Not Roman Catholic, but catholic

[williamkar]

turboEDvo:

Not to be a jerk, but please use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Reading posts without proper spacing, capitalization, etc., is very difficult. Thanks.

Eamon

sorry, I’m not the best speller. As far as the other,you see, I’ve gotother people wanting to get on line. So my proof reading is fast and I miss somethings alot of things. Any way i’ve read others that are bad.

 

[williamkar]

Genesis315:

Just like the Orthodox, you guys have valid succession and a valid Eucharist–I understand that part.

When do you guys believe the RCC went into error? And why do you think councils like Trent and First Vatican were not infallible while your synods are?

WE don’t think the RCC was in err. What happened was that Polish parishes did not have Polish priests. And they also wanted the deed to the church. Rome would not listen and would not do anything. There were big agurments and the parishes split from Rome The infallibity of the pope did not come about until after vatican1. If they believe that the councils were infallible I don’t know they may of been but it would have been group people. Not one man.

 

[carol_marie]

I don’t understand… if you don’t “believe in the Pope” why do you care what he says? (you said you are Catholic because the Pope said so) Did I miss something?

At any rate, welcome to the forums.

 

[Genesis315]

williamkar:

WE don’t think the RCC was in err.

Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility are dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. Your church does not hold these dogmas therefore from your perspective, the RCC would be in error. Original Sin was defined by the Council of Trent around 1546.

The infallibity of the pope did not come about until after vatican1. If they believe that the councils were infallible I don’t know they may of been but it would have been group people. Not one man.

The infallibility of the pope was defined by a council–Vatican I which happened in 1869-1870, which was 24 years before the PNCC broke off.

 

[williamkar]

K-McD:

So did the Protestant Reformation. They had valid sacraments as long as they had the original bishop, and priest ordained by the original bishops. When these bishops and priests died, they (The reformers) no longer had valid sacraments. It didn’t take very long for the “reformers” to loose the sacraments.

As long as you don’t recognize the Holy Father as the head of the Universal Church, (as Christ did, “You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will built My Church”) then you are in schism.

I don’t understand how the reformers had valids. they would have needed a Catholic bishop to consercrate one(excuse spelling)bishop. He would have ordained more bishops and priests to keep the line of seccession and if that happened the first ones would die off but there would be others to take their place. Just liked it worked in the Catholic Church. I also believe that Christ made Peter the first pope. And He did say "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Where does it say Peter you are to be infallible. So how am I in schism. God Bless

 

[williamkar]

carol marie:

I don’t understand… if you don’t “believe in the Pope” why do you care what he says? (you said you are Catholic because the Pope said so) Did I miss something?

At any rate, welcome to the forums.

We do respect the pope as the Bishop of Rome. Like we respect the leaders of the Eastern Rite Church. We are not catholic because the pope said so.If that was so he could come out and say that Lutherans were catholic. What the pope did was to go through all the rome bishops up to the break with the old catholicsthen through the their bishops up to the consercration(excuse spelling) of Father Hodur the first Prime Bishop of the PNCC. So the pope said we are catholic because of Apostical seccession. Not because he said you. Thank you for the welcome. I am not here tocause fights.I just like to talk about religion and give my opinions. I have respect for the Roman churchand themembers of the Church

 

[K-McD]

williamkar:

I don’t understand how the reformers had valids. they would have needed a Catholic bishop to consercrate one(excuse spelling)bishop. He would have ordained more bishops and priests to keep the line of seccession and if that happened the first ones would die off but there would be others to take their place. Just liked it worked in the Catholic Church. I also believe that Christ made Peter the first pope. And He did say "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Where does it say Peter you are to be infallible. So how am I in schism. God Bless

They had valid sacraments because bishops and priests broke away from the Church. These bishops were validly ordained to consecrate the Eucharist. When the priests died off, the bishops could ordain more priests; however, when the bishops died off, they couldn’t ordain anymore because only the Pope can ordain a bishop. So eventually they (validly ordained priests and bishops) died off leaving the religion without valid sacraments.

Infallibility: See Catholic Answers track, [Papal Infallibility](Papal Infallibility)
"The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). "

 

[atsheeran]

K-McD:

They had valid sacraments because bishops and priests broke away from the Church. These bishops were validly ordained to consecrate the Eucharist. When the priests died off, the bishops could ordain more priests; however, when the bishops died off, they couldn’t ordain anymore because only the Pope can ordain a bishop. So eventually they (validly ordained priests and bishops) died off leaving the religion without valid sacraments.

