http://pncc.org/structure/ If you click on the 11 great principles. You will see that they believe in universalism. This is the group the G3 is hoping to combine or court heavily
The Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) is an independent Catholic church based in the United States and founded by Polish-Americans. The PNCC is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and differs theologically in several aspects. A sister church in Poland, the Polish-Catholic Church of Republic of Poland, is a member of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht and also not in communion with the Holy See; at the same time, the PNCC is no longer in communion with the Union of Utrecht, but now part of the Union of Scranton. The Polish National Catholic Church welcomes people of all ethnic, racial, and social backgrounds. The church has around 26,000 members in five dioceses in the United States and Canada. The five dioceses are: Buffalo-Pittsburgh, Central, Eastern, Western and Canada. I think the document is a little more nuanced that simply to allow the declaration that you have made in a definitive sense, though no doubt some of it could be seen to lean that way, but then so too does some of scripture. I know nothing of them, and was trying to find out what PNCC stood for, and who would have thought that the Polish National Catholic Church was an American Institution.
As in the confederation of Continuing Anglican Churches currently composed of the Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Province of America, and Anglican Church in America.
I am not inclined to read the seven-page Adobe pdf file that you found on the PNCC's website. I did, however, read the list of eleven principles. None of them were headed, 'Universalism'. Can you please explain how you came to the conclusion, from this document, that the PNCC believes in universalism.
God did not create man perfect, but relatively weak; yet He infused man’s being with a spark of longing for perfection; a sort of germ of eternal life, impulse, creative power; which brings it to pass that man goes on through the centuries, from stage to stage, continually climbing higher, developing and approaching perfection both as an individual and as the human species. Since man is not omniscient nor all powerful and does not know fully the laws that govern his physical and spiritual nature, he often deviates from the sure path of life; he goes astray, struggles, falls then rises with sorrow, relives the whole immensity of his physical, moral and spiritual experiences, until cleansed through these sufferings and struggles, through these creative thoughts, through toil and yearning, he enters upon the way of partial liberation and then in due time, that of a freer, more perfected existence, until at last he becomes united with the goal of his life – God. Some people attain this goal sooner, even in this temporal life, others later; some in a higher others in a lower degree, depending on the manner in which they make use of the Divine gifts of will, intellect, inspiration and of the meditations of Jesus Christ and His Church. In Holy Scripture and especially in the Books of the New Testament, we find numerous accounts which confirm the above optimistic view concerning the gradual development and final salvation of individual man and of the hole human race.
John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. I am nor purporting to support either the PNCC or a theology of universalism, however I am mindful that much of this is more nuanced, and that there is some support for what is contended in this passage. My concern with Universalism is that it robs the Gospel of its urgency, which is another abiding characteristic of NT Theology. That being said, I am not so smitten with the theological anthropology being presented in the passage.
Their 11 principles are definitely universalist. If that's a concern, it sounds like the solution is a joint statement of some kind, assuming the merger goes through.
I hope all will be saved. That is as far as the councils allow us to go. They don't really allow us to teach it dogmatically. I really hope it is true and there is some support for it but I am no universalist. I think the G3 should step away from from universalism, as taught dogmatically, before any type of agreement is reached.
That’s why I was saying they ought to agree on a joint statement before a merger is finalized, to satisfy everyone’s concerns. While I agree it isn’t permissible to teach universalism as dogma (and I’m not a universalist myself), it at least appears to be an allowable, if minority, opinion in the history of Christian thought. So surely some compromise is possible there, one would think.
Their confession of faith addresses this doctrine with more brevity than Archbishop Hodur's Principles. Those who really want to work with them will say that the church has distanced themselves from some of founding Archbishop Hodur's admittedly contentious teachings. I live near an area where they actually have some presence so I suppose I could check in with a priest and see what he has to say about the matter.
The adult catechism and general church teaching is that we’re not universalists, but are closer to the Orthodox understanding, ie Heaven and hell are different experiences of God.
Not really in response to what you've said. Whilst you're here may I ask what is the PNCC's position on the ordination of women? Does it permit it? If yes has it ordained women? It the PNCC ordains women does it limit women to certain orders, e.g. deacon and priest, or can they be ordained to all three orders. Thank you in anticipation of your response. [I think it would be nice if we had a smilie for 'thank you'.]
I’ll answer by quoting from the official “Declaration of Scranton” which binds the faithful and clergy of the PNCC and Nordic Catholic Church (NCC) as “continuing” Old Catholics: “We reject the contemporary innovations promulgated by the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht. We also regard these innovations as being in defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction to the Tradition of the first centuries, namely: the ordination of women to the Holy Priesthood, the consecration of women to the Episcopate and the blessing of same-sex unions.” Here’s the full document for your reference: https://www.centraldiocesepncc.org/faith/declaration-of-scranton/ Edit: This position is why Rome allows the PNCC faithful to receive at their altars and does not allow European Old Catholics the same privilege. To move on this point would jeopardize the good relations we (the PNCC) have with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox.
The G-3 was most recently the G-4. The Anglican Catholic Church has absorbed the Diocese of the Holy Cross as a diocese within the ACC. This was a very recent development completed at their joint-synod recently, held in Athens GA. The Diocese of the Holy Cross will be a non-regional diocese of the ACC.
With the G-3: not much. I’m sure they’ll join the Union of Scranton in the future. Our differences with them are disciplinary and liturgical. I am afraid, however, that some may resist union because the PNCC and NCC bishops are probably going to require conditional ordination. This is not because we doubt G-3 orders, but it’s because we don’t want to jeopardize our intercommunion agreement and relationship with the RC. PNCC faithful who, like me, don’t have a PNCC parish nearby rely upon the local Latin parishes for confession, communion, and unction. With the ACNA: this is tricky because some of them ordain women. We absolutely do not accept that women are even capable of receiving holy orders. On top of that, there are large evangelical sections of the ACNA and there are simply no evangelicals in the PNCC; we are very much Catholic. In those member churches with women’s ordination, their orders would be in doubt by the PNCC. With the Canterbury Communion: there’s very little that we have in common anymore. Some of them (St. Clement’s in PA for example) have fantastic liturgy, but the allowance of homosexual marriages, women’s ordination, the support by some for abortion rights, and (I don’t mean to offend, but only want to be honest) the relaxed attitude toward Catholic dogmas of the first seven ecumenical councils make any substantial cooperation impossible. I’ve heard that our bishops do not consider Canterbury orders to even be valid anymore.