From the USCCB website: Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue Explores Transfer of Clergy, Doctrinal Statement
WASHINGTON—”The Polish National Catholic (PNCC)-Roman Catholic Dialogue explored the transfer of clergy and a doctrinal statement at their fall meeting, that took place in Baltimore, November 6-7. Bishop Edward U. Kmiec of Buffalo and Bishop Anthony Mikovsky of the PNCC Central Diocese in Scranton, Pennsylvania, presided.
The meeting began with a progress report from the Roman Catholic members on a proposal to ask the Holy See if the PNCC could be considered to be in the same position as the Orthodox on two matters. First, PNCC faithful would be allowed to act as godparents at Roman Catholic baptisms in addition to a Roman Catholic. Second, mixed marriages performed in the PNCC without a dispensation from canonical form, even if not lawful, would be considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. This proposal is under consideration by USCCB committees.
Dialogue members also discussed recommendations to both churches on how to handle cases of clergy transferring from one church to the other. A first draft of such recommendations that draws upon a parallel agreement that already exists in Germany was examined. The draft will be revised on the basis of the discussion and considered once again at the next meeting.
The dialogue also discussed at some length The Declaration of Scranton that was issued by the PNCC bishops last April 28. This text, which was to clarify the PNCC’s position on issues for groups that seek to come into full communion with the PNCC, raised questions for the Roman Catholics that were outlined by Msgr. John Strynkowski, Ph.D., a pastor from the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York. The Declaration highlighted divergences between the two churches regarding the teaching authority of the pope, and pointed to a need for further consideration by the dialogue of the Roman Catholic teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary. The meeting concluded with a discussion of misunderstandings at the local level between the two churches and the best way to deal with them.
Members decided to meet once in 2009 in a longer session than usual, slated for September 28-30.
As such statements go, they attempt to put a happy face on a situation, a situation this writer opines, is going no where. A sure sign is the decrease in the frequency of these meetings.
The reality is that we, along with the Orthodox and Oriental Churches have a far different opinion on the Bishop of Rome, synodality, Roman pronouncements concerning Marian doctrine, (and you can throw in the filioque and the man-made discipline of celibacy for good measure). Once the downward spiral begins, occasioned by the intractable position of the Romans (positions they cannot abrogate without a redefinition of the role of the Bishop of Rome, denouncing that bishop’s full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction, and admitting an error in proclaiming the Marian doctrines that flowed from the “exercise” of said “authority”), then the issues, going beyond core issues, can be piled on as well.
Further, do we need to spend meeting time “discussing” Rome’s opinions on Marian doctrine or the Papacy? Does any Catholic Church need an explanation on this? Does Rome really think that it will win Churches over by demonstrating its arguments — arguments it has promulgated by itself. Does Rome expect anyone to sit there, listening to this, while wistfully gazing at them. We, in the PNCC, know scripture, and the Fathers, and the Councils. For the Roman Church it may make for a fun day of symposia, giving cover for travel, expense accounts, and meals with like minded gents in black suits, but otherwise it isn’t worth the trip. These doctrines are well known, written upon, theologized over, and discussed at ecumenical meetings ad nauseam. In business its called spending time spinning your wheels.
To be plain, the PNCC is the Church. It is Christ’s Church in the manner and style of our Savior who called His people to love one another. The commandment of love lives in the Church, is its teaching, and has Christ as its center. We cannot place our focus, our central focus, on a far off bishop. We cannot bifrucate our love, making love dependent on man-made laws and man-made discipline that bears no relationship to the furtherance of our climb up to Christ, that bears no resemblance to the humanity Christ came to save. Is unity in love to be based on glorification of one bishop over unity itself?
While we are obligated to pray to the Father, with our Lord and Savior, for the unity that seems to elude us, such prayer does not occasion a caving on core issues. If that were so we would not be Church, we would be politicians and businessmen. Prayer occasions action and that action includes our duty to speak truth to power. May God bless our witness, may He endow us with the gift of love.
