Continuing with the theme of the previous post on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Roman Catholic connections, I discovered recently that one of the Ecumenical Statements approved by the 218th General Assembly and having the concurrence of a large number of the presbyteries, did not receive the approval of one of the ecumenical partners, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ).

Now this is not recent news, but in reviewing the report of the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER) to the 219th General Assembly as I was researching another issue, I found that just about a year ago the USCCB declined to approve the “Mutual Recognition of Baptism with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” that came out of the Catholic-Reformed Bilateral Dialogue.  On the PC(USA) side this document was overwhelmingly approved by both the GA (voice vote) and the presbyteries (169-2).  On the USCCB side, they announced in May 2009 that it was not acceptable as it stood.  No specifics were given in any of the information I could find but the web site of the Ecumenical and Interfaith News Network – PCUSA [sic] says:

In May 2009 the chair of the Catholic bishops’ committee on ecumenical
and interreligious affairs reported that the
bishops had examined a Common
Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism growing out of the
Catholic-Reformed dialogue and had “voted not to approve it in the form
in which it had been adopted.”…  In order for the document to have become
acceptable to the bishops, changes would have been necessary that were
not acceptable to the Reformed dialogue partners.

The Reformed partners issued a Statement in Response to the refusal.  Having failed to be mutually agreed upon this statement gets no second chance and it is “archived,” as the terminology goes, as a historical note in this dialogue.

What I find interesting is that for most of the PC(USA), dare I speculate 99% or more, this document is voted upon and then shelved since, as the FAQ indicates , it has no substantive effect on our practice, only on how we understand the practice.  Reinforcing this non-concern for the ecumenical statement is how “under the radar” the non-approval was.  Yes, it was there if you were looking for it on the EIF-PC(USA) web site, or until recently on the GACER page, but both using search engines as well as checking over the press release pages for the PC(USA) and the USCCB from that time period I found nothing that “average” Presbyterians or Catholics would see in the normal course of events.  (It might be hiding behind some cleaver headline that did not catch my attention.) I think this is relevant because the report has a section on “Pastoral Recommendations: Tangible Expressions of Mutual Recognition of Baptism.”  Without the “mutual recognition” part do any of these “tangible expressions” change?  In reading through the recommendations they appear pretty generic so I’m not sure anything changes there, but it would be nice to know.

Anyway, the Ecumenical Dialogue is off to bigger and better things… The Eucharist.  If there are still differences on Baptism I’m not sure what the next round will produce, but that is for a future GA.