Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam attacks PNCC
The folks at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam are at it again.
Not satisfied with dealing with the problems in their own Archdiocese in St. Louis (St. Stan’s, Archbishop Burke, and all, which they have ranted on about incessantly in their ‘we’re more Catholic than thou’ way), they now have to take pot shots at the PNCC.
In commentary about some Roman Catholics from Toledo who have left the R.C. Church for the PNCC due to the Toledo Bishop’s closing of their parishes the AMDG folks said:
How many disgruntled individuals go about starting their own “church”? How many professed Catholics do this?
“Some people will say we are not Catholic. That is not true,” Father Nowak said after the service. “We are independent but Catholic.”
A defective understanding of what it means to be Catholic…A defective understanding which has been propagated among the faithful for years by many who have claimed to be Catholic and who have been allowed to spread their poison of dissent and heresy due, in part, to the failure of leadership to discipline those responsible for leading souls away from the Church.
And how exactly are the clergy in the PNCC, and former Roman Catholics to be disciplined by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church?
I would imagine that the AMDG folks would have us all whipped, put in stocks, and then burned at the stake. Better yet, why not advise their leadership to start closing cemeteries too. Perhaps then they could dig up our R.C. ancestors and throw their bodies out —“ you know they must have had a hand in fomenting heresy.
I’ll even one up that. Since you’re so bent on punishing heretics why not drive down to St. Stan’s on Sunday and forment a pogrom. Give them a taste of the hell fire you so adamantly claim they are destined for.
The article on the Toledo situation is available at the Toledo Blade.
Of course the Toledo Diocesan spokesman gave the typical line:
The Rev. Michael Billian, episcopal vicar of the Toledo Catholic Diocese, said “it is important to note” that Father Nowak and the PNCC are “not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, or Bishop Blair.”
Uh, yup. That’s right. No mystery there. The PNCC never purports to be R.C. I think these people very well know that. That is what they are running from.
Did you ever notice that this is a stock statement? They pull it out when the SSPX shows up too.
A final word to the AMDG folks: Read Dominus Iesus, specifically IV, 17. Also check out the Code of Canon Law, the USCCB Ecumenical Directory, and the R.C. —“ PNCC Dialog Documents.
You will find that the members of the PNCC are not heretics (unless of course you consider Orthodox Christians heretics as well – which you probably do.)
So, get busy pulling the plank out of your own eye, while you sit inside your comfy parish, before you pull the speck out of the eyes of the folks in Toledo while they sit outside their closed churches.
Amen! I too have been confronted by people who state, “but you are not Roman Catholic, so how can you be Catholic. I then ask them what a Byzantine Catholic is, then as you used here, will guide them to the statements presented by the USCCB and then they are silent.
i found this link while searching some blogs on a class break. i know we discussed which churches were in union with the PNCC, this church claims they were are one time.
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/
there is a little slap in the face at the PNCC as well in the blog entry for march 5th.
Adam,
I had to correct your link because it was running off the page. I do not normally edit other’s writing – but I need to maintain the look and feel of the blog. Sorry.
Actually, I think the comments in the March 5th Western Orthodoxy post were fair in general.
I would disagree only in terms of the writer’s reading something into the R.C. – PNCC dialog.
Even though the PNCC is obviously dwarfed in comparison to the R.C. Church, that fact is not indicative of the content or direction of the dialog. There are points of agreement and points of disagreement. There is consensus as well as witness to our differences.
In my opinion the dialog was part of the larger opening of such dialogs. I believe there is merit in talking together and setting aside past hurts in acts of forgiveness. It strengthens our Christian witness. I do not believe it indicates a general thinking toward or effort at being subsumed into the R.C. Church.
Efforts like that, for instance with the Apostolic Administration in Campos, Brazil, have not yielded a joyful coming together.
There are people on both sides in every Church.
There are those who are willing to sell out at any cost – they may have a poor understanding of the fullness of their Church’s theology, they may just have big church envy, or they may see the Church as representative of nothing worth standing for (empty hearts, empty minds). They see doom in being firm in the faith passed down to them, looking for danger at every corner. Others are so caught up in the minutiae that they fail to see where we can stand together, the points where we intersect and diverge. They proclaim exclusivity and deny the catholicity of the Church in favor of the parochial nature of their local parish.
As the Western Orthodoxy blogger notes, issues such as the filioque and our theological understanding of original sin are quite different. We also have different concepts regarding Marian doctrine, the role of the Pope, and some areas of sacramental theology. These are not issues that can be wished away. They must be confronted in dialog that also witnesses.
Actually, the denial of original sin — your belief “The sin of the first parents does not pass to succeeding generations” is heresy according the Roman Catholic Church, is it not?
In the PNCC the concept of original sin is more closely in line with Orthodox thought. Man is confronted by a fallen world and an environment that is a consequence of Adam’s sin. We do not inherit personal guilt for Adam’s sin. Our guilt and our sins are our own doing.
There is a good discussion going on over at Pontifications regarding the R.C. Church and Orthodoxy and the path to reunification.
That is one of the problems with holding to tightly to labels as absolutes, such as heresy. Technically, I am a schismatic and a heretic to the R.C. Church. But thought and understanding evolve. Labels dissolve with understanding and charity.
Is the filioque an absolute? No, the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do not use it at all. See also: The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions – Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 1995. When the Holy Father prayed the Nicene Creed without the filioque, did he become a heretic? 150 years ago he would have been labeled as such.
Are concepts and the understanding of original sin divisive or decisive between the R.C., PNCC, or Orthodoxy? Or rather, are those understandings different approaches, shades of meaning, to the same problem? I imagine that if anyone believed that, based on their doctrine, understanding, or rejection of Original Sin, baptism was not necessary; they would be a heretic (e.g., Salvation Army). I believe that the Bishops on the R.C. side of the R.C. – PNCC dialog did not view the PNCC understanding of Original Sin as a roadblock. See Journeying together in Christ, On the dialogue between bishops of the Polish National Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches. To wit:
The problem is that we as Catholic Christians pronounce anathemas, excommunications, and interdicts, but too often fail to listen, even to our own bishops. This is our sin.
What about Bishop Hodur’s teaching on universal salvation
for all Christian Believers? Is it heretical (Origin’s was)? Is
it is the official teaching of the PNCC?
The Confession of Faith of the PNCC as well as the Eleven Great Principals and the Declaration of Utrecht (which is normative for the PNCC) address this issue.
Universal salvation was never a Church belief nor a teaching of Bishop Hodur. I would say that the PNCC understanding, which coincides with Orthodox understanding, is that by the grace and mercy of God hell may be empty, but all are free to reject the grace of God.
My personal reflection on this is that a person who persists in an earthly life focused on rejecting God and His mercy will have a much harder row to hoe and may never overcome that rejection. Salvation is something that depends entirely on God’s grace and mercy, but we must decide to cooperate in it.
As such, life needs to be spent in practicing repentance of sin, amendment of life, and acceptance of God.
As some have said, we must not presume anyone’s state in eternal life, we can only focus on our own unworthiness and cry out to God for mercy. All else is a mystery.