National Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JillianRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCathCantor said:
but you expressly stated above …

… and in response to another post, referencing this post in its entirety, you replied:

So, is it the teaching of the Catholic Church at present that the Orthodox Church is in schism?
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the 1965 document? It lifted the excommunications of 3 specific people.
It did not declare that the Orthodox Church was no longer in schism and neither did it state that any Catholic who rejects Rome and turns to the Orthodox is not committing a schismatic act.
The fact that the Orthodox Church has valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments is totally irrelevant to them being in schism. They are in schism because they refused to recognise papal supremacy.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

To summarise what I said here and in earlier posts:
  • The Orthodox Church is in schism.
  • Born and brought up members of the Orthodox Church are not in a state of mortal sin due to that.
  • The Orthodox Church has valid apostolic succession
  • The Orthodox Church has valid sacraments
  • Any Catholic who decides to reject Rome and turns to the Orthodox Church commits a schismatic act.
  • Schismatic acts are sins of grave matter (mortal if they know and go ahead).
  • Schismatic acts incur the penalty of automatic excommunication.
 
thistle said:
What is judgemental about that? That is the teaching of the Church.
Anyone who commits a schismatic act not only commits a mortal sin but is automatically excommunicated.
Click to expand...
So when I left the Catholic church for 7 years and joined a Calvinist church I should of been excommunicated? Am I going to hell?
 
JillianRose said:
So when I left the Catholic church for 7 years and joined a Calvinist church I should of been excommunicated? Am I going to hell?
Click to expand...
People go to Hell when they die in a state of mortal sin. As you are very much alive how can I answer that question? I do not know what the state of your soul will be when the time comes!

If you turned your back on the Church and embraced Calvinism that would not be schismatic. That would be heretical. Schismatic is when you separate yourself from Rome and embrace another Church which believes the same beliefs as our Church (e.g. The Orthodox Church did not go into schism for doctrinal reasons but rather their refusal to accept papal supremacy). Calvinists on the other hand do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

However, I should point out that anyone turning their back on the Church for whatever reason puts themselves in a state of mortal and if they die unrepentant then they would go to Hell.

Most, if not all, automatic excommunications are lifted by coming back and going to Confession because the priests in most places have been delegated that authority.
 
thistle said:
People go to Hell when they die in a state of mortal sin. As you are very much alive how can I answer that question? I do not know what the state of your soul will be when the time comes!

If you turned your back on the Church and embraced Calvinism that would not be schismatic. That would be heretical. Schismatic is when you separate yourself from Rome and embrace another Church which believes the same beliefs as our Church (e.g. The Orthodox Church did not go into schism for doctrinal reasons but rather their refusal to accept papal supremacy). Calvinists on the other hand do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

However, I should point out that anyone turning their back on the Church for whatever reason puts themselves in a state of mortal and if they die unrepentant then they would go to Hell.

Most, if not all, automatic excommunications are lifted by coming back and going to Confession because the priests in most places have been delegated that authority.
Click to expand...
Okay. Understood. Its nice to be home.😊👍
 
Back onto the topic of the “National Catholic Church” (which almost sounds like a Chinese government-approved church) . . .

 
TarkanAttila said:
Yes. My question is: does it have valid sacraments?
Click to expand...
I’m not a canon lawyer, but even assuming there was some bishop in Brazil who conferred a valid ordination upon a man who was an unrepentant sinner, when that priest became a self-appointed store-front bishop of his own so-called ‘National Catholic church’ it was without the faculties of the true Church. He may still be a priest but has ex-communicated himself from the Church, and his sacraments would only be valid in case of dire need from imminent death, I would imagine. And needless to say, a lesbian pretending to confect bread and wine is doing just that: pretending.
 
thistle said:
Can’t you read? I said the Orthodox Church is in schism. I did not say its born and brought up members are in a state of mortal sin.
As for Catholics who turn away from the Church to the schismatic part of the Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church) they commit a mortal sin by their schismatic act.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this is accurate.

