The concept of assent in a democratic Church
The Polish National Catholic Church rightly takes pride in the fact that its people, all its people, function as its legislative body. Per the Constitution of the PNCC:
ARTICLE VI — CHURCH AUTHORITY
SECTION 1. The authority of this Church is vested in three branches, namely: legislative, executive and judicial.
…
SECTION 3. In administrative, managerial and social matters, this Church derives its authority from the people who build, constitute, believe in, support and care for it. It is a fundamental principle of this Church that all Parish property, whether the same be real, personal, or mixed, is the property of those united with the Parish who build and support this Church and conform to the Rite, Constitution, Principles, Laws, Rules, Regulations, Customs and Usages of this Church.
SECTION 4. The administration, management and control over all the property of the Parish is vested in the Parish Committee elected by the Parish and confirmed by the Diocesan Bishop, and strictly dependent upon and answerable to the lawful authorities of this Church.
The Church is democratically governed, that is, its people make the decisions and express their will at Holy Synod, both the quadrennial General Synod and at Diocesan Synods.
One of the problems frequently seen in other Churches, with similar democratic forms of governance, is the constancy of faith, morals, Tradition, doctrine, and liturgy (within liturgical Churches) under a democratic decision making processes. Are there limits to democracy, and can democracy trump all things?
In a democratic Church, are you one vote away from deciding Jesus is not true-God and true-man, from denying the Virgin birth, from turning the resurrection into a fuzzy myth narrative of confused and poor disciples who carried along the beautiful message of Jesus because it was oh so special to them?
There are those, even within the PNCC, who take Bishop Hodur’s teaching on the democratic nature of the community of Church as a license to make everything subject to democratic process. This form of thinking places the individual in charge of the Church’s teaching, and frees them from the constraints of ‘all that old stuff we’ve gotten way past.’ They use enlightenment arguments, Bishop Hodur arguments, other Churches are doing it arguments, it suits me better arguments, and its unfair/unjust/un-democratic arguments. They only argument they fail to see is the Catholic argument, the linkage to the universal constant within which we strive to overcome what is personal to reach what is Divine.
InsideCatholic, a strongly apologist website which easily resorts to the “heretic” and “exommunicated” argument does make a solid point in Episcopal/Catholic Conversion Is a Two-Way Street:
The developing story of the new Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans continues to unfold in the media, boosted by the Anglican Communion’s instability due to the Episcopal Church and their co-revisionists in the Anglican Church of Canada. Less reported has been the equally well-trafficked path away from Rome and toward the Episcopal Church.
In 2009, Episcopal bishop and gay celebrity Gene Robinson crowed that his New Hampshire diocese was brimming with disaffected Catholics, drawn to the promise of a more inclusive church. While Bishop Robinson’s celebration was premature … he was not misrepresenting the source of some new pew occupants.
“Pope Ratzinger,” Bishop Robinson declared, referring to Benedict XVI by his given name in a late-2005 speech, “may be the best thing to happen to the Episcopal Church . . . . We are seeing so many Roman Catholics join the [Episcopal] church.”
Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have swapped places for years, easily facilitated by related liturgical forms and practices. Unlike other Reformation-era churches, the Church of England, then a geographic arm of the Roman Church, maintained the forms and hierarchies of its parent. The Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism is the closest to its source, in many cases conducting services that are more recognizably Catholic than the post-Vatican II Mass. Some American conservatives see Rome’s embrace of theological orthodoxy — reasserted by Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II — as a compelling alternative to an increasingly listless Episcopal Church.
Similarly, liberal Catholics tied to their forms of worship enjoy the option to embrace the Episcopal Church’s “Catholicism Lite” without the inconvenient frowning upon birth control, abortion, or whatever the latest sexual lifestyle innovation might be.
The point being that if Church is merely choices, one may find the most comfortable outward portrayal of Church for oneself. One may find that place where a loose set of choices is constantly put up for personal and collective vote as the mood strikes today. It is a stunning lack of constancy and perseverance on the narrow road (Matthew 7:13-14).
As with any linear analysis of possible alternatives, one can find the place of balance. In the PNCC the balance point lies at the junction between democracy and assent. Democracy is a governing principal, and self determination over what one gives to build the Church. No one can take the parish, or the Church itself, away from those who “build, constitute, believe in, support and care for it.” In the same manner, no one can use the power of the vote to take the Catholic out of the Church, similarly taking catholicity away from those very same people.
At the XXIII General Synod, a perfect example of balance was on display. The Church Doctrine Commission presented two papers, “To Live in the Spirit of God,” which addressed Church teaching on current moral and bioethical issues, and “Eschatology in the PNCC: A Clarification.” Both were presented, not for a vote, but for the assent of the faithful.
In accord with the Constitution of the PNCC:
ARTICLE VI — CHURCH AUTHORITY
SECTION 2. In matters of Faith, morals and discipline the authority of this Church lies in the hands of the Prime Bishop, Diocesan Bishops and Clergy united with them. This authority is derived directly from God through Jesus Christ, agreeably with the words of our Savior: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20).
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)
The Church’s Catholic nature of Church precludes votes on doctrine and its Holy Tradition. As PNCC faithful, we are bound to conform our lives to the Church’s teaching, not as a matter of choice but as a matter of becoming.
