www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall XXIII General Synod of the Polish National Catholic Church

A big issue that no one seems to be discussing is married bishops. While both Catholic and Orthodox Churches allow married priests at least in some instances there are no married bishops. All the PNCC bishops are married as far as I know. Recent evidence of the inability of these Churches to accommodate married bishops include the demand that all Anglican bishops entering the RC return to the status of priests. Also when a non-canonical orthodox church whose patriarch was married joined ROCOR the bishop returned to priestly status.

Another major issue is the fact that a huge percentage of PNCC priests are married former Roman priests. While I have been told that this has actually made the prevailing theology in the PNCC more Roman it also is highly unlikely that the RC is going to turn its back on what would be perceived as a back door for married former RC priests to get back into the good graces of the Vatican.

My own sense is that papal infallibility is a much easier issue to resolve than either of these issues before the PNCC can return to full communion with Rome, assuming that they would want that.

JImG:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

There is, for the Apostolic Churches, no issue of married bishops. It just isn't about to happen--now or ever. The Orthodox Churches, both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonaian, only select bishops from among their monastic clergy. In the event that a man is chosen who is a widower, he must be professed before he is ordained bishop. They are monastic-based Churches; that's their practice; and that's the way it is. That's one of the reasons that the Ecumenical Patriarch once said that communion may be very difficult to achieve because the East and the West have become ontologically different.

The Latin Church also maintains this ancient discipline and it would be a stretch to think that she would abandon it.

It's an innovation of the Protestant Reformation to have married bishops.

Married clergy, well, that's an issue that keeps coming up. The East has maintained it as part of its practice, but it's part of the overall way they live out the Faith they have received. The West has maintained a celibate clergy and, as of a recent synod in rome on the issue, has reaffirmed its discipline. Even when the issue was framed as allowing for mature men who would come to the clergy as second-career priests, the synod was against it.

We're taking a moratorium on the papal infallibility issue. Please see the recent thread in Faith and Worship and other archived threads on that issue. It is not an issue for the Eastern Churches because it is something they feel is a localized Western issue and it seems to bring out the worst in our members.

In Christ,

Bob

It is good to see this interest in the RCC-PNCC dialogue. If anyone wants more information and details, check out this webpage from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/polish_national_catholic.shtml

It references two publications on the dialogue published by Our Sunday Visitor - JOURNEYING TOGETHER IN CHRIST. The first volume came out in 1990 and covers the years 1984-1989 and the second in 2003 covers 1989-2002.

By the way, in 1994, there were 38 former Roman Catholic priests working in the PNCC. In 1999, two of them were consecrated PNCC bishops. Roman Catholic clergy were invited to the ceremony but did not attend. In 2000, a PNCC priest joined the RCC and was "reordained". This caused a "painful problem" for the PNCC and was called a "mistake and misunderstanding" by the RCC which had accepted the validity of PNCC orders. Also problematic for the PNCC was the publication of DOMINUS IESUS which became a topic for discussion in the dialogue.

I could go on, but if you are really interested read the USCCB website for detailed reports by year on the discussions.

Christ is Born!


This is not simply because they are married Anglican bishops. It has to do with the Catholic Communion's position on Anglican orders. The Anglican clergy (bishops,priests, and deacons) entering into Catholic Church must be ordained as Deacons and Priests. (I am not trying to open a debate on this issue but it is what it is) Even so if Rome did recognize Anglican orders it is against the current practice of the Apostolic Churches (both East and West) to ordain married men to the episcopate as Theophan has pointed out.

Happy New Year!

To answer a query I received via PM, the PNCC has origins much akin in both time and nature to those which caused the divisions among Greek-Catholics in the US and resulted in the formation of ACROD and the OCA. Additionally, its faithful are Slavs, thus sharing an ethnicity and cultural heritage with many of our members. Thus, although it is a Western Church, discussions about it are generally of interest here and are given more leeway than attempts to engage in long, analytical discussions of somewhat similar matters and issues that are peculiar to the Latin Church, such as the SSPX.

As the thread is no longer focused on the news item, however, I'm moving it to the Town Hall forum.

Many years,

Neil

This is really interesting. I would have thought that the PNCC would have by the old arguments "preserved the line of Apostolic Succession", but I have had the feeling in the wind that this no longer guarantees that the RCC will take one in as a priest (which it used to). IMO the RCC is moving away from its previous focus on showing one was ordained by a Bishop with Apostolic succession to more of an Orthodox viewpoint (re-ordain people from Churches you don't have communion with, regardless of the lineage of their Bishops).

Bringing this back to Eastern Churches, I think examples of Eastern bodies with some parallels to the PNCC might be the UAOC and UAOC (canonical). Whilst I am fairly sure the RCC would not reordain a priest who sought admission having been ordained in the Ukranian Orthodox (Moscow patriarchate), I am not sure about these bodies, given ROme's current practices as noted above.

Thoughts?

Edit: I'm not disparaging these jurisdictions, just noting their status in regard to "canonical" orthodoxy. I have it on reasonable authority that Moscow patriarchate Bishops have been given permission to utilise economia and accept clergy from the UAOC etc without re-ordination, I'm just curious about what ROme might do since it seems to be moving away from the old Apostolic succession criteria of the validity of orders (probably it is aware of vagante groups with technical Apostolic succession and want to guard against that).

Ned.

The validity of PNCC orders was unequivocally accepted by Rome in response to a request by the USCCB that it rule on same.

The PNCC is one of what Canon Law describes as "other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches" (i.e., not in communion with Rome, but possessed of Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments)

I can't remember just now when the ruling was made as to the validity of PNCC orders, but it definitely predated the 2000 episode cited above and the categorization of that event by the RCC as a "mistake and misunderstanding" reflects Rome's embarressment that it ever happened.

Rome has been more than aware of vagante ecclesia with technical bases on which to assert Apostolic Succession for well over a century. However, in the very recent past, it seems to have finally decided that stepping back from the Augustinian Theory might be a better route to take. That said, I doubt very much that reordination would be conferred on any presbyter from a mainstream, albeit non-canonical, Orthodox Church who was entering communion.

Many years,

Neil

Was the decision regarding PNCC orders made before or after the re-ordination mentioned above?

I get the impression that PNCC orders would have been regarded as valid on Augustinian theory in 2000, which was sort of my point. It's an interesting example of how Rome is becoming more orthodox in its approach to sacraments administered outside of it.

There are only about 63 parishes in the PNCC so if there were 38 priests who are former RC priests in the PNCC that would mean that over 60% of the parishes could be staffed with former RC priests which I think reinforces my point that the RC would be very wary of doing more than the current status as long as celibacy is the rule in the RC. Another point though is that the figures from 1994 are very old. If you look at the websites of the historically Polish parishes in the northeast and midwest many of them have RC converts from Poland as pastors. Also there have recently been several former RC priests who are Hispanic accepted into the PNCC. I would not be surprised if the percentage of former RC priests in the PNCC is even higher today than in 1994.

I do not believe any of the comments changed in any way the point that the existing Bishops of the PNCC would have to return to priestly status if unification were ever to take place because of the "tradition" of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry for the quick second post but I just finished reading the USCCB news releases and was struck by one point. It is evident that the PNCC, although clearly Western in its theology, is being viewed by the RC as falling into the same position as the Orthodox Churches within the RC legal framework. Several places mention this and in particular there is the point that, in addressing Rome, the approach is to establish the same relationship as with the Orthodox churches, from Rome's perspective, not from the Orthodox perspective. It would follow that any significant steps toward reunification between the PNCC and the RC would follow on the heels of similar steps between Orthodox Churches and the RC.

The decision regarding PNCC orders was made prior to the reordination. And, yes, prior to 2000 they would have been accepted in almost any instance under the Augustinian theory and, in fact, would have been after 2009 under that same theory. It was not until after the election of HH Benedict XVI that any easing away from Augustinian theory on Rome's part was observed. So, consider Augustinian vs Cyprianic theory to be less the issue in this instance than some hierarch or his advisors was not exactly on top of things (and the former PNCC presbyter was apparently not quick enough on his feet to point out that this was not the way it should be).

The following remarks from a 2001 press release from the joint commission subtly alludes to the reordination (and I don't know in which diocese it occurred) and the need to be mindful to avoid actions that call the PNCC sacraments into question:


Nothing has changed. As I pointed out in my other post, Rome considers the PNCC to be in the same relationship to it, vis-a-vis the validity of its orders and sacraments, as it does the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

There are real issues and obstacles to be overcome before one can hope to see a reunion between Rome and the PNCC, as already noted: a married episcopacy; former RC priests - now married or otherwise - and serving as priests in the PNCC (there is potentially a model for resolution of this particular issue in the reception of the Brazilian Diocese of Campos); the common usage of general absolution vs personal confession; hearing of the Word of God as a sacrament; trusteeship of church property; infallibility; and, possibly others.

Let us not try to graft further complications to the discussion or set up 'what ifs'. The validity of PNCC orders is not in question, so let's leave that be.

Many years,

Neil

Married priest is hardly and issue and even former RC priest that can be done with a simple dispensation, the harder issue is the married bishops.
Stephanos I
PS The issue of Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction need to be dealt with and as far as I can assess, that is still an open question for some kind of development.

I am not sure that you are correct. I went to the PNCC website listing parishes by name at:

http://www.pncc.org/parish_regions.asp

and manually counted 126. As for the number or percentage of ex-Roman Catholic priests in the PNCC today, I have no exact figures.

One other important feature of the PNCC is that it is no longer in communion with the Old Catholic Churches of Europe. In 2003, the PNCC was voted out of the International Bishop Conference of the Union of Utrecht. "Though the principal cause of the split was the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood by several of the Old Catholic churches, the decision reflected longstanding tensions between the 'progressive' majority and the PNCC over other issues, such as homosexuality and ecumenism". See "Disunion of Utrecht - Old Catholics Fall Out over New Doctrines" by Laurence J. Orzell in May 2004 issue of TOUCHSTONE magazine:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-04-056-r

My bad. I used a list of parishes that only included ones with websites. I think the number of ex-RC priests is significant by any standard though.

I think you missed the point. It isn't married priests, there are numerous married former Episcopalian priests who are now RC priests. The problem is married former Roman Catholic priests.