The schism occured 800-1000 years ago. The current bishops, priests and laity are not schismatics; they never were part of the Catholic Church.

I think the best way to describe it is to say the Orthodox are separated from Rome, but maintain full validity of orders and Sacraments.

God Bless
 
Stylites said:
I’m not a canon lawyer, but even assuming there was some bishop in Brazil who conferred a valid ordination upon a man who was an unrepentant sinner, when that priest became a self-appointed store-front bishop of his own so-called ‘National Catholic church’ it was without the faculties of the true Church. He may still be a priest but has ex-communicated himself from the Church, and his sacraments would only be valid in case of dire need from imminent death, I would imagine. And needless to say, a lesbian pretending to confect bread and wine is doing just that: pretending.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

If the priest in question was validly ordained, his Masses would be valid, but illict, i.e. Transubstantiation really does happen, but the priest sins by offering the Mass illicitly. Baptisms would likewise be valid, since anyone can baptize, as long as the correct formula was used.

Any confessions or weddings would be invalid, b/c the priest in question lacks valid faculties from a legitimate bishop., with the exception of confession of one in danger of death. Even a laicized priest can validly absolve the dying.

God Bless
 
bilop said:
Not quite.

If the priest in question was validly ordained, his Masses would be valid, but illict, i.e. Transubstantiation really does happen, but the priest sins by offering the Mass illicitly. Baptisms would likewise be valid, since anyone can baptize, as long as the correct formula was used.

Any confessions or weddings would be invalid, b/c the priest in question lacks valid faculties from a legitimate bishop., with the exception of confession of one in danger of death. Even a laicized priest can validly absolve the dying.

God Bless
Click to expand...
interesting…I am going to ask a question here, but dont want to get flamed. I feel it is a legit question.

What you describe above is the same, almost to a tee about what is said about SSPX priests, and their administration of the sacraments, no??
 
Why is it no one can just answer a question without people annoying each other about ones faith. Its kind of a turn off. Sorry I asked.:rolleyes:
 
Stylites said:
I’m not a canon lawyer, but even assuming there was some bishop in Brazil who conferred a valid ordination upon a man who was an unrepentant sinner, when that priest became a self-appointed store-front bishop of his own so-called ‘National Catholic church’ it was without the faculties of the true Church. He may still be a priest but has ex-communicated himself from the Church, and his sacraments would only be valid in case of dire need from imminent death, I would imagine.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Only those sacraments that require faculties, marriage and confession, would be invalid in the case you give. Eucharist and Baptism do not require faculties and would be valid though illicit. Confirmation requires that the bishop to grant his approval and not be available to do it himself so it would be invalid.

Such a priest could not confer Holy Orders and the Anointing of the Sick usually goes along with confession but the actual anointing would be valid but requires the oil blessed by the bishop so I am not 100% sure on this one.

Now if this priest was illicitly ordained a bishop by a valid bishop then things get murkier. Holy Orders would be valid but illicit but any attempt to ordain a woman would be invalid.

Excommunication does not affect the validity of the sacraments offered by a priest only the licity.
 
Dear JillianRose,

The Polish National Catholic Church (aka National Catholic Church) was founded in the early 1900’s by a priest named Fr. Francis Hodur. Today it has over 25,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. The PNCC broke away from the Vatican in the early 1900’s. It is a Catholic Church with good people. There are a few differences between the RCC and the PNCC, priests in the PNCC can marry and raise a family, the Body of Christ is dipped into the Blood of Christ and given on the tongue only. And only by the priest.

Please do not believe what some of these people write, they have no clue. My Dad was a member of the Polish National Catholic Church.

For more info, please go to www.pncc.org

May God Bless You And Your Family…

Sto Lat…

Jeff
 
bilop said:
I don’t believe this is accurate.

