when a clergyman transfers from one church to the other. A proposed text was refined and a process of consultation with appropriate bodies in the two churches will now be undertaken. Further revisions resulting from these consultations will be considered at the next meeting.
Msgr. John Strynkowski, Rector of the Cathedral Basilica of St. James in Brooklyn, New York, spoke on the development of doctrine using principles from Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. He applied these to the Christological controversies of the early Church and the Eucharistic controversies at the time of the Reformation.
Members also considered two Roman Catholic Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The PNCC members distributed a text on the Mother of God taken from —The Road to Unity,— a collection of agreed statements of the joint Old Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission that was adopted by a PNCC General Synod in 1990. Both churches have devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and seek her intercession, but differ over the Pope’s authority to raise these Marian teachings to the level of dogma.
Members of the dialogue also prayed together in the chapel of the Polish National Catholic Church Center, where Bishop Mikovsky presided over an exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction.
The next meeting of the dialogue is slated to take place in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 11 and 12, 2010.
Take a look at my last post on this dialog. Anyone see almost the same statement regurgitated? Of course R.C. priests know a good thing when they see it, thus the consternation on the R.C. side, and no, we don’t just take each and every one that steps forward (or anyone else seeking admission into the clerical state in the PNCC). We protect our vocations.
Next stop – meeting once every two years?
I am not a participant in this RCC-PNCC ecumenical dialogue, so I cannot say what the progress (or lack of progress) has been over the last few years. However, I can understand the sensitive nature of these discussions when the topic of “clergy transfers between Churches” comes up. Should the dialogue continue? Apparently, both Churches think so.
Equally important, the PNCC expressed its support for talks with the RCC from the very beginning. On November 24, 1981, Prime Bishop Francis Rowinski wrote to Bishop Ernest Unterkoefler, then Chairman of the NCCB Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, that “In principle, the Polish National Catholic Church looks favorably on ecumenical contacts with all Christian denominations insofar as these exchanges aim at a general improvement in mutual understanding.” (JOURNEYING TOGETHER IN CHRIST, 1990, p. 8). On June 2, 1989, Bishop Anthony Rysz wrote that “as [PNCC] bishops we are keenly aware that beyond our dialogue, the arduous spiritual task of the purification of memory is one in which all the people of our Churches must share, opening our hearts and minds to one another so that they are not encrusted with bitterness despite the pain all have felt.” (JOURNEYING TOGETHER IN CHRIST, 1990, p. 11).
More recently, in the Introduction (pp. 12-13) to JOURNEYING TOGETHER IN CHRIST – THE JOURNEY CONTINUES (2003), Prime Bishop Robert Nemkovich of the PNCC and Bishop James Timlin of the RCC Diocese of Scranton wrote:
The dialogue at the present time stands at a crossroads or… a crisis point. This is not to say that our dialogue has reached a point of impasse, or that some matter has brought it to a stop, but rather that we have trod the easiest part of the journey together as churches. It is apparent there are still many difficult roads ahead. We must now make the choice to continue to discuss these difficult matters in hopes of bringing understanding and agreement.
For myself, I hope and pray that this is still true. For, as Christ commands us in John 17, 20-23:
I pray also for those who will believe in me through their word,
that all may be one as you, Father, are in me, and I in you;
I pray that they may be [one] in us,
that the world may believe that you sent me.
I have given them the glory you gave me
that they may be one, as we are one –
I living in them, you living in me –
that their unity may be complete.
So shall the world know that you sent me,
and that you loved them as you loved me.
Tom,
I don’t want to appear to be against dialog, but dialog for the purpose of dialog alone, or for photo ops, Press releases, and glad handing is not an effort worth pursuing. It is actually uncharitable.
Here’s why I say this: For dialog to be truly productive in bringing about unity one, the other, or both must fundamentally change.
Let’s say that the R.C. Church were to give up the notion of Papal infallibility as well as the dogmatization of the alleged “Immaculate” Conception of the B.V.M. and of her Assumption – there would be a worldwide rejoining of Churches, the first in line the Orthodox, Orientals, and PNCC. Will it happen? Likely never. The R.C. Church would have to admit grave error in declaring these three things. It would have to fundamentally redefine itself. Everything else, from the Filioque to scholastic understandings of the mysteries are far and away secondary (while not unimportant) to these key points. All revolve around the role and understanding of the papacy (an office created by God with unique powers or an office created by man for the good order of the Church).
On our side, can the PNCC throw its priests and people under the bus? A significant portion are former R.C. and R.C. priests. As the recent move by Rome regarding its acceptance of former Anglicans shows, according to the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus:
Technically, and when reading R.C. Canon Law one must be very technical (although I’ve seen it be used in a self-serving way depending on what’s to be accomplished), all R.C.’s who received sacraments of initiation in the R.C. Church and came over to the PNCC, or who were former R.C. priests, or who were married after they were ordained would be out-the-door. This differs significantly with the Orthodox, who will accept people and clergy economically (i.e., not legalistically = more on economy in the Orthodox Church here). In the end, the legalisms almost always matter for Rome.
True charity requires that we be honest about what separates us, and that we be brutally honest about the likelihood of change among the key issues that cause separation. To be brutally honest, nothing fundamental will change. Rome will not change, not for us, not for the Orthodox. All that’s left to be accomplished in dialog is the diffusing of local difficulties and perhaps some enhancement to sacramental hospitality in baptisms and marriages. Local ecumenical activity and dialog actually works better if people act in good faith. After that, only God knows, and only the Holy Spirit can act.
I too pray.