Polish National Church As Possible Model For Reform?

[GUYMAN]

I’m a member of the POlish National Catholic Church (PNCC). We are not in full communion with Rome, but have valid sacraments / clergy (per the Vatican). I recently attended our national Synod (at Our Lady Of the Snows Shrine in IL). As a lay delegate I was able to vote on things like when our Bishops should have to retire, etc. I also elected members of our Supreme Council (who discipline clergy) - both males & females. The PNCC is an imperfect organization run by sinners (like all churches), but don’t you think the Roman Catholic Church should at least consider how we govern ourselves? Are things working well at the moment? Have they been working well over the years? I say that as a fellow Catholic Christian who loves the RCC , most Catholic events I attend are “Roman” - we are all brothers & sisters in faith. I know some of you will discount what I am saying right off the bat since I belong to a “schismatic” church, but I hope others will be more open-minded.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

There are simply not that many things in the faith up for a vote, and it’s a matter of pride to think otherwise. That’s my opinion, no matter which church you belong to. So, no, I don’t think it’s a good model.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Should the Catholic Church have more lay involvement? Probably. Many of our bishops have done a poor job as shepherds, and need more orthodox supervision. Does that, in any way, justify schism? No. May the PNCC regain full communion with the Church.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

There’s not a single answer, because this post touches on multiple inter-related issues. Should there be more lay involvement in the Church, yes. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.

But what this means for a synod must be more nuanced, because from the beginning, the chief teachers and leaders of the Church have been the bishops. Consider Acts 15, in which the Church’s Apostles and elders (i.e., bishops and priests), united in Peter, settled important doctrinal and disciplinary issues.

A synod by definition centers around the role of the bishops united to together in a group. Lay people should have some role, but bishops will always have the center stage in such an event because it goes with their job description.

I understand the desire to have more lay participation, and more women, in decision-making. But it’s hard to see what that means concretely. If bishops are the chief teachers of the church, to what extent do lay people have a say in voting on matters of the ordinary magisterium, for example?

 

[dochawk]

, but have valid sacraments / clergy (per the Vatican).

Not “have”, but “had”.

One some of your bishops attempted to ordain women as deacons, it demonstrated that those bishops lacked the understanding of the sacrament to confer orders.

 

[GUYMAN]

The PNCC does not ordain women - any cleric who teaches that is disciplined, if they try to actually do it they are removed from the church. If that is your basis for a “valid” clergy then what about all the Roman Catholic clerics over the centuries who have taught or practiced heresy?

 

[GUYMAN]

I too hope we are reunited some day - in the way the Eastern churches are, They keep many of their “differences” while being in communion. Just for the record, the schism was forced upon the Polish-Americans who formed the PNCC, it wasn’t their choice to leave the RCC.

 

[dochawk]

The PNCC does not ordain women - any cleric who teaches that is disciplined, if they try to actually do it they are removed from the church.

I got corrected by a priest (was it @FrDavid ?) here a few weeks ago when I noted that PNC sacraments and orders were accepted as valid, specifically because of the attempted ordination of female deacons.

If that is your basis for a “valid” clergy then what about all the Roman Catholic clerics over the centuries who have taught or practiced heresy?

Heresy is a separate issue. A heretic ordained a priest by a heretical bishop is indeed a priest (at least per the Augustinian view of orders generally followed by Rome, but not by the Cyprianic view held by most Orthodox [also, Rome seems to be warming to the Cyprianic]).

Holy Orders requires the understanding of the sacrament as well as form and intent. Someone who thinks an attempted ordination of a female as a deacon lacks the necessary understanding of orders, and ipso facto is unable to confer orders. This is not “my” position, but that of the RCC, and afaik, all of the EC.

Just for the record, the schism was forced upon the Polish-Americans who formed the PNCC, it wasn’t their choice to leave the RCC.

The Polish were absolutely abused by bishops. They were not “forced” to leave any more than the American Ruthenians were forced.

hawk

 

[MT1926]

The PNCC is an imperfect organization run by sinners (like all churches), but don’t you think the Roman Catholic Church should at least consider how we govern ourselves?

I just wanted to give my 2 cents. I am approaching this from a purely business standpoint.

From my experience what you describe here tends to only work because it is being applied on a small scale. I looked up the pncc.org website and it lists a total of 120 churches. You could easily send one Priest and one delegate from each parish to a single large conference room and have a decent civil conversation.

Now compare that to nearly 250K Catholic parishes world wide and find me a room that fits a half million people? Let alone keeping them from talking over one another.

If the Christian faith truly desires unity it needs to truly desire to submit to a hierarchy. Sorry but it is the only way it can work. To many cooks spoil the soup.

St. Paul appointed men to lead the Churches he started, contrary to current popular belief the parishioners, after Timothy and Titus passed away, didn’t appoint the men who would take their place.

I hope that makes sense?

God Bless

 

[commenter]

It sounds like the OP found the unified NATIONAL synod as beneficial, perhaps it accomplished some things a local parish could not. But suppose every local parish that found something they didn’t like about the PNCC pulled out. Soon, this would be all the parishes gone.

Every parish could claim to be still fully PNCC.

To extend this trend every family that found their parish to be imperfect could quit belonging to any Parish. Soon, all families are gone, but still claiming to be fully PNCC.

This is a parallel to what the PNCC is, in relation to RCC. In my example, you may say the parish that went independent solved their Diocese problems, and the family that quit all parish life now has no parish problem. Would you say this, or the PNCC, is a model for reform?

 

[GUYMAN]

Its certainly true that it is easier for us being a small Church. But as far as the RCC what about at the Diocesan level? One can always find reasons to oppose or put off reform - but can anyone doubt the RCC needs some reforming?

 

[GUYMAN]

When I talk about “reform” I don’t mean parishes or dioceses breaking away or other schisms. I’m talking about more lay involvement, more accountability, more transparency, etc. Does the RCC not need that?

 

[Vico]

…

Per canon law CIC 129, the laity does participate, in addition to the bishops, priests, and deacons.

Can. 129 §1. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction.
§2. Lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power according to the norm of law.

 

[MT1926]

But as far as the RCC what about at the Diocesan level?

I’m not sure where you are going with this. Lay people are involved throughout the Church (see @Vico posted ). Is there something in particular that you believe you or I should have a say in that we don’t?

I just wanted to point out that as Catholics we are not sheep blindly following the shepherd. We are also called to be sheep dogs who work with the shepherd. However, we are not shepherds unless we are called to that life.

As a sheep dog if there is something I don’t like or don’t agree with it is my obligation to bring this to the attention of my fellow parishioners and my pastor and go from their. Just like Jesus taught us in Matthew 18…

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If we discuss the situation and I still feel I am justified in my objection then I can take it to the Diocesan level and go from there. But in the end I must submit to Christ whom I know for a fact did not leave me in charge.

One can always find reasons to oppose or put off reform - but can anyone doubt the RCC needs some reforming?

The definition of reform is to make changes to something in order to improve it. By that definition I can agree that there is always room for improvement so yes everything can use a little reforming every now and then.

The only thing I would want to point out is just as one can always find a reason to oppose or put off reform many who cry out for reform do so because of their own wants and desires.

Personally, for myself I wouldn’t want to have to make that call. I run my own business and reform of the business is a daily way of life, but I can handle it because it’s my business, I started it and in the end it is all me. Christianity isn’t all me, it’s all Christ. I can’t see what needs reformed from every angle, therefor I don’t see myself as being the one to make that call for reform. I figure if Jesus wanted me to be the one to make the decisions He would have called me to the Priesthood and given me the gifts necessary to work my way up through the ranks.

Just my 2 cents.

God Bles

 

[commenter]

It is not irrelevant to compare the PNCC to a parish that broke off from the PNCC. I am sure an independent PNCC Parish has fewer complaints about the diocese, about staff in Scranton, less of the inevitable complaints that arise in ALL middle size organizations like PNCC.

That doesn’t prove independent parishes are more Reformed, or that the PNCC structure is Unreformed.

The RCC is the template. It’s under the microscope. 99 percent of all attacks on Christianity land on the RCC. It is, by far, the bulwark for prolife and sanctity of marriage. If the secularists could take down the RCC, how long would PNCC, LCMS, and Anglican Continuum stay orthodox, stay prolife?

Of course it’s in need of reform, and this is ongoing, more or less, for 55 years.

 

[GUYMAN]

I agree with some of what you are saying. I defend Catholic teaching (and therefore the RCC) all the time. We are all Catholics, the last thing I want to see is a secular victory over the Catholic Church. But if the RCC does not change / reform it will become weaker, not stronger.

 

[GUYMAN]

Quoting canon law is all well and good - what does it mean in practice? Tell me how the laity plays a meaningful role on the governance of the Church, in disciplining clergy, etc. Tell me how women play a meaningful role (and no I’m not in favor of ordaining women).

 

[commenter]

The real influence of the laity varies in the RCC, regardless of formal policy. Lay women tend to have far more influence than lay men in most Parishes. There usually is a parish council, but the lay women and perhaps a sister along with lay women volunteers, have great influence, with exceptions. A growing number of parishes have no pastor, but deacon, sister, or laywoman
Pastoral admin.

In Catholic high schools, even boys schools, women are half the leadership. Half the diocesan department heads are women. They have a significant presence on seminary staff, our diocesan Chancellor is a woman.

 

[commenter]

In the RCC, sisters are almost always disciplined by other sisters. A priest or bishop may strongly disagree with what sister X is doing, but this means leaving the final decision to her mother superior.

Jesuit priests, like all religious order priests, are almost always disciplined only by superior within that religious order, not by bishop or any other community.

Diocesan clergy are disciplined by their bishop. I’m not saying the system doesn’t need change, just saying it us more complicated than it appears. Priests trained before 1960 had little contact or review by non priests prior to ordination. Since 1960, seminarians are reviewed by laity and sisters as part of the admission process. They often have to pass courses by laity and sisters. They now have one year internship in parish or social ministry, with extensive lay review.

This somewhat lay reviewed lay screened generation is the generation that there are concerns about now, not only for sexual reasons. There is an assumption laity would be more just or something if they were reviewing priests more than they are now. They now review claims of sexual abuse in my diocese. Maybe, maybe not better.

 

[Vico]

Quoting canon law is all well and good - what does it mean in practice? Tell me how the laity plays a meaningful role on the governance of the Church, in disciplining clergy, etc. Tell me how women play a meaningful role (and no I’m not in favor of ordaining women).

You will have to define what you mean by meaningful for a good response.