The schism occured 800-1000 years ago. The current bishops, priests and laity are not schismatics; they never were part of the Catholic Church.

I think the best way to describe it is to say the Orthodox are separated from Rome, but maintain full validity of orders and Sacraments.

God Bless
Click to expand...
But Thistle never said what you said she said.

She said the Orthodox Church was in schism, not the Orthodox people who were brought up as Orthodox, but rather the “institution” (lack of a better word) of the Orthodox were in schism and that Catholics who leave the Catholic Church, and convert to Orthodoxy, have commited a schismatic act. Therefore, are in a state of schism.

Valid sacraments, valid orders, yes. Therefore, a valid Church. However, wouldn’t “separated from Rome” mean schismatic anyhow?

And to go back to the original topic, I have learnt that the NCC is along the lines of the Union of Utrecht-style church…so that would mean some of their priests may have valid orders. The women do not of course, but some of the men MIGHT, but only if consecrated by ANOTHER validly-consecrated Bishop. Perhaps a bishop who left the Church?
 
Piwowar said:
Dear JillianRose,

The Polish National Catholic Church (aka National Catholic Church) was founded in the early 1900’s by a priest named Fr. Francis Hodur. Today it has over 25,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. The PNCC broke away from the Vatican in the early 1900’s. It is a Catholic Church with good people. There are a few differences between the RCC and the PNCC, priests in the PNCC can marry and raise a family, the Body of Christ is dipped into the Blood of Christ and given on the tongue only. And only by the priest.

Please do not believe what some of these people write, they have no clue. My Dad was a member of the Polish National Catholic Church.

For more info, please go to www.pncc.org

May God Bless You And Your Family…

Sto Lat…

Jeff
Click to expand...
My friend, we’re talking about a completely and utterly different body of people. 🙂 Not the Polish National Catholic Church, but rather the National Catholic Church (similar name, different group).
 
Dear Friend,

The Polish National Catholic Church has also been referred to as the National Catholic Church.

Jeff
 
Piwowar said:
Dear Friend,

The Polish National Catholic Church has also been referred to as the National Catholic Church.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Yes, they are, but the Polish National Catholic Church is affiliated with the Old Catholic Church, whereas the National Catholic Church we’re talking about has a similar name, but is a different independent body.

www.nationalcatholicchurch.org is the website.
 
Big_Feet said:
interesting…I am going to ask a question here, but dont want to get flamed. I feel it is a legit question.

What you describe above is the same, almost to a tee about what is said about SSPX priests, and their administration of the sacraments, no??
Click to expand...
The impact on the sacraments? Probably. Mass, yes. Quite frankly I’m not sure what the status of SSPX confessions and wedding are.

But, the SSPX priests are in a different canonical situation. If they truly accept the Pope, then I don’t think they sin in performing the sacraments, where a “renegade” priest does.

God Bless
 
LoyalViews said:
But Thistle never said what you said she said.

She said the Orthodox Church was in schism, not the Orthodox people who were brought up as Orthodox, but rather the “institution” (lack of a better word) of the Orthodox were in schism and that Catholics who leave the Catholic Church, and convert to Orthodoxy, have commited a schismatic act. Therefore, are in a state of schism.

Valid sacraments, valid orders, yes. Therefore, a valid Church. However, wouldn’t “separated from Rome” mean schismatic anyhow?
Click to expand...
IMHO, I don’t think that’s the proper use for the terms schism and schismatic. I think they only have relevent meaning in terms of people that actively separated themselves from the Church.

It’s different than heresy, which refers to the ideas espoused. A church that teaches heresy can be properly called heretical, but schism attaches to the act of separation.

More specifically, members in a heretical church commit the sin of heresy by holding those beliefs, no matter how long after the original heresy it is. But schism is a personal sin only for those who separated, not those who were born and raised separate.

At least that’s how I’ve always understood it. Happy to be corrected if someone has authoritative teachings to the contrary.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top