Any bishop can validly ordain another as a bishop. However, for the ordination of a bishop to be licit, the ordination must be preceded by a papal mandate.

Can. 1013 No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.

 

[axolotl]

turboEDvo:

So, how is it permissible for non-Catholics to partake of Catholic sacraments (most particularly the Eucharist)?

Also, I have seen nothing on the website yet about your church’s belief in transubstantiation. What is it?

Eamon

From the USCCB:

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches. (canon 822-3)

From what I understand, the PNCC broke away from the rest of the Old Catholics, when they entered into full communion with the Anglicans. We have a better realationship with the PNCC than with the rest of the “Old Catholics”

 

[K-McD]

atsheeran:

Any bishop can validly ordain another as a bishop. However, for the ordination of a bishop to be licit, the ordination must be preceded by a papal mandate.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Fox]

Heretics nothing more, there has been these types of people throughout history.

You claim to be Catholic when in all essence you are not, you pick and choose what to believe like every other heretical group throughout history. Nothing new.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ya know, before the ‘Old Catholics’ rebelled against the authority of the pope, there was *Unam Sanctum, *which stated:

“we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

I find the rebellion of “Old Catholics” to be rather inconsistent with the clearly defined Catholic dogma that came before their rebellion. (see more here: CATHOLICOldCatholics)

 

[Joe_Monahan]

As someone has suggested above, in quoting from the USCCB site, Rome has recognized the validity of Apostolic Succession and, therefore, the validity of orders and Sacraments in the Polish National Catholic Church’s US jurisdictions (but not those of its former jurisdictions in Poland).

The review by Rome that produced this unusual determination (Rome ordinarily does not publically comment on the validity of Apostolic Succession, orders, and Sacraments in the non-Roman Catholic Churches, lest positive comment encourage others of the genre) was made at the express request of the USCCB, as an outgrowth of the ongoing discussions between itself and the PNCC. The decision effectively recognizes the orders, etc., of the former Czech, Lithuanian, and Slovak National Catholic Churches which were formed in the same circumstances as the PNCC, were generally dependent on it for their initial episcopal ordinations, and eventually were either represented as dioceses within the PNCC or ultimately subsumed into it (with the Lithuanians being the last to come under its omophor).

It also had the effect, unstated but implicit, of recognizing the Apostolic Succession, orders, and Sacraments of the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Confession/Communion at least through the point in time when His Excellency Francis Hodur, of blessed memory, first Prime Bishop of the PNCC, was ordained to the episcopate by hierarchs of the OCC/Utrecht. (There was an earlier Polish independence movement shepherded by Bishops Anthony Kozlowski and Stephen Kaminski, both also of blessed memory. Although I don’t believe that Rome spoke directly to the validity of either of these episcopal ordinations, circumstances suggest both would also have passed muster.)

Joe

 

[iamrefreshed]

Joe Monahan:

As someone has suggested above, in quoting from the USCCB site, Rome has recognized the validity of Apostolic Succession and, therefore, the validity of orders and Sacraments in the Polish National Catholic Church’s US jurisdictions (but not those of its former jurisdictions in Poland).

The review by Rome that produced this unusual determination (Rome ordinarily does not publically comment on the validity of Apostolic Succession, orders, and Sacraments in the non-Roman Catholic Churches, lest positive comment encourage others of the genre) was made at the express request of the USCCB, as an outgrowth of the ongoing discussions between itself and the PNCC. The decision effectively recognizes the orders, etc., of the former Czech, Lithuanian, and Slovak National Catholic Churches which were formed in the same circumstances as the PNCC, were generally dependent on it for their initial episcopal ordinations, and eventually were either represented as dioceses within the PNCC or ultimately subsumed into it (with the Lithuanians being the last to come under its omophor).

It also had the effect, unstated but implicit, of recognizing the Apostolic Succession, orders, and Sacraments of the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Confession/Communion at least through the point in time when His Excellency Francis Hodur, of blessed memory, first Prime Bishop of the PNCC, was ordained to the episcopate by hierarchs of the OCC/Utrecht. (There was an earlier Polish independence movement shepherded by Bishops Anthony Kozlowski and Stephen Kaminski, both also of blessed memory. Although I don’t believe that Rome spoke directly to the validity of either of these episcopal ordinations, circumstances suggest both would also have passed muster.)

