Polish [National] Catholic Church

[GUYMAN]

Fortunately (from my persepctive) I see no signs that the PNCC is going to go the way of the Episcopal Church (female priests, gay marriage, etc). Being a very small Church I have spoken to our Prime Bishop and others at the “top”. They have no desire to go on such a course. If the Church ever did I for one would certainly leave it.

I recently met with my Diocesan Bishop. He said that the dialogue with the RC Church has kind of reached a roadblock. Its not that relations are bad - they are actually quite good. He is close with the RC Bishop of Scranton and they meet often, dine together, etc. But some issues like the primacy and infallability of the Pope are too big to overcome. By the way what the PNCC objects to is not some ancient tradition, but rather what came out of Vatican I in the 19th Century. If you read the history a number of bishops (including the few American ones at the time) opposed what was decided regarding the Papacy. That doesn’t mean they were right or wrong, just sayin… We recognize the Bishop Of Rome as “first among equals”. I certainly consider him the spiritual leader (the “face”) of the Catholic Church - and of Christianity in general. And I can see him calling councils and presiding over them - but being bound by the outcomes of such councils, etc.

To me the holy Eucharist, other sacraments, mother Mary, the saints, and other things bind us all together as Catholics. I know some out there do not consider me to be Catholic - but I feel I am, just not Roman Catholic. For instance if the Maronite or some other “Eastern” church was not in full communion with the Vatican they would still be “Catholic” in my eyes. Others as well - like traditional Anglicans who have broken away from the Episcopal Church. Or even some congregations within the Episcopal Church who have become “Anglo-Catholic”.

 

[GKC]

Fortunately (from my persepctive) I see no signs that the PNCC is going to go the way of the Episcopal Church (female priests, gay marriage, etc). Being a very small Church I have spoken to our Prime Bishop and others at the “top”. They have no desire to go on such a course. If the Church ever did I for one would certainly leave it.

I recently met with my Diocesan Bishop. He said that the dialogue with the RC Church has kind of reached a roadblock. Its not that relations are bad - they are actually quite good. He is close with the RC Bishop of Scranton and they meet often, dine together, etc. But some issues like the primacy and infallability of the Pope are too big to overcome. By the way what the PNCC objects to is not some ancient tradition, but rather what came out of Vatican I in the 19th Century. If you read the history a number of bishops (including the few American ones at the time) opposed what was decided regarding the Papacy. That doesn’t mean they were right or wrong, just sayin… We recognize the Bishop Of Rome as “first among equals”. I certainly consider him the spiritual leader (the “face”) of the Catholic Church - and of Christianity in general. And I can see him calling councils and presiding over them - but being bound by the outcomes of such councils, etc.

To me the holy Eucharist, other sacraments, mother Mary, the saints, and other things bind us all together as Catholics. I know some out there do not consider me to be Catholic - but I feel I am, just not Roman Catholic. For instance if the Maronite or some other “Eastern” church was not in full communion with the Vatican they would still be “Catholic” in my eyes. Others as well - like traditional Anglicans who have broken away from the Episcopal Church. Or even some congregations within the Episcopal Church who have become “Anglo-Catholic”.

*D’accord.
*
As I have mentioned, some Continuing Anglicans are in close contact with the Union of Scranton.

 

[commenter]

 

[Vico]

Fortunately (from my persepctive) I see no signs that the PNCC is going to go the way of the Episcopal Church (female priests, gay marriage, etc). Being a very small Church I have spoken to our Prime Bishop and others at the “top”. They have no desire to go on such a course. If the Church ever did I for one would certainly leave it.

I recently met with my Diocesan Bishop. He said that the dialogue with the RC Church has kind of reached a roadblock. Its not that relations are bad - they are actually quite good. He is close with the RC Bishop of Scranton and they meet often, dine together, etc. But some issues like the primacy and infallability of the Pope are too big to overcome. By the way what the PNCC objects to is not some ancient tradition, but rather what came out of Vatican I in the 19th Century. If you read the history a number of bishops (including the few American ones at the time) opposed what was decided regarding the Papacy. That doesn’t mean they were right or wrong, just sayin… We recognize the Bishop Of Rome as “first among equals”. I certainly consider him the spiritual leader (the “face”) of the Catholic Church - and of Christianity in general. And I can see him calling councils and presiding over them - but being bound by the outcomes of such councils, etc.

To me the holy Eucharist, other sacraments, mother Mary, the saints, and other things bind us all together as Catholics. I know some out there do not consider me to be Catholic - but I feel I am, just not Roman Catholic. For instance if the Maronite or some other “Eastern” church was not in full communion with the Vatican they would still be “Catholic” in my eyes. Others as well - like traditional Anglicans who have broken away from the Episcopal Church. Or even some congregations within the Episcopal Church who have become “Anglo-Catholic”.

