A few things heard out and about with my comments.

What would you do?

Let’s say that you have a small PNCC parish with Holy Mass in the Polish language every Sunday because some of your parishioners have requested it (you also have Holy Mass in the English language).

Your typical attendance at this Holy Mass is about 40 to 60 people.

Now let’s say that you have a neighboring Roman Catholic parish that’s predominantly Polish-American. It is a large parish, with several thousand parishioners.

There is a core group of people who attend this Holy Mass at your PNCC parish and there are others who come and go. One Sunday a woman you do not know shows up for this Holy Mass. You don’t pay much attention, you welcome everyone.

Several Sundays later almost no one shows up for that Holy Mass.

What happened?

Well, the woman that showed up one Sunday was a Sister sent over by your neighboring Roman Catholic pastor. She attended Holy Mass for the express purpose of taking down the names of all the folks attending your Polish language Holy Mass. Later she personally visited each person/family that had attended Holy Mass in your parish and expressly told them that if they continue to attend Holy Mass at the local PNCC parish they were going to Hell (yes, literally).

Two months later those folks begin to wander back to the PNCC parish.

Now in my opinion the local R.C. pastor is not all that concerned about the eternal salvation of those 40 to 60 people. Frankly the approach taken is bad theology and bad practice.

Such an episode would be sad and unfortunate. Thankfully it is becoming less and less common.

In my experience this attitude toward PNCC parishes exists among older R.C. clergy who are in predominantly Polish-American parishes. The letters I personally received, marked with the return address of the Albany R.C. Diocese’s chancery, were threatening in a silly manner.

As I said, thankfully this doesn’t occur so much anymore.

There are traditionally Polish R.C. parishes and PNCC parishes that get along great (most in Buffalo, N.Y. and in Hamtramck for example).

On the whole the R.C. parishes that surround my parish are welcoming, open, and positive. They have supported many of our events and we support theirs. Those I have visited for family funerals have welcomed me.

People may ask about the dialog between the PNCC and the R.C. Church. Oddball examples like the one noted above are one of the very reasons dialog is necessary. Unless we talk any good that exists will be drowned out by the loudness of such unfortunate events.

So to the question: What would you do? I say pray and talk.

That full, immediate, and universal thing

The Young Fogey had a post on Ecclesiastical bibs and bobs. In it he notes, as he has elsewhere, on non-compliance among R.C. Bishops with the Bishop of Rome’s recent Motu Proprio.

At a recent gathering I heard R.C. clergy confirm that. Their Bishop has said in effect ‘no Latin masses.’

I previously noted that the Bishop of Rome’s exercise of full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a problem in ecumenical circles. No one, excepting the R.C. Church, believes that such power exists.

Thinking on this it occurred to me that the negative “non serviam” reaction of U.S. and Western European Bishops (the Central and Eastern ones will catch up soon) is a huge ecumenical problem as well.

The Bishop of Rome actually does believe and teach as his Church believes and teaches, but his brother bishops do not accept such teaching. They do not believe what they proclaim vis-í -vis the Pope.

How does this play out?

For sake of argument say that a Church were to come into union with the R.C. Church. That Church would have to accept that the Pope has full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction (unless the R.C. Church redefines itself – not likely). That Church might even see that, as some Roman Catholics posit, the Pope’s full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a rock against a changing world. That full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is a protective and positive thing.

The Church coming into union with Rome accepts all that. Thus the dilemma.

If the Church coming into union accepts all that, then that Church will quickly find that a majority of its brother Bishops actively reject what they themselves have accepted. They will be in conflict (at least in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe) with their fellow believers. They will be stuck between their neighbors day-to-day dismissal of the Pope and their adherence to what they proclaimed in achieving unity. Further, if they were to rely on the protection of the Pope as to the terms and conditions of their union, they would quickly find that the Pope could do little to help them. Their neighbors day-to-day actions would wear them down while they await the Pope’s protection (the bureaucracy would tie that up for two to three Papacies).

On the other hand, if the Church coming into union rejects all that, except on paper, expecting to live from day-to-day like the majority of its fellow R.C.’s do, then that Church lied to attain unity. That’s simply disingenuous and not a basis for any real unity.

The argument could be made that there are always a few bad bishops. I can accept that. But in the case of the U.S. and Western Europe it would seem that those who stand as adhering to the Pope’s decrees are far fewer than those who give a wink and a nod.

Even among those who live in active unity with the Pope, someone like Archbishop Raymond L. Burke from St. Louis, what is the extent of their unity. Is it unity because they personally like the Pope’s direction? What if the Pope were to tell Absp. Burke that Masons are great and to lift the excommunications from St. Stan’s? In all cases, unity with the Pope is only as good as the person’s humility before his full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction.

The argument could be made that so many disagreeable bishops should not be the yardstick by which unity is measured. After all, look at the extent of the Arianism. It could not withstand the power of the Church.

True, but that was a Church governed by Councils, with universal agreement, and further backed by the political means to suppress disagreement.

So for unity, what value in proclaiming and confessing if the majority of those you are coming into union with do not actively believe or live that which they verbalize (beyond the Bishops look at the congregation)?

None really. Thus the problem and dilemma of full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction. Thus the major hurdle to unity.

So we pray for unity and catechize.

We all need to teach and to try to reform what is broken. Maybe that is the first and best move toward unity.