Joe

Forgive my ignorance but does that means as a Roman Catholic I should not attend a Lithuanian Catholic Church? Not that I have but I am Lithuanian and maybe I would like to try someday.

I notice their Apostle’s Creed is missing the word “Apostolic”. Funny it would still be called Apostle’s Creed?!

My mistake. I was thinking Profession of Faith when I read the Apostle’s Creed. I do not know if “Apostolic” is used.

Well anyhoo, can I receive Eucharist there?

 

[Ignatius]

williamkar:

iam a catholic but not of the roman rite.

There are many Catholics not of the Roman Rite.

Eastern Rite churches are communities of eastern Christians in union with the Holy See. They retain their own distinctive spiritual, liturgical, and canonical traditions. In addition to differences from the Roman rite in liturgy, many of the Eastern Rite churches permit a married clergy. Like the Orthodox Church, they are divided into families; the five major families are the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine.

• Alexandrian
• Coptic
• Ethiopian
• Antiochene
• Maronite
• Syrian
• Byzantine
• Albanian
• Bulgarian
• Georgian
• Greek
• Hungarian
• Italo - Albanian
• Melchite
• Romanian
• Russian
• Ruthenian
• Slovak
• Ukrainian
• White Russian
• Yugoslavian
• Chaldean
• Chaldean
• Malabâr
• Armenian

The Eastern Rite Churches are Eastern Christian churches consisting of five rites derived from ancient traditions of Christian churches in the East. They are now in communion with the Western church under the papacy. Distinct from both the Orthodox churches and the so-called Independent churches of the East.

After the Great Schism of 1054 between Eastern and Western Christians, some groups, such as the Maronites and Armenians, remained united with the Holy See. Others returned later, by the Brest-Litovsk Union, two Ukrainian Orthodox bishops acknowledged the primacy of the pope. Other groups followed, such as the Chaldeans and other churches of the Byzantine rite (the Ruthenians, the Romanians, and the Melkites). The last were the Malankarese (Antiochene rite) of India. As these various groups of Eastern Catholics grew they established ecclesiastical hierarchies.
The Eastern churches have their own canon law and are not bound by the Code of Canon Law of the Western church. Each church is governed by a patriarch (the patriarchs of Alexandria, Babylon, and Cilicia, and three patriarchs of Antioch). A patriarch with his synod has the highest authority within his jurisdiction and has full authority to appoint bishops and create dioceses.

I hope you find this informative. Currently there are talks with many of the ancient churches concerning reunion with the Holy See.

May the Lord richly bless you.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

iamrefreshed:

Forgive my ignorance but does that means as a Roman Catholic I should not attend a Lithuanian Catholic Church? Not that I have but I am Lithuanian and maybe I would like to try someday.

I notice their Apostle’s Creed is missing the word “Apostolic”. Funny it would still be called Apostle’s Creed?!

My mistake. I was thinking Profession of Faith when I read the Apostle’s Creed. I do not know if “Apostolic” is used.

Well anyhoo, can I receive Eucharist there?

Refreshed,

I think you’re likely confusing the Lithuanian National Catholic Church with Lithuanian parishes of the (Latin) Catholic Church.

Although they are fewer now than was the case pre-Vatican II, there are still scattered “national” or ethnic parishes in the Latin Church, including some that are Lithuanian (found usually in traditional Lithuanian enclaves - places such as Lowell, Brockton, and South Boston in Massachusetts). Those parishes are in full communion with Rome and are part and parcel of the local Latin diocese or archdiocese in which they’re located. A relatively complete list is at Lithuanian Parishes of the Roman Catholic Dioceses in America.

Lithuanian National Catholic Churches are relatively few and far between; the LNCC was subsumed into the PNCC in about 1965.
I’m unaware of a distinct list online of the Lithuanian parishes within the PNCC, but if you consult the PNCC parish list, those which serve Lithuanian communities are denoted by “(Lith)” following the parish name. There used to be a few “independent” Lithuanian parishes that declined to follow the main body into the PNCC, but I don’t believe that more than a couple of them, if any, are still extant.

You can attend the Mass at any PNCC or Lithuanian PNCC parish but doing so will only ordinarily fulfill your obligation if there is no Catholic parish available that is in communion with Rome (almost an impossibility in any place that you’d find a PNCC parish). Likewise, you can receive the Sacraments of Baptism, Penance, Eucharist, or Anointing from a priest of the PNCC or one of its Lithuanian parishes, but should only do so in an instance where there is no priest in communion with Rome available or in case of danger of death.

Joe

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Ignatius:

There are many Catholics not of the Roman Rite.

Eastern Rite churches are communities of eastern Christians in union with the Holy See. They retain their own distinctive spiritual, liturgical, and canonical traditions. In addition to differences from the Roman rite in liturgy, many of the Eastern Rite churches permit a married clergy. Like the Orthodox Church, they are divided into families; the five major families are the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine.

• Alexandrian
• Coptic
• Ethiopian
• Antiochene
• Maronite
• Syrian
• Byzantine
• Albanian
• Bulgarian
• Georgian
• Greek
• Hungarian
• Italo - Albanian
• Melchite
• Romanian
• Russian
• Ruthenian
• Slovak
• Ukrainian
• White Russian
• Yugoslavian
• Chaldean
• Chaldean
• Malabâr
• Armenian

The Eastern Rite Churches are Eastern Christian churches consisting of five rites derived from ancient traditions of Christian churches in the East. They are now in communion with the Western church under the papacy. Distinct from both the Orthodox churches and the so-called Independent churches of the East.

After the Great Schism of 1054 between Eastern and Western Christians, some groups, such as the Maronites and Armenians, remained united with the Holy See. Others returned later, by the Brest-Litovsk Union, two Ukrainian Orthodox bishops acknowledged the primacy of the pope. Other groups followed, such as the Chaldeans and other churches of the Byzantine rite (the Ruthenians, the Romanians, and the Melkites). The last were the Malankarese (Antiochene rite) of India. As these various groups of Eastern Catholics grew they established ecclesiastical hierarchies.
The Eastern churches have their own canon law and are not bound by the Code of Canon Law of the Western church. Each church is governed by a patriarch (the patriarchs of Alexandria, Babylon, and Cilicia, and three patriarchs of Antioch). A patriarch with his synod has the highest authority within his jurisdiction and has full authority to appoint bishops and create dioceses.

I hope you find this informative. Currently there are talks with many of the ancient churches concerning reunion with the Holy See.

May the Lord richly bless you.

Ignatius,

I’m uncertain where you got the above, but it includes some erroneous info. Several Churches (Copts, Syriacs, and others commonly termed the Oriental Orthodox) split with Rome long before 1054. You mention the Armenians as not having done so; that is incorrect, they are among the Churches that split with Rome after the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Among Churches using the Byzantine Rite, you list the “White Russian” and “Yugoslavian” Churches - by these, I presume you mean the Byelorussian and Croat Catholic Churches. The Syro-Malankara Church is also missing from the above list. I’d suggest you search out a series of posts by Irish Melkite in the thread The Huge Difference Between Catholic and Roman Catholic in which he details the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

Joe

 

[corkybob]

Old Catholics are a schismatic group that left the Catholic Union at Vatican I or there about. They refused to to acknowledge Pope Pius IX’s decree of Papal Infalability. Where I am confused about is that most Old Catholics do not acknowledge any Popes after Pius IX.

Pax
John

 

[Joe_Monahan]

corkybob:

Old Catholics are a schismatic group that left the Catholic Union at Vatican I or there about. They refused to to acknowledge Pope Pius IX’s decree of Papal Infalability. Where I am confused about is that most Old Catholics do not acknowledge any Popes after Pius IX.

John,

Not sure on what you are basing that final statement, but “genuine” (for lack of a better word, right this minute) Old Catholics (as opposed to the myriad of “independent” and vagante groups that either use the term as part of their name or claim to be “in the Old Catholic tradition”) invariably recognize the Pope, but they do not accord infallibility to the office or incumbent.

Joe

 

[Detroit_Sue]

turboEDvo:

Well, I’m a little confused, I don’t know what any of that means.

In before the mudsling/lock.

Eamon

EDIT:// I’m curious, you say you don’t believe in thie infallibility of the pope, yet you state that you are Catholic because the pope gave you permission. Is it possible that the pope was wrong about this (considering that not everything the pope says is infallible, but only certain statements)? How do you rectify these views? Or…am I misunderstanding you?

EDIT #2://Do you guys have a website? All I can find for PPNC is Planned Parenthood of Niagra County.
EDIT #2.5:// I just realized it’s PNCC, not PPNC

EDIT #3:// Grammar works wonders!

You cwazy college kid!