From Eastern Diocese of the Polish National Catholic Church

• we reject the innovations of the First Vatican Council that on July 18, 1870 promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome…
• We also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 …
• We further reject the dogmatization of the Catholic teaching of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pius XII in 1950…

easterndiocesepncc.org/Beliefs_and_Principals.html

 

[commenter]

From Eastern Diocese of the Polish National Catholic Church

• we reject the innovations of the First Vatican Council that on July 18, 1870 promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome…
• We also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 …
• We further reject the dogmatization of the Catholic teaching of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pius XII in 1950…

easterndiocesepncc.org/Beliefs_and_Principals.html

These are differences, but at least they represent positions consistent over time. The problem, from my POV, is with denominations that shift positions to conform with “The World”, mainly the media. “The World” has led many denominations to the view that :

• little or nothing is absolutely true/false, or right/wrong;
• doctrines and morality should be converted to fit whatever year it is;
• the primary purpose of Christianity is social progress, equality, and feeling of personal fulfillment; “conversion” means gradual enlightenment and tolerance

The history of much of Christianity in the past 50 years is constant bending of beliefs to satisfy Christians who are brainwashed by the secular media. Once denominations start to slip, slipping a lot more becomes easier - perhaps inevitable.

As the PNCC moves beyond its very conservative ethnic base, which is fading away, the question is not so much “are there differences with Rome”, but will the PNCC (NCC) in 20 years have differences from today. Let us pray they are guided.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I have recently become acquainted with a gentleman whom I believe to be associated with either the Polish National Catholic Church or the Polish Catholic Church, to the extent that I believe he may even have been ordained as either a deacon or priest in Poland, but which he respects that our (Roman) Ordinary here in the US will not grant him faculties to celebrate.

He operates as though the P[N]CC is in communion with Rome, but my understanding is that such is not the case? He has even claimed that there are Roman bishops and a Cardinal from the P[N]CC.

I know: My primary recourse should be to ask him for specifics about his claims (eg names of these members of the hierarchy), and I intend to do so. He seems to win debates by attrition speaking so many WordsSoLoudlyAndSoQuicklyAndWithoutAllowingHisInterlocutor(s)AnOpportunityToRespondThatTheyPreferToWalkAwayRatherThanToContinueToEngage. :coolinoff:
Since I operate at a much slower pace, I wanted to ask here: Does anyone have a guess as to what names of herarchy or other evidence I might expect him to provide? Thanks.

Ordinarily, I sometimes think such affairs are none of my business, but (i) he does regularly present himself to receive communion in Catholic churches, (ii) he may be leading others into error, and (iii) I became acquainted with him throught the Knights of Columbus, which requires its members to be “practical Catholics in union with the Holy See”, and I would hope, if appropriate, to convince him to withdraw his membership (or better: to come into communion with the Roman Catholic Church!).

To (finally) bring some closure to this thread, or at least my original question: I did recently speak to the gentleman and have become satisfied that, though he formerly associated with the PNCC, he has a number of years ago come to the Roman Catholic Church.

I am still not sure of his ordination-status, but I am *pretty *sure he was ordained as a deacon in the PNCC, but as I’d noted, he does not attempt to exercise this office, out of respect for and obedience to our Roman ordinary. Nor do I know about the hierarchs in question, or if perhaps I’d mis-heard or misunderstood him on that point (I really did not want to grill the poor fellow).

His reason for swimming the Tiber (swimming the Oder?) was because of the vacillations of other members of the Church (lay and/or clergy) regarding Rome: “We are in communion with Rome” / “We are independent from Rome” / “We are in communion” / “No we are not”… Realizing that either you are or you aren’t, he recognized the surest way to be in communion with Rome was to formally join the Catholic Church, which he did.

Thank you to all who participated in these discussions. I surely learned a lot.

tee

 

[Vico]

These are differences, but at least they represent positions consistent over time. The problem, from my POV, is with denominations that shift positions to conform with “The World”, mainly the media. “The World” has led many denominations to the view that :

• little or nothing is absolutely true/false, or right/wrong;
• doctrines and morality should be converted to fit whatever year it is;
• the primary purpose of Christianity is social progress, equality, and feeling of personal fulfillment; “conversion” means gradual enlightenment and tolerance

The history of much of Christianity in the past 50 years is constant bending of beliefs to satisfy Christians who are brainwashed by the secular media. Once denominations start to slip, slipping a lot more becomes easier - perhaps inevitable.

As the PNCC moves beyond its very conservative ethnic base, which is fading away, the question is not so much “are there differences with Rome”, but will the PNCC (NCC) in 20 years have differences from today. Let us pray they are guided.

So do you think that being “brainwashed by the secular media” constitutes invincible ignorance, even in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[edwest2]

So do you think that being “brainwashed by the secular media” constitutes invincible ignorance, even in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

The problem has become this. Starting in 1970, the media gave us a little bad, and even I thought, “That’s not so bad.” But I was wrong. By the mid-1980s, things were about 50/50 good and bad. By the 1990s, into the abyss: filthy shock jocks, filthy music and even more badder TV shows, followed by the internet. As we move through the 2000s, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The brainwashing becomes worse and worse. Magazine covers featuring nearly nude women, celebrities who will show it all, nothing is a scandal anymore. I opened the newspaper not long ago, and among the top three things a travelers needs is condoms, right at the top of the article. And it’s all presented in this matter of fact way.

One hour in Church is not enough. We need to turn off the TV, stop buying scandal magazines and tabloids and stop accepting a media that is presenting evil as good, normal or “everybody’s doing it.”

WE MUST become aware of the fact that “popular culture” is our enemy in most cases. We need to reject their lies.

Ed

 

[Peter_J]

To (finally) bring some closure to this thread, or at least my original question: I did recently speak to the gentleman and have become satisfied that, though he formerly associated with the PNCC, he has a number of years ago come to the Roman Catholic Church.

I am still not sure of his ordination-status, but I am *pretty *sure he was ordained as a deacon in the PNCC, but as I’d noted, he does not attempt to exercise this office, out of respect for and obedience to our Roman ordinary. Nor do I know about the hierarchs in question, or if perhaps I’d mis-heard or misunderstood him on that point (I really did not want to grill the poor fellow).

His reason for swimming the Tiber (swimming the Oder?) was because of the vacillations of other members of the Church (lay and/or clergy) regarding Rome: “We are in communion with Rome” / “We are independent from Rome” / “We are in communion” / “No we are not”… Realizing that either you are or you aren’t, he recognized the surest way to be in communion with Rome was to formally join the Catholic Church, which he did.

Thank you to all who participated in these discussions. I surely learned a lot.

tee

From “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion” (1993):

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

 

[FrDavid96]

From “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion” (1993):

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

That applies specifically to the Eastern Churches. It isn’t about Western ecclesial communities.

Contrast this with the outreach to Anglicans made by HH Benedict, which certainly has the aim of bringing non-Catholics into the Church.

 

[Vico]

From “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion” (1993):

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

It is however approved to come into full communion with the the Catholic Church, initiated by the faithful, it eschews expansion activities by the Catholic Church, to reduce or eliminate mistrust.

Balamand:
22. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will be no longer place for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches, can be set in motion and develop.

Noted also by USCCB:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/response-balamand-uniatism-union-and-search-for-communion.cfm

The Balamand Document’s goal is preeminently practical: to create a “serene atmosphere” for renewed progress in dialogue “toward the reestablishment of full communion” (34) by rejecting the proselytism and expansionist practices and policies (35) associated with “uniatism”. In our judgment, its greatest strength lies in the rules and guidelines presented in its second part. With the International Commission, we would strongly recommend “that these practical rules be put into practice by our churches, including the Oriental Catholic churches who are called to take part in this dialogue.” (34)

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly. The Catholic churches do not seek [Eastern] Orthodox faithful to become Catholic, nor does she seek to block one doing so if he or she so desires.

 

[Tomdstone]

Exactly. The Catholic churches do not seek [Eastern] Orthodox faithful to become Catholic, nor does she seek to block one doing so if he or she so desires.

But is a Roman Catholic excommunicated if she converts and joins the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[dochawk]

But is a Roman Catholic excommunicated if she converts and joins the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Either direction; if a Catholic or an Orthodox joins the other church, he quite literally ex-communicaties himself by leaving one communion for the other.

 

[Vico]

But is a Roman Catholic excommunicated if she converts and joins the Eastern Orthodox Church?

There is a Catechumen Renunciations and Affirmations Form the a Catholic would use to join the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Orthodox Church (St. Andrews, in Riverside, CA). On that form one must renounce heresies which common ones, according to them, are listed as:

• Filioque
• Papal Infallibility
• Original Guilt
• Purgatory
• Indulgences
• Development of Doctrine
• Superogation (Spiritual Treasury of the Church)

Do you recognize any of those as Catholic dogmas of faith?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a Catechumen Renunciations and Affirmations Form the a Catholic would use to join the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Orthodox Church (St. Andrews, in Riverside, CA). On that form one must renounce heresies which common ones, according to them, are listed as:

• Filioque
• Papal Infallibility
• Original Guilt
• Purgatory
• Indulgences
• Development of Doctrine
• Superogation (Spiritual Treasury of the Church)

So, the answer is yes? A Roman Catholic who converts to Eastern Orthodoxy would generally be excommunicated?
BTW, I don’t think that Melkite Catholics have to renounce anything when they join the Antioch Orthodox Church, at least in certain jurisdictions.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So, the answer is yes? A Roman Catholic who converts to Eastern Orthodoxy would generally be excommunicated?
BTW, I don’t think that Melkite Catholics have to renounce anything when they join the Antioch Orthodox Church, at least in certain jurisdictions.

The old canons would have excommunicated that person, current canons have no such provision for Eastern Catholics, not sure about RCs

 

[Vico]

The old canons would have excommunicated that person, current canons have no such provision for Eastern Catholics, not sure about RCs

For Catholics, in the eastern canon law (CCEO), we have this canon:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

 

[Tomdstone]

For Catholics, in the eastern canon law (CCEO), we have this canon:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

So does that mean that a Melkite Catholic who goes over to the Antioch Orthodox Church is excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

 

[Vico]

So does that mean that a Melkite Catholic who goes over to the Antioch Orthodox Church is excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If you mean formal change to Antioch Orthodox Church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, then yes.