Of course, we are not all there, conforming our lives and our choices perfectly to the Church’s guidance. It is difficult to lay down ones life (John 15:13). We all struggle in the gulf between our sinfulness and perfection, the gap between what is earthly and Divine within us. As we travel that road in growing closer to God’s desires for us, as we climb the ladder, we are called to become, to strive for that which is promised to the faithful. That promise is best fulfilled under the guiding and protecting hand of sound orthodox doctrine and Tradition — not a fuzzy assumption that we are any more right today in our personal choices than people have been for 2,000 years.
Yes, a Church can have a democratic form of governance and hold its Catholic faith through assent.
Can you clarify some PNCC beliefs and practices for me? The Church Constitution states:
ARTICLE VI — CHURCH AUTHORITY
SECTION 2. In matters of Faith, morals and discipline the authority of this Church lies in the hands of the Prime Bishop, Diocesan Bishops and Clergy united with them.
Nevertheless, didn’t PNCC Synods with clergy AND LAY representatives decide by vote to combine Baptism and Confirmation into one sacrament and add the Word of God as a new sacrament contrary to Holy Tradition? Also, did not a PNCC Synod with laymen vote to accept marriage for bishops which is contrary to ancient Catholic and Orthodox church discipline? And what about public instead of oral confession for adults? Weren’t all these changes made with and after lay member approval? Finally, is it not true that since the death of the first Prime Bishop and Church founder, Francis Hodur, there have been NO changes in PNCC “Faith, morals, and discipline”?
There are Roman Catholic diocesan synods of clergy, religious, and laity in the U.S. Here is an example.
Diocese of Brownsville First Diocesan Synod August 2002 Update
Diocese of Brownsville First Diocesan Synod News Release [PDF]
Diocese of Brownsville Synod Legislation [PDF]
Diocese of Brownsville Synod – Pastoral Letter [PDF]
I have not yet researched where and how many others have been held, but I would be curious to have your opinion on how this compares to PNCC diocesan and general synods.
Thomas,
On sacraments in general: The formal numbering and ordering of the sacraments at seven is a fairly recent development in the history of the Church. The Roman Church formalized the number at seven I believe at its Council of Trent. It would seem that this formalization was in response to the Reformation Churches views on the sacraments. The Orthodox and Oriental Churches have a much broader view of what is a sacrament, and a different implementation (for instance infant Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion celebrated together). While they agree that there are seven major sacraments, they do not bind themselves to a formal legalistic counting of the number. Further, good sacramental theology understands sacraments to be an outward symbol that effectively communicates the grace it signifies – that symbol being perceived by the senses – and that have been instituted by Jesus Christ. Obviously, Jesus stressed the preaching and teaching of the Word, the Word is received aurally, and He instituted this ministry Himself entrusting it to His Apostles particularly. The PNCC pamphlet on the Sacrament of the Word of God fully explains this — much too much to get into a comment box. I would recommend contacting the PNCC bookstore for a copy.
As to Confession, many people view the PNCC understanding of the sacrament as a none-but proposition. From personal and practical experience, I can tell my readers that many adults go to private confession, as do the clergy of the Church, finding this spiritually enriching, especially when dealing with chronic sins. This is a habit the PNCC instills in its young by requiring private auricular confession. The use of public, communal confession does not negate or eliminate private confession at all. The concept of public confession was studied by the PNCC beginning in 1908 and was discussed and examined at the Holy Synod of 1914. It was accepted (assented to) in the Holy Synod of 1921 and that assent was to a doctrine study drawn up by our organizer, Bishop Hodur. The assent was to the following:
As to the marriage of Bishops, The Holy Synod of 1914 spoke to this issue as part of the overall consideration of celibacy among the clergy. No solution was reached until further study occurred. Mandatory celibacy was abrogated at Holy Synod of 1921. As you note, celibacy is a discipline, not a requirement, and not found as an apostolic requirement (ref. 1 Timothy 3:2 for instance, or Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-34). Additionally, the PNCC has no caste of celibate monastics as is found in the Orthodox or Oriental Churches from which Bishops are chosen.
The Church has also enforces its rules regarding marriage of a Bishop. See particularly the case of Bishop Misiaszek in the Holy Synod of 1958, and the rules for nomination to the candidacy for the Office of Bishop as set by the Supreme Council of the Church.
I would say that there have been no changes in the doctrine of the PNCC at all, just the assent of the faithful to the teaching of the Church as it has studied and understood Holy Scripture and the Church’s Tradition.
On Synods: The Bishop of Rome promulgated an Instruction on Diocesan Synods in 1997. I would say that the character differs in that a Roman Catholic Diocesan Synod
The Bishop governs and determines all matters in a Roman Catholic Synod. Certainly, people can express an opinion, and even vote on it, but their vote only carries the weight of advice to the Bishop. He can accept or reject that advice by his will.
In the PNCC, the people are the law making body for all matters outside the faith, morals, and discipline of the Church. Should the people decide on raising or lowering salaries, healthcare, pensions; require the formation of a committee or commission; or any other matter within their power, the bishop